Watch Me Take The Bar

You Know That Mitch Albom Guy? He Occasionally Writes About Sports, Too!

2006-11-17T07:19:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you've read Tuesdays with Morrie, the touching/tearjerking/wonderful book on life and death by Mitch Albom, who we are told is a sportswriter for the Detroit Free Press.

As it happens, this is the first time I've actually seen sportswriting by Mitch Albom.

The title of the piece? "Carr Has Proved Self, Win Or Lose Saturday." ("Saturday" refers to the football game to be played in Columbus tomorrow, featuring the undefeated Ohio State Buckeyes against the about-to-not-be-undefeated Michigan Wolverines, which will start in 28 hours and 11 minutes, for those of you who have been living in a cave for the past week.)

Now, this article appeals to me on levels beyond, "Wow! Mitch Albom is writing about sports! Neat!"

Far better than this, it is appparent that those living up north are already trying to soften the disappointment of LOSING.

For that, my friends, is what is about to happen. Rest assured, the Wolverines are going to LOSE.

How come?

There are about ten good reasons:

1. Jim Tressel

2. Jim Tressel: We used to have this coach named John Cooper. From 1988 to 2000, he led the Buckeyes, if that's not too strong a term. Actually, I rather liked The Coop, and he was a pretty good coach for all but the last regular-season game of the year. The problem was, if you're Ohio State, your last regular-season game of the year will always be Michigan, and only winning against Michigan twice (1994 and 1998) out of twelve years (OK, he also managed to get us to a rather disappointing tie in 1992) is simply unacceptable.

Along came Jim Tressel. So much for that Wolverine boondoggle. 4-1 against That Team Up North. A man who coaches his teams to win in big games. He's quite impressive.

3. This Game's in Columbus: Columbus has three claims to fame. It's the home of the state capital; the Columbus Bluejackets; and the Ohio State Buckeye. Ted Strickland doesn't get sworn in until January and the Bluejackets suck, leaving Columbus fans with (as usual) one thing to do, and that is go apeshit over the Buckeyes.

And apeshit they have gone. While in Columbus for a conference this week, the evening news led with the story of The Game. After four minutes of that, they turned to the less-important story that there was a murderer on the loose in Columbus.

This is, without a doubt, the heart of Buckeye Nation. And Buckeye Nation is hungry, nay, ravenous for Wolverine meat.

When Chad Henne wanders into the Horseshoe, he will feel like his Aunt Penny who said the sky was falling. It will be -- with scarlet and gray, cheering the Buckeyes on to another victory.

4. It's Like A Bowl Game: And we all know what Jim Tressel's teams do with bowl games. They go out, keep it interesting for a bit, and then win.

5. It's Like A Bowl Game: And we all know what Lloyd Carr's teams do with bowl games. They go out, keep it interesting as we wonder how they'll manage to lose, and then answer the question.

(Honestly. Last year, I was falling asleep and noticed Michigan was leading in the mid-fourth quarter in a bowl game. I figured I'd flip over and see how they'd manage to lose it and -- guess what! -- they did.)

At this very moment, Lloyd Carr is having his regular breakfast of Cheerios on a plate.

If they were in a bowl, he'd lose them.

6. The Buckeyes Are Just Better. No, Really: No one's beeen too terribly surprised at Ohio State's run this year. After we hornswoggled the Longhorns and hacked the Hawkeyes, it was pretty clear we were The Best Damn Team In The Land.

Michigan, on the other hand? No one picked them to be 11-zip. They have had the great surprise of winning every game, which they were not expected to do.

Indeed, for the Wolverines, this season has been an unexpected joy. They should be quite proud of all they've accomplished, and stop the highlight film with last week's game. There's no shame in finishing 11-2. (I've added an extra loss to account for their inevitable bowl trip.)

7. We. Are Buckeyes. We Are Killer Nuts. (Not Rodents): Actual conversation:

ME: Hey, at least my mascot isn't a rodent.

PLEASANT REASON (sigh, a Michigan fan, alas): Our mascot isn't a rodent. Wolverine's aren't rodents.

ME: Really? What are they?

PLEASANT REASON (sound of typing on the other end of the phone): Oh. (Long uncomfortable silence.)

'Bout that.

The Wolverines are about to find those killer nuts dropped on their heads, and will need to sprout legs and run to Ann Arbor just as fast as they can.

8. Troy Smith

9. Troy Smith

10. Troy Smith: Our QB is awesome on an ordinary day. Put him up against Michigan, and he's phenomenal.

Ohio State wins this one, folks. The Wolverines have had a great season, and should feel no shame in losing.

Other than the fact they're going to lose.

Herbert Hoover Is Dead, But His Relatives Are Still Pushing Republicans On Us

2006-11-09T10:46:00.000-05:00

*a few moments ago, in my office*

[phone ringing]

ME: Michael Bassett.

VOICE: Hello, Mr. Bassett? My name is Linda Hoover. I'm calling on behalf of Congressman Tom Reynolds and the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

ME [thinking to myself]: Gosh. This week just couldn't get sweeter. First, I watch the Republicans get thumped on national TV for two straight days; and now they're calling my office to check up on my well-being. And they've still got Hoovers working for them? Isn't that how we got into the 1930s?

LINDA HOOVER [continuing]: We've selected you to receive a Leadership Award. We'd like to invite you to Washington, DC to our annual Presidential Dinner, and to participate in our Business Advisory Council.

ME: Really.

LINDA HOOVER: [stopping me before I can get to my next statement]: Do you have a minute to hear a taped message from Congressman Reynolds?

ME: [I'm not doing busy at the moment, and it's their nickel.] Sure. [It'll be interesting to hear how they're spinning this.]

TAPED VOICE OF CONGRESSMAN MEL REYNOLDS: This is Congressman Mel Reynolds, Chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. I've called you because you are a business leader and a risk-taker.

ME: [Yes, it's a risk trying to operate a business while W's in the White House. Then, he knows about risk. He tried to find oil in Texas and failed.]

TAPED VOICE OF CONGRESSMAN MEL REYNOLDS: We know you want to support Republicans who will support lower taxes and the President's small business plan.

ME: [Tom, you've obviously overestimated my tax bracket. No way am I getting any tax cuts from this White House this year.]

TAPED VOICE OF CONGRESSMAN MEL REYNOLDS: Please stay on the line so we can invite you to join our panel.

WOMAN: Hello?

ME: Linda?

WOMAN: Mr. Bassett?

ME: Yes. Linda?

WOMAN: No, this is [Someone Else.]

ME: [Well, they got rid of Linda Hoover. Only seventy-four years after the rest of us got rid of Herbert. They're rather quick on the uptake, those Republicans.]

WOMAN: We'd like you to join the Business Advisory Council. You'll receive confidential surveys and an opportunity to have your picture taken with the President to hang on your office wall.

ME: [But I want my clients to like me.]

WOMAN: You'll also serve as an honorary finance chairman for the state of Ohio.

ME: [Things are getting really desperate in Ohio if they need me to do things to help the Republican party.]

WOMAN: Of course, the big event of the year is the Presidential Dinner, which is dinner with the President.

ME: [But I like to be able to eat.]

WOMAN: And you will receive a leadership award.

ME: [Ready to reel her in.] Yes. Tell me more about that. Would that be for my service as Chairman of the Ottawa County Democratic Central Committee?

WOMAN: [Long pause.] Uhhhhhh ---

ME: And as to making any contribution to you, first, I'm not inclined to, I'm happy with what happened Tuesday, and second, it's a bit tough right now because all my clients are unemployed so they have trouble paying their bills, but that should get better when the Democrats take over Congress. So no, I think I'll pass on your leadership award.

WOMAN: Well, I respect your opinion. Have a good day.

ME: [snarky laugh] I'm already having a great week!

Two Notes of Note

2006-10-27T07:09:00.000-04:00

OK, OK, it's been a while. Don't get too excited, there were just two items I needed to comment on.

The first is this item in today's Washington Times. Bill Kristol has predicted that Donald Rumsfeld will be out as Secretary of Defense after the November 7 election.

Rumsfeld's comment: "The fellow said the same damn thing in April of 2001. He has been on that shtick, and people keep repeating it and repeating it. I don't know why they listen to him. He's been wrong so many times. There ought to be some accountability."

So, let me get this straight: If you make a prediction (like, I don't know, we will be greeted in Iraq as liberators) and then it doesn't come true (things in Iraq go south), we should have accountability? Maybe someone should lose their jobs?

Gosh. What a concept.

***

Tigers fans, take heart. You may be happier that you lost Game 4 last night.

Whenever the Tigers and Cardinals have played in the World Series, the Cards have won Game 1. Game 2 goes to the Tigers, and Game 3 to the Cardinals.

Who wins? The determining factor appears to be who wins Game 4. It's a bit of a poison pill.

When the Tigers have won it, the Cardinals have gone on to win the Series in 7.

Ditto for when the Cardinals win it.

Here's hoping that one stays true.

If You've Never Heard of Ann Richards

2006-09-14T07:50:00.000-04:00

You owe it to yourself to click here, and ether read or better yet listen to the mp3 of her 1988 keynote at the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta.

She was a great American politician, rhetor, and lady. I remember watching her and Clayton Williams go at it when she ran for governor of Texas in 1990. (Yes, I was in fifth grade at the time and keeping track of the Texas governor's race. I was a special kind of kid.)

A few years ago, when I was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Boston, I splurged and spent $125 to go to an EMILY'S LIST luncheon featuring Ann Richards and other Democratic women. She was, far and away, the best speaker there.

RIP, Governor.

Dear Fellow Attorney

2006-09-12T10:41:00.000-04:00

You know, I don't blog about my job. First of all, there's that whole confidentiality and attorney-client privilege thing that makes it rather difficult, and while I've grown to love this blog, even though I do neglect it with alarming frequency, but I value my law license even more.
What I'll discuss is not, of course, covered by confidentiality or attorney-client privilege, although I still feel somewhat reluctant. You know, there's supposedly this "brotherhood of attorneys" (the reasons for why that gender is chosen may be clearer after reading this post), and we try not to make each other's lives more difficult than necessary in zealously representing our clients.

Neither of these protections, sir, apply to you. First of all, we were not on the same case; indeed, you did not even deign to speak to me or introduce yourself. Your comments were made sitting in a public hallway; you did not lower your voice; you did not seem embarassed that I was two seats over from you and another attorney was another two seats over from you. In fact, we were in the hallway of the courthouse, and most anyone could have wandered in upon your conversation.

I should mention that I wondered if you would make it to te point where you would sit down. You are not, sir, an attractive man. You are overweight, with jowels to spare and a pockmarked face. There are several bartender's children who are probably in med school due to you.

I had this feeling I wasn't going to like you when you started commenting to your client how much you objected to waiting for the prosecutor to appear to pretry your case. With as old as you are, you've clearly been around, and the prosecutor usually runs into a backlog. You're getting paid obscene amounts of money for hanging out to deal with parking tickets or other such kerfuffle, so just deal with it.

I guess it's a good thing you were so pressed for time, insofar as you compared how some attorneys ended up lining up like there was an open bar. This led to your musing that, "We went to a wedding, where they had an open bar, and my...my...my --"

Whereupon, your client helpfully supplied, "Your significant other?"

Which, surprisingly, you did not go along with; you said it wasn't to that stage yet. After all, "the last one still hasn't moved out." But, that's fine, relationships go through stages, and perhaps you've found someone nice in the 52-to-65 range to accompany you to events while the last one packs her boxes.

Apparently, Last One called you last night, crying that you didn't love her anymore. (You confirmed this was true.) She was crying because you were going to make her kids homeless. This did not seem to bother you.

Anyway, your Signif -- oops, girlfriend -- and you went to a wedding where they had an open bar, and New One apparently enjoyed partaking of this, to the tune of five doubles, and was smashed by the end of the night.

At which point, I was tempted to lean over and tell you that the Pleasant Reason and I recently went to a wedding where they had an open bar, and the Pleasant Reason (who is, I assure you, a very Significant Other), did not get smashed, and we had an absolutely wonderful time talking all night and on the way home, as well.

I'm rather pleased I didn't, however, because you provided more than enough detail about what happened after the wedding. While your girlfriend was apparently drunk after five doubles, she still "put on a porno and wanted to do everything in it." This was, apparently, asking a little too much of you; after all, you're nearing sixty years old.

Now, really. Is that the sort of thing you find you must discuss in an open hallway? Where anyone can hear it? Apparently, your client didn't mind this detail, and he in fact asked, "Her name's not Staci, is it?"

As a matter of fact, it wasn't. In fact, this led to your commenting that you "weren't sure if you'd ever lived with a Staci before. Let me think. This'll take a while. [Pause] No, I haven't lived with a Staci. I've lived with five Teresas, though."

(If there are any statistically minded readers out there who'd like to work out how many women one has to live with to live with five Teresas, I'd be fascinated to know.)

This led to something of a detour into what Teresas like to be called (Terri; Traci; Reesa.) Apparently, the one who went by Reesa was a lot of fun; although she'd never have kids, you all tried. (Your words, not mine.)

But, then we went back to the Not Significant Other. You suggested that she was a bit more, shall we say, ambitious than you, since she is, after all, twenty-eight years old and you'll be sixty next Monday. She apparently was living in South Carolina, but called you to come pick her up, so you took two and a half days off, the longest vacation you've taken since 1967. (Which suggests you're either a workaholic or no one wants to go on vacation with you. I know which horse I'm betting on.) But, really, it ended up being four days together, since you did get that weekend in there. (And there are some who say romance is dead!)

You then mused that relationships don't get better and -- and this was where I had a major problem with you, really -- then commented that "they never should have passed that amendment back in the 1920s." I knew what you were talking about, but your client apparently didn't, leading him to force you to illuminate that it was the one that gave women the right to vote.

That was classy. I mean, really. Perhaps I could buy you a big flashing sign to wear around yuor neck, saying, I AM A SEXIST, MALE CHAUVINIST PIG. Besides saving people a valuable three minutes of talking to you before discovering this, it would also help them have something to look at other than your face.

And I'm sorry to keep going back to your appearance, but you were, in a word, ugly. And that wouldn't be so bad, if you didn't seem to need to trumpet the fact that you are now dating someone less than half your age.

You know why she's dating you, and, let me assure you, none of us are fooled, either. While she at first sounded a bit of a lush for drinking five doubles at that wedding, thanks to your graphic description of what transpired thereafter, I think she can plead the defense of necessity. No one believes she's dating you for your chiseled good looks, and she sure as hell ain't with you for your personality.

A few years ago, there was a movie where Robert Redford offered a woman a million dollars to sleep with him. It was called "Indecent Proposal." Truly, the film would have been more aptly titled had its star not been one of the well-known hunks of our time, but rather an unattractive, ill-mannered, chavinistic pig like you. I really don't care why she's dating you, although, if you can't figure it out, please do note that if she wakes you up by saying "BOO!" every morning, it's not a good sign; but I do care about your degrading and despicable treatment of women. The fact you harbor those beliefs is appalling; the fact that you, a member of the bar, feel comfortable making your thoughts on this subject known in such a public forum speaks poorly for you and worse for a society that tolerates it.

In closing, may I just say that, if your sweetie is buying the cigarettes you went outside to smoke for you, it'll be another hint she considers you a significant payday; and I am probably only surpassed by her in the sincere hope that one day your most prized posession turns black and falls off.

Yours very truly, a person who is sorry you make both the legal profession and the male species look bad.

As we start the college football season off...

2006-09-01T14:02:00.000-04:00

...it's worth noting who's picked to be #1 in the polls.

Damn right.

(And note that's for the whole country. Not just the West. Not that we're eligible for it, seeing as how we aren't IN the west. Just thought I'd point that out, since that concept eludes certain schools in states to the north of us, going so far as to loudly proclaim this in their fight song.)

Board Member Bassett, Dissenting

2006-08-21T09:03:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow, the school board on which I sit will vote on a policy to subject anyone who is involved in an extracurricular activity or drives to school to random drug tests. It is a proposal I will vote against.

I have wrestled with this issue more than almost any other issue I've dealt with in the two and a half years I've been on the school board. Drugs are a scourge, and they affect our entire country. They can end careers, rip apart relationships, bring lives to an untimely end. To believe Port Clinton is any different is folly.

You can't just test any student you want, according to the law; however, those who are involved in extracurriculars are subject to testing, because extracurriculars are a privilege, as is driving.

My first concern, and the predominant one in my decision to vote against this, is this: Extracurriculars are opportunities to enhance student life. They are to offer positive outlets for a student's energy.

Who needs this more than a student who may feel there is some sort of gap in their life? A gap they might choose to fill with substance abuse? Every minute that student is in at French Club, in a play, or playing basketball is a minute they aren't hanging out with a crowd that might influence them in the wrong direction. Every minute in an extracurricular is an opportunity for a positive experience with the school; an opportunity to realize there are other things to life than getting high.

A person who is on the fence is who I fear will be hurt by this policy. A person who is a recreational drug user, but also has some interest in a play or going out for baseball, may decide it's not worth sacrificing an activity they are already into for one they think they might enjoy. And that, I fear, is a tragedy.

I am also concerned about the rationale for this program. In the process of determining whether or not to undertake this policy (and it should be noted that all of the Board members have worked very hard to come to this decision), we were presented with stark evidence of the drug problem. We were not, however, presented with reasons why this would help eradicate it.

At one of our meetings, a police officer I have worked with over the years and have great respect for, spoke. This guy is on the front lines of the war on drugs. I looked forward to his presentation explaining why drug testing would solve the problem. Rather, it was an emotional appeal directed to getting us to understand there is a problem.

I understand that. I think everyone understands that. Kids we see as "bad kids," kids we see as "good kids," all kids understand there's a drug problem.

Unfortunately, he did not provide me with any evidence this would help. I was unconvinced by the testing vendors, as well, who suggested that drug testing would help.

There are compelling arguments in favor of random drug testing. Those who are in extracurriculars and don't use drugs have the right to expect that to be a drug-free zone. There is student safety involved. If it helps a student get off drugs, the program will demonstrate worth.

But I remain convinced that the cost of removing an alternative to other choices for students is greater than the potential of detection and possibly -- possibly -- intervention. It is for that reason I will vote no tomorrow.

The best writing I've seen on domestic abuse in a while

2006-08-01T07:48:00.000-04:00

is this article.

You may recall a fellow named Darren Mack recently tried to kill a judge and successfully killed his wife. Mack, who was a successful Las Vegas jeweler, was embroiled in a divorce at the time.

The authors here point out that, contrary to those who say there were no warning signs Mack would implode, there were actually several, all of which came under the rubric of domestic violence. One of the many excellent passages in the article is this: "Domestic violence murders are not typically crimes of sudden, unanticipated violence where an abuser 'just snaps,' but instead are often the culmination of a predictable pattern of escalating abuse and violence."

The article has so many good points, and is written so compactly, I won't even try to restate them, as I don't think I'd do them justice. The authors point out that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is seeking a bigger federal push for increased security at courthouses for judges.

It appears it takes this issue affecting a judge for us to understand more security in courthouses is also needed for victims. And I don't mean metal detectors, either.

Quote of the Day On Peer Review, Non-Efficacy Of

2006-07-28T14:36:00.000-04:00

Michael: [Makes sound of horror.]

Pleasant Reason: What?

Michael: If you can't get disbarred for this, what can you get disbarred for? The Supreme Court just suspended a guy for two years (with one year stayed) for "delaying filing of joint personal bankruptcy, forging clients' signatures, misrepresenting that no fees had been paid, failing to appear at first meeting of creditors or to communicate with client, making further misrepresentations at bankruptcy hearing and failing to adequately protect clients' interests on withdrawal from bankruptcy." [Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Olivito, 110 Ohio St.3d 64, 2006-Ohio-3654, no, I don't talk in citations to my grlfriend.]

Pleasant Reason [not even stopping to wonder WHY she chose to date a lawyer]: Isn't that, like, not doing his whole job as a lawyer?

To Those Of You

2006-07-22T14:17:00.000-04:00

studying

freaking out

sincerely believing there is no way you know or ever could know enough to pass the bar which starts in less than 72 hours

realizing you have only a few days left until you take

The Test

Please know:

I am thinking of you

I feel for you

You can do it

You know more than you give yourself credit for

One year from now, you will be a lawyer.

You will have a caseload. You will have clients. You will have billable hours.

I was once as you are now. There is light at the end of the tunnel. You may even find yourself next year at an art fair with a Pleasant Reason to be there.

Hang in. Excelsior.

(PS: I heard this year they're increasing the MBE to 250 ques -- no, no, just kidding. Just kidding. Breathe, people. Breathe.)

Cynical Poem

2006-07-17T20:58:00.000-04:00

A woman calls, a client
She has the money to start a divorce.

She's begged, she's borrowed from her family.
A bank.
A way to a new life.

She writes a check,
Feeling confident this is best for her children.
Get them away from the abuser.
The courts will know he's an abuser.

We should make women sign
An informed-consent form in this country
Before trying to get out of an abusive relationship
Leaving their abuser, I mean.

"WARNING!" it should say.
"The courts won't help, only process cases
on their very best day."

It seems so simple.
Keep abusers away from kids.

Trust me. It's not.

I talked with a fellow attorney the other day.
Mentioned CPOs
(Those things you get when some nasty bastard won't leave you alone.
I do a lot of those.)
He won't help people get CPOs.

Like it's a bad thing.
This guy defends drug dealers.
Rapists.
Baseball-bat wielding thugs.

But he doesn't help people get CPOs.

(I guess they're only for lowlifes.)

I suspect it's 'cause you get angry abusive people in your life.
The people you've obtained it against are mad at you.
The people you've obtained it for are scared.
Who wants that in their comfortably carpeted law office?

Who wants that in their LIFE?

Yeah, we just abandon them
It's just a nasty divorce.

They come into my office.
They say the same things.
They wonder why the court can't get it.
They feel like they were victimized again.

And they have kids, dealing with the trauma.
What looks to be just petty drama.

I say it before, I say it now, I'll say it again:
We can deal with this problem now
Or we can deal with this later
But we'll deal with it, all of us, somehow.

***

(PS, please note: I am actually in a much sunnier mood than this poem would indicate and life has been pretty daggone awesome. I love my job, and feel like I make a difference. It's just, the madness of the whole system gets, well, maddening sometimes.)

My Nominee for the Summer Blockbuster

2006-07-10T08:27:00.000-04:00

Are YOU a person who might only see one movie this summer?

Do YOU like to laugh?

When watching people who obsessively compete over a rather picayune pastime, will YOU laugh just a little bit nervously because you can identify with these people and think "I, too, could see that as a competition I would have a good time at"?

Then YOU need to go see Wordplay.

The Pleasant Reason for my frequent trips to Ann Arbor of late is, fortunately, the holder of a degree in English, and as a result has a fascination with words that is probably even more severe than mine. The good news is that this means she not only tolerates, but finds it cool, when I say, "Hey, let's spend an hour and a half of a beautiful Sunday inside watching people work crossword puzzles on a projection screen!" The bad news? Well, my days of winning Scrabble appear to be over.

"Wordplay" features John Stewart, the Indigo Girls, Mike Mussina, and Bill Clinton and Bob Dole talking about the crossword. (Dole is, as ever, self-deprecatingly funny: "The whole [1996] election was a puzzle to me.") But the real stars are the people who actually play to win the annual crossword tournament. (They make a pilgrimage to Stamford, Connecticut, in the winter, to do this. I would make some comment about who the heck goes to Stamford in the witner, but others make pilgrimages to similarly -- actually, probably more -- desolate places in the winter.)

There's the college student who wants to be the youngest to become the crossword champion, the woman who's won it before and been to a bunch of them (I frankly found her a little full of herself), and the guy who always ends up in the top three but never has won. Think of a story about a characters n the sports team merged with a bunch of pocket-protector-nerd types, and you've got "Wordplay."

It's like this. Most of us will never have a chance at winning something like the Super Bowl or the Masters. Some of us never had a chance of being on a wining football team in high school. This lets us think, "Here's something that I could -- could -- be good at." That's "Wordplay."

I highly recommend it.

PS: Insofar as it's a documentary and not made by Al Gore or Michael Moore, you may have difficulty finding it in a theater. You may have to travel to somewhere like Ann Arbor, where bookstores and showing of documentaries are some good reasons - although not nearly qualifying as the Pleasant Reason - to go there. (I just ignore the Wolverine paraphernelia everyone seems to have to fly there.)

PSS: Here's hoping the soundtrack to this movie comes out soon. Some of the songs were pretty entertaining!

Rotten Apple

2006-06-30T07:24:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I spent considerable amounts of time trying to get a problem fixed which was clearly (a) not my fault, (b) in need of fixing, (c) someone else's job to fix, which duty to fix was admitted by those with the duty to fix. Instead, I ended up feeling frustrated and at wit's end.

And this was AFTER I spent the day in a seminar on how the system treats battered women.

OK. Here's the story. As faithful readers of this Blog know, I am possessed of an iPod, which are those little things you see people carrying around with earbuds sprouting from their ears. A truly marvelous invention, the iPod can be connected in my car, or is portable enough to go, well, anywhere with.

So, all was well in Michaelville, especially when I started driving a borrowed BMW (see this entry), which has a tape deck which easy connectivity to one's iPod.

One day, shortly before Memorial Day, I went to put on a particular song and my iPod froze. The LED backlight remained on, and the song just froze.

No amount of my tears or piety could unfreeze the thing, or turn off the LED backlight for the longest time. I finally did get it to restart (after something like an hour and a half), at which point, it said the battery was extremely low.

So, I brough the iPod home, plugged it into the wall, and started charging it again.

My iPod duly charged, I went outside with it and listened to about twelve songs before it hit the same exact problem. I recharged it, took it out on Memorial Day, and got it to freeze again.

This was unacceptable.

So, I went online. I tried everything suggested online. Clearly, a living, breathing human being was needed.

Having heard other people's horror stories about trying to call in for help with Apple support, I decided I'd rather just visit an Apple store. Unfortunately, there are no Apple stores near this blogger; rather, there is one in Novi, Michigan (two and a half hours north) and one in Columbus, Ohio (two and a half hours south.) I have had the good fortune recently to have a pleasant reason to spend time north of the border anyway, so last Sunday, I traveled to Novi (together with the Pleasant Reason, who lives somewhat south of there.)

OK, so, we got to the Twelve Oaks Mall, and found the Apple store. There, we were met by a tech. I should take a detour here and tell you that none of Apple's employees wear nametags. None. I think this is so you can't hunt them down at their house and drown them out with the silence from your non-functioning iPod.

So, first, John started to try to sell me AppleCare. For only 64 bucks, I could have Apple service my iPod for free. I pointed out that was what my warranty was for, and since I bought it last August, it seemed to me that was their job. John went off the serial number on the back of the iPod, and advised me that indeed, I was correct, my warranty did not expire until August 13, so it was pointless for me to buy AppleCare at this point (although I would need to do so before August 13.)

Good, John. Fix my iPod.

John suggested I do such things as charge the battery (done) and other inanities. I advised him I had done all of the "five R's" that Apple recommends for troubleshooting. Not satisfied by this, he plugged my iPod into a computer there, reset the software, and said I was good to go.

I wasn't inclined to call him a liar, but I did make him play and replay music on the iPod several times. It kept working (although I was hoping it wouldn't, as I really didn't trust him. Both I and the Pleasant Reason agreed later we didn't think he had good intentions.)

But, I now had a functioning iPod again, so off I went.

And, I must tell you, having my iPod back was wonderful. I'd forgotten how much I missed the thing. I listened to it quite a bit; much of the evening on Wednesday. I was listening to it at 5:45 on Thursday morning as I was driving to pick Anonymous up at her home to travel to Columbus for a seminar.

And it froze. (I had previously threatened that if it did this again, I was going to go through the roof of my condo. Insofar as my car is a convertible, this did not seem like much of a threat were I to carry it out now.)

So, Anonymous got in the car. I made her observe that the LED backlight was on, and that it played no music. I prevailed upon her good nature that, after eight hours of sitting in a seminar, she would allow us to go out of our way to stop at the Columbus Apple Store.

So, after the seminar and a meal, we went to Easton Town Center and the Apple Store. We were met by a young man to whom I explained my dilemma. He listened, and asked me to sign in to the Apple Concierge to reserve a time to speak with their techs.

Which seemed like a reasonable request, until I found out the first available time I could speak to the techs was at 8:45, and it was currently 7:00. (Not to mention that we were two and a half hours from home.)

A woman we spoke to at the store was of no help. There was no one talking to the techs now because they were all scheduled for later, so they couldn't help me.

Here came the first guy again. When we explained the dilemma (and the fact that I live a minimum of two and a half hours from any Apple store), he said he'd get one of his friends who was a tech back there to look at it for us.

Yippee! Things were going my way. They took my iPod and walked on back. The tech (who I will refer to as AE2, for Apple Employee 2) came back and talked to me. I explained the story I've now explained to you. I think he disappeared again, and then reemerged.

There was a problem, he said. There was no evidence I'd ever been into Twelve Oaks. Well, actually, it indicated I'd called in on June 25. I hadn't called anyone on June 25, but June 25 WAS the day I'd been into Novi.

I was devastated. John in Novi had violated my trust, and not duly recorded my pilgrimage to Novi, thus, it appeared, consigning me to some corner of Apple Hell. AE2 suggested that they could take my iPod from me, but they would need to test it for four days to make sure I wasn't lying.

"OK," I said. "Can you send the replacement iPod to me when you figure out that I'm not lying?"

"Well, no," AE2 replied. "You'd have to come in and pick it up."

"That's not an option," said Anonymous. "We live two and a half hours away from Novi and three hours from you."

AE2 got this disturbed look on his face. It's the sort of disturbed look one should get when one is not giving good customer service; but I suspect in his case, it was the disturbed look Apple employees get when their mark -- er, customer -- refuses to go quietly.

"Well," he said, "you'll have to send it in then."

"Send it in?" I asked. This sounded like I was going to be spending copious amounts of time at the post office, mailing, receiving, signing for, two-week mail.

No, no, no, AE2 assured me. I would simply go online, complete a quick form, and Apple would overnight me a box. I would drop my iPod in the box and overnight it back to Apple. Everything would be filled out and taken care of. I literally would require the force to lift the iPod and the assistance of gravity to put it in the box.

That sounded decent. So, John hands me a business card with the Apple support website where I go to get the box, to start what he said would be a four-day process.

Anonymous, being a far wiser and less trusting soul than I, suggested I use a computer at the Apple store to go online and get the box ordered, just in case I would have a problem. I was sure I wouldn't -- AE2 wouldn't lie to me -- so I decided to get online.

At that time, AE2 advised me that, if I had any problems, any problems at all, I should find another Apple employee, because he was going to be doing something else in the back room or something.

(I'm not kidding.)

I should have gotten nervous then.

Merrily, I went to the computer and started typing in my name, email address, residence address, and all those other little details they need to send to me. I then typed in my iPod's serial number, whereupon, I was greeted with a screen which read Your iPod's Warranty Has Expired.

Careful readers will recall that my iPod's warranty has definitely NOT expired. This was established conclusively during my trip to Novi. It lasts until August 13.

Of course, AE2 was nowhere to be seen, so we found another Apple employee. I now told him my story, and he offered to take my iPod and go check my warranty against the serial number.

He went to check the serial number. He returned. He advised me that it was clear my warranty wasn't expired, and wouldn't do so until August 4. (Careful readers will note that Novi told me it would be August 13, which is one year after I purchased the iPod. Nonetheless, I'm still under warranty, no matter what the date is.)

Great. Problem solved, right? Well, he seemed to think so. All I needed to do was take my iPod to one of their techs.

I should note two things.

(1) At this point, I started laughing maniacally.

(2) Many of the Apple employees wear shirts that have but a single word on them:

genius

Insofar as the Apple employees began to blend together at this point, I shall just refer to them as the Genius of the Moment. I should also note that I now wonder whether they put "genius" on their shirt because of their mental acuity, or because everyone was calling them "genius" in a sarcastic tone, and they didn't catch the irony.

Once I recovered from my laughing fit and reminded myself there were laws against what I was considering doing to this Genius, I advised him that doing that would simply start the merry-go-round I'd just been on all over again. So, the Genius disappeared, and then reappeared to write a phone number down on my business card I could call to validate my warranty.

Anonymous at that point, in her words, "politely suggested to him that HE make the call."

Looking at us with those big, uncomprehending eyes that are a sign of Genius, and are not unlike those George W. Bush makes just before he has to pronounce a multi-syllabic word, he took my iPod and headed to the front of the store to make this call.

He asked me to stay close, so that I could give the person on the other end of the phone my mailing address.

The only thing that made this experience more bearable was that HE was holding the phone and was on hold. My range of movement was somewhat less limited, and I didn't have to listen to some inane hold message telling me one of Apple's customer service geniuses would be along shortly.

Well, ten minutes went by. Fifteen minutes went by. Genius of the Moment was now squatting, indicating uncomfortableness with standing in the iPod store.

I did not care.

After about twenty minutes, he waved me over to him. His hold time having ended (really, with what Apple pays these Geniuses, was it a good use of their time to have someone spending 20 minutes on the phone holding because they couldn't deal with my problem in one of two stores?), I now had the opportunity to speak to a Phone Genius.

Now, remember, all she was going to do was to verify my warranty and send me a box. She first asked me how I was doing, and I told her. (Reader: guess.) She advised me that, because I was still under warranty, I wouldn't have to pay $49 an hour for the privilege of talking to her. How nice.

So, then, she tells me that they will send me a box, but I will be responsible for postage.

I did not care, at this point, what postage was. It was the principle of the thing. I was incredibly irate. Out of curiosity, I asked what the expense of postage would be. Eh, around $30 to $40.

Similarly feeling furious and frustrated, I decided not to complain and allow my further association with Apple to cost me roughly 10% of the purchase price of my original iPod. She asked for my street address; I gave it. She asked for the name on my credit card. I gave it.

I then waited anxiously for the opportunity to provide my credit card number to her. Insofar as I was in the middle of a public store with numerous people there, I was thrilled by this opportunity. (By now, of course, the in-person Genius had disappeared.) And waited. And waited. And waited.

"You still there?" I asked.

"Yes," she said, "just getting everything set up." As time moved on (I'd now been there about an hour), I mused to myself that I did not know she had to gas up the plane that was coming to get my iPod.

"Well," she said, "here's the problem. There are two systems here. One shows you're under warranty until August. The other says you're not. And I have to send your iPod out on the one that says you're not under warranty, so you'll have to pay for us to look at your iPod."

I believe I clarified that I was hearing what I was hearing, and that I was not delusional.

Then, through gritted teeth and in a deceptively calm voice, I asked her how much I would pay.

She pleasantly informed me it would cost $265.40.

Now I, Gentle Reader, am a pretty calm-tempered fellow. It takes much to get me to lose my temper.

But, at this point, right there in the middle of the Apple store, I said, in a voice that was louder than I would consider polite for cross-examining any number of recalcitrant witnesses, "$265. Plus $40 for shipping and handling. So, you want me to spend the money it would basically take to purchase a new iPod, WHICH I SUSPECT WAS YOU PEOPLE'S ENTIRE IDEA IN THE BEGINNING."

She said nothing.

I considered my options carefully, slammed down the phone, and stomped out of the Apple store. (Note: I have never slammed a phone down before in my LIFE.) I told Anonymous, who was waiting for me outside, the tale. She suggested I should not use the language I was using in a place where there were so many small children running about. She later indicated she feared I was about to climb a lamppost and yell from the top of my lungs, "Don't buy anything from Apple, kids!"

Here's my problem. I'd really prefer not to patronize a company with such awful customer service. But I'm hooked on my iPod, and have not been told there is a comparable machine out there.

So my suggestion is this: If you plan to purchase an iPod, think of it as a health club membership. You're likely going to pay a set amount every year to use it. Because they are NOT going to repair it.

Not The Brightest Hunger Striker In The World, That Saddam

2006-06-23T08:48:00.000-04:00

Well, isn't this special: Saddam Hussein has ended his hunger strike, which apparently consisted of, uh, skipping lunch.

I'm not joking.

Saddam was doing without vittles to protest the assasination of one of his lawyers. Legal experts say this may be one of the first time on record anyone, anywhere, has indicated unease at the demise of a lawyer.

But, truly. What a wimpy hunger strike. Two major flaws:

1. He skipped LUNCH. LUNCH, for God's sake. That was it, that was all. Saddam, baby, try working for a living and not having time to eat. Good grief...

2. Generally, the idea of a hunger strike is this: Something bad is happening and will continue to happen absent some change that can be effected. You stop eating so that everyone goes, "Oh my! That Saddam is such a nice man and if he died the world would be so much worse off, we simply MUST meet his demands so he'll start taking nourishment again." (Which leads us to a third subflaw -- you must be someone we would miss if you were gone.)

Your lawyer was DEAD, Saddam. No pulse. He wasn't coming back because you started eating. I mean, the rest of us might have been quite happy to have you continue to protest in this manner, but your method was stupid.

Perhaps he's working on an insanity defense...

This and That on Thursday

2006-06-22T12:21:00.000-04:00

The U.S. is out of the World Cup.

Yeah, I don't care, either.

Seriously, there appear to be three people in this country that cared about the fate of Team USA in the soccer world championship. Two of them were in the lounge here at the car dealership where I'm having my* car fixed, and had ESPN tuned to it. The other one is on ESPN, talking to someone who is clearly from Somewhere Else, my guess being Scotland.

That's my point. ESPN can't even find two American commentators to talk about soccer. Good grief...

***

This week I've learned a few things about myself.

The first part of the week was pretty hectic for Me, Esq. As you might imagine for someone who represents victims of domestic abuse, the work is high-stakes and can be exhausting.

One day this week, I woke up. My brain was running at a million miles an hour and I have to say I was not in a good place.

Suddenly, it clicked. I always made a little fun of those folks who say, "You need to center!" "Center?" What sort of hippy-dippy crap is that?

Suddenly, I realized (1) I wasn't centered; (2) I needed to be and (3) I could become so. I sat down, thought through what had me panicked, realized none of it was that bad and I could handle it all, and also that I should probably not have a CD of loud fast-paced music while I drove to calm me down. It helped a great deal. It was also a good chance to learn more about mastering your circumstances, rather than letting them master you.

***

To those of you hitting this blog through searches for the bar exam and some variant thereof, I feel your pain. Hang in. We're thinking of you.

***

* And now for that asterisk. I can't really call it "my car," but I can say that I have been driving for the past several weeks and will probably be drivng for the rest of the summer, a convertible BMW Z3. No, it's not mine; the Bassett family just has this bizarre way of trading off cars that makes no sense to outsiders or insiders.

Anyway, it's a heckuva fun car and I'm having a great time with it.

***

Nominee for ad of the year: The Bill Gates imitator on the Mac commercials. I find them kind of interesting.

Certainly more interesting than the guy who proceeded it, askng, "Where does U.S. soccer go from here?"

Fabiolous, plus...helmets, anyone?

2006-06-12T21:24:00.000-04:00

Sorry I've been light on the blogging lately; as loyal readers know, I maintain the position that you'd rather suspect I have nothing to blog, rather than to have to come read what I've posted and remove all doubt.

***

I have to give Fabio a little credit. (Now, there's a sentence I never thought I'd write.) If you haven't caught the latest commercial featuring him, it basically starts off by saying it's a shampoo for a man whose name is synonymous with sex appeal (cue: whispered Fabio). We see a shot of Our Hunk (who, some may recall, got hit in the face with a bird a few years ago on a roller coaster) rowing a gondola, and once again hear the whispered (Fabio.) A shot of the shampoo. A shot of Fabio handing a rose to a woman who is clearly in his thrall.

(At home, a shot of Michael shaking his head and nearly gagging, thinking if this is what passes for sex appeal, he may as well just retire from the Dating Game at once.)

Then, the Fabster goes under the bridge and becomes a 75-year-old man. And, at home, a shot of Michael laughing uproariously at someone who can clearly laugh at himself (and the cartoon character he could become, if he took himself too seriously.)

(Oops: In checking Wikipedia to see if Fabio was in fact the guy who got hit with a bird in the face -- he was -- it appears the commercial has been around since Super Bowl XL. Shows how much TV I watch...)

***

I've said before that I think being a sportswriter/commentator could be kind of fun. My dad pointed out I'd probably have to have far more sports knowledge than I do, which is limited to knowing slightly more than that there are four downs in football, nine innings in baseball and eighteen holes in golf.

In any case, I think the people that make up the world of sports are fascinating and it sometimes reminds me of my old gig of politics (which may be the best argument yet for not being a sportswriter!) Anyway, one of the better, more acerbic sportswriters out there is a guy named Mike Celzic, and this article is his take on Ben Roethlisberger's recent attempts to secure a new Indian name, namely, Travels Without Helmet.

Someone buy Big Ben a helmet, please?

I'd Be Blogging More But...

2006-06-08T06:50:00.000-04:00

...sometimes, you have cases that could use this type of resolution...

I'd write more, but I think I see a Gordian knot over there that needs untying...

Notes on Blogging and Lawyering (Incompatability Of); Memorial Day; Living in a Tourist Mecca; and More

2006-05-30T06:58:00.000-04:00

I've been meaning to update, and haven't gotten to for a while. However, when you start receiving emails (OK, really, only one) asking you to update, it's probably time.

***

I've been a little busy lately, and of course, due to attorney-client confidentiality, I can't tell you what I've been up to. I have to say it is frustrating; not that I want to go blabbing client secrets, but it can even be difficult to explain what is going on in a generic sense to try to advocate for change in the system as a result of this.

I think, however, I can say this. As anyone who's been reading this blog for very long knows, I am interested in representing victims of domestic abuse, especially with regard to how this plays out in the custody arena. I have blogged previously on issues in the court system that are perceived and how they are perceived to impact victims of domestic abuse.

I find it absolutely stunning how watching them play out in real life has, in many ways, been very similar to what I have written about.

There is much work to be done.

***

I hope everyone got a chance to commemorate Memorial Day in some small way yesterday. I did what I've been doing for the past eighteen years, which was go to the Oak Harbor Memorial Day services with my grandparents. (I've actually missed three in that time -- one in 1995, when I got sick; one in 2000, when I was in Washington, DC for summer classes; and last year, when I was spending my last day in our house.)

Yesterday it was hot -- around 90 -- but, to paraphrase my grandmother, this is what some servicemen in Iraq right now are calling a light day at the office.

***

Memorial Day also marks the start of the tourist season. For you out-of-staters, the northcoast of Lake Erie is the place everyone wants to be. (Years ago, we were the #2 destination; now, we may well be the #1.) As a frame of reference, I live about twenty minutes away from Cedar Point, which everyone seems to be familiar with. Port Clinton is right on Lake Erie, and our population, usually 5,000 in the winter, can swell to a quarter of a million on July 4.

As you might imagine, this leads to a little congestion, and occasionally, friction between locals and tourists. I, personally, am delighted to see the tourists come; they are unquestionably good for the local economy. (And, full disclosure, my family owns a 60,000 square foot grocery store that is a leading beneficiary of same!)

But there are some people who are not as excited to see the tourists come. They don't like the traffic problems it creates, the crowding, or the increase on property taxes it's led to.

I hear them, although I disagree. Something struck me this weekend about this. The complex I live in has a pool. About the best way for me to find relaxation is to sit by a pool on a pleasant day with good reading material and my iPod nearby. Over the weekend, I didn't venture out there (or out much at all, despite the beautiful weather), because the pool was so crowded.

Could I get irritated and argue it was because of the tourists? Sure, I could. But, in the end, I get the last laugh. Because yesterday, about 4:00, they all packed up and made a three hour drive home. I, meanwhile, put on my suit and grabbed my towel and went down to the pool, where there were just a scattering of people, and hung out for about three hours.

See, I get the last laugh. Others spend lots of money to have a second home here, and will drive great distances to come here. I have one home, and wake up here. They get to enjoy it on the weekends; I get it all week.

***

Every time I read it, I want to suggest to the editors of the magazine "Vanity Fair" that they change the name of their publication. Anything with "Vanity" in it is destined to sound like a lightweight publication, and it is so completely the opposite, it's not even funny.

***

Stop. Obsessing. Now.

2006-05-22T19:40:00.000-04:00

This is a post about searches that bring people to this blog.

The problem with writing posts about searches that bring people to my blog is that you have to use the search terms that bring people to the blog, thus bringing more people to the blog searching for relevant information about the terms they are searching about, which will not be contained in this post. (The one that really vexes me is that I have had an incredible number of people come here searching for M-A-R-I-A-H C-A-R-E-Y D-O-N-T Y-O-U F-O-R-G-E-T A-B-O-U-T U-S V-I-D-E-O, which I have never seen nor discussed.)

I should begin by saying that I have noticed a rather sharp upswing in searches for terms relating to the bar exam and related topics (like "graduate without a job law school.") Robert Feinberg also appears to be a popular topic, which doesn't surprise me. I know when I first encountered the man, I immediately came home and got on Google and went, "Holy mother of God, who IS this maniac?"

Anyway. People are searching for every term imaginable under the Sun, and today, I was visited by someone who found me by typing in the words california bar exam on Yahoo.

I'm somewhere between result #1,400 and 1,410.

OK, what this means, is that someone had to click through 139 other pages to get to that page and click on me.

And to you, I say:

Dude.

You have nothing better to do?

Like, study for the bar exam instead of search for it?

Actually, don't study for it. I didn't actually start studying in earnest (other than the first week after graduation during PMBR -- crap, I'm going to have so many people stopping here) until June 1.

I strongly recommend you take time off now. You won't otherwise.

OK, I admit it. I was pretty bad myself. I spent a lot of time reading the magazine of the National Conference of Bar Examiners the weekend before the exam (yes, I know. It was pretty damn boring.) And, just before the results came out, I was searching for other peoples' reaction.

But last year, at this time, I was sitting placidly by Lake Erie, reading Franklin and Winston, and happily ignoring the hellish summer that was to come.

Go do the same.

And quit searching for things at about page 50. If you haven't found it by then, it probably can't be got.

It's Code Out There

2006-05-19T06:46:00.000-04:00

Today, The Da Vinci Code opens in theaters, and we'll either have a blockbuster or a bust on our hands, but we'll certainly hear about it for the next week or two before it's over. (The previews look pretty good, although I'll probably only end up seeing it once it comes out on DVD, since I haven't read the book yet.)

Anyway, I was reading an article about it and I came across this gem of a quote from Professor Alan Schreck, professor of theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville:

"It's not even such a matter that this is false that Jesus was married as it is the way the book portrays Christians and the Catholic church as being an institution that is investing in covering things up."

Yoo hoo, Alan? Last fifty years? Sex abuse scandals? Priests moved hither and yon? Documents being withheld as we speak? Lots of people (including me) no longer identifying themselves as Catholic?

Concerned the Catholic church will be portrayed as an institution that is investing in covering things up?

Sorry, Alan. I think the horse is outta the barn on that one.

Grey Sunday

2006-05-14T18:59:00.000-04:00

There is this big discussion, among people who disagree over whether it's the King's English or American English, whether the word is spelled gray or grey. I've always come down on the gray side, but didn't really care one way or the other. I didn't even particularly understand the difference. I think I do now.

Today is, without a doubt, a grey day.

***

To start with, a friend of mine (the husband of a very good friend of mine), died at 6:30 this morning.

He's been ill for some time, and we knew it was coming, and he wasn't a young person (he celebrated his 75th birthday yesterday), so it isn't a shock.

At the same time, there are people you just get used to being in your atmosphere and around and people you can talk to, and when you realize you can't talk to them anymore -- ever again -- it does something to you.

Also, what does it say about how far we have come when I consider someone dying at 75 relatively young?

***

From the significant to the mundane. I will spend the better (or, more likely, worse) part of tomorrow writing an appellate brief.

Appellate briefs are challenging on so many levels. First, on your first pass through, the tendency is to become despondent because the person who wrote the other side's brief is so intelligent and brilliant there is absolutely no way you can win. Then you buckle down and realize they can e defeated, but only through careful and studious research. (At this point, you say, "Drat!" and look for arsenic. Realizing you have are out, you write on.) Midway through the brief, you begin to think you will win; and as you write the last quarter of it, you simply cannot imagine how anyone would have another viewpoint than you.

There's a great peril in writing an appellate brief, though. You have to think and, more dangerously, write like a lawyer. This can be a bad thing. Writing in legalese is proven to cause lapses into "wherefores," "hereinafters" and even the occasional "insofar." Sentences drag on forever and ever, and you end things with citations that look to the rest of the world like you've quite lost your mind. Engelbert v. Humperdink, 73 N.E.2d 478, 482 (1917)

At the beginning of my second year of law school, I co-wrote a book with my friend Laura, who was not in law school. According to her mother, Laura's head nearly exploded while reading my detailed outline, which consisted of things like 7(a)(ii)(c) subsection (4). While the ending did not depend on dividing the EITC allowance from subparagraph (d) of 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code and ensuring that there were no implications either from ERISA or 17 USC 1983, everyone agreed they liked the parts of the book Laura wrote better. (You can see why.)

***

On the subject of transitions, and a far more superficial and less important one than what I discussed above, tonight is the end of the "West Wing." While it is one of my favorite shows and that's bad enough, I also remember when the promos started in the spring of 1999, during my freshman year in college. (I remember thinking I wouldn't get to watch it, since I was going to take Writing for Mass Communications on Wednesday evenings.)

It turned out I didn't, and I distinctly remember watching the very first episode on September 22, 1999. That was a date of some importance, as it was the night before an election for county commissioner I was running in. (I lost, by the way.)

For some reason, that has created a link. And even as I think it's the best show on TV, I also feel there's a link that ends tonight.

Plus, there's something disturbing about a series ending. Sure, Jimmy Smits got elected President and Josh will be his Chief of Staff and so on and so on, but they all disappear after tonight. And I find that disturbing.

***

On legal writing. You want to be careful that, even though legal writing is generally bad, it never gets too bad, or you will find yourself at the wrong end of an appellate opinion. This was written by Judge William Skow, who was then a Lucas County Common Pleas judge and now sits on the Sixth District Court of Appeals:

As to the first amended complaint the Court cannot but comment that the complaints are examples, in their best light, of notice pleading run amok. The complaints were deliberately overdrawn and vaguely drawn in an attempt to permit the inclusion of later-developed facts. This is not surprising as no factual basis for the original complaints and the first amended complaints existed at the time each was drawn. The Court found the identical complaint wanting in specificity in Tillimon v. Farmer, but no similar motion was filed in these cases, for whatever reasons defendants' counsel may have had. Thus there was no court order to further amend the first amended complaint (as there surely would have been); nor was there any request from the plaintiff (as there surely should have been for leave to further amend). Moreover, plaintiff's first amended complaint is an example of wretched legal draftsmanship. The syntax and grammer are lamentable, the punctuation remarkable, and the meanings consistently obscure. Mr. Rust could start a successful cottage industry selling road maps and flashlights to those foolish enough to enter his sentences at the beginning. Several of them run a full page: forlorn and stranded phrases in vain search of linkage; and marooned verbs gazing through a fog of participles, hoping to find a predicate.
By way of counterpoint, Mr. Bischoff's motions for summary judgment herein are not candidates for any literary awards either. Mr. Bischoff's problem is the reverse of Mr. Rust; that is, he is overly terse. Still, however, his motions do raise the defects of the first amended complaint and the fatal factual shortcomings in plaintiff's case, in at least an adequate manner. Tillimon v. Sullivan, 88-LW-3124 (Ohio 6, unreported) (1988.)

Where I come from, we call that an old-fashioned bitch-slapping.

***

Another thing contributing to my bad mood is that it's been raining and, well, grey, and cold for days now. I mean, the sun came out today ever so briefly and I squinted.

Quotes of the Day

2006-05-12T08:24:00.000-04:00

"So, are there hamsters inside that copier running on a little wheel to power it?"

-- Anonymous, having spent several hours in front of this solo practitioner's inherited copier. (So, it wasn't just me...)

***

"My dad is very proud that he got a good deal on that copier. I believe he probably didn't spend a lot of money on it, but I'm not sure he got a good deal."

-- Me, later, describing the copier.

***

Sorry for the lack of updates; I've been busy being a lawyer. :) Will write more once things calm down a bit and I get my arms around them...

The Sad Part Is, George, We Agree With You

2006-05-08T20:42:00.000-04:00

The Only President We've Got was recently interviewed by a German journalist, who asked what the most wonderful and the most awful moment in his Presidency was.

His most awful was 9/11. We can all agree on that.

And his most wonderful? After six and a half years of accomplishment, making us safer from terrorists, eavesdropping on evildoers and ridding Iraq of WMDs that weren't there, this is the most wonderful moment of the Bush years, straight from the President himself:

"The best moment was -- you know, I've had a lot of great moments. I don't know, it's hard to characterize the great moments. They've all been busy moments, by the way. I would say the best moment was when I caught a seven-and-a-half pound large mouth bass on my lake."

Wow. Just wow.

Stupendous Stuff on a Sunday

2006-05-07T16:01:00.000-04:00

I honestly can't tell you the last time I've had a better weekend.

Yesterday, I headed north to Ann Arbor, where I had a truly wonderful time. Among other things, I had the opportunity to get a guided tour of the Young Adults' section of Borders by a perfectly delightful sixth grade Language Arts teacher. Let me assure you, you have not lived until you have done this. In addition to inducing pleasant flashbacks of, "Oh, I read this/meant to read this/had a friend who read this," remember how your Language Arts teacher could make most ANY book sounded exciting? Turns out this talent does not work only on sixth graders, but on jaded 26-year-old lawyers as well. By the time we headed for the biography section, I was waxing poetic on the joys of Beverly Cleary.

After stopping at Noodles & Company (an institution which is regrettably not at all in evidence in Ohio) walking past the campus bookstore for the University of Michigan (an institution which is all too much in evidence in the otherwise excellent town of Ann Arbor), and bidding the sixth grade language arts teacher many thanks for an excellent afternoon, I wandered back across campus. (I didn't do this out of any sort of desire to just wander aimlessly; rather, I was parked all the way across campus. The University of Michigan's parking is so bad, I can only conclude they hired one of their own graduates to complete it.) Anyway, I did take a little time and settle on a bench and look through the two new books I purchased at Borders (no, they weren't from the Young Adult section; I bought The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope by Jonathan Alter, as well as President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination by Richard Reeves.

After finally finding my parking garage (and considering the pleasant possibility maybe the University of Michigan's parking structure was designed by a Buckeye as some sort of elaborate joke), I decided to make a stop at the Barnes & Noble on Washtenaw Avenue. I truly believe it's the crown jewel of the Barnes & Noble empire, and possibly bookstore Nirvana. (Laura, I didn't check to see if they had any Todd Parr classics.) I keep missing the Shaman Drum Bookstore, which everyone says is awesome. Somehow I keep walking past it.

Anyway, while at Barnes & Noble, I heard a song I hadn't heard in years: Dan Tucker.

Old Dan Tucker was a fine old man,
Washed his face in a fryin' pan
Combed his hair with a wagon wheel

What? You've never heard this? Clearly, you didn't live through second grade at R.C. Waters Elementary School. Anywho, I found out that this song and multiple other old folk songs are contained on a new release by Bruce Springsteen called We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, and I am listening to it on my iPod as I type. (Yes, I heard a CD played by the Barnes & Noble music department and came home and got it from iTunes. Don't feel too bad for B&N, though. They were a few books lighter when I left.) I highly recommend it.

I finished the day off by getting carryout from the Beirut, which is Toledo's best restaurant and probably the best Lebanese restaurant in the world.

Today, I've spent time reading, listening to music, and generally smiling. Life is good.

***

I saw Bill Clinton on TV last night when I got home. It occurred to me that if we could just repeal the 22nd Amendment, this would make life better in two different ways. First, President Clinton could seek a third term.

Second, so could President Bartlett. (No, I'm not looking forward to the West Wing ending.)

(Oh, and before anyone brings it up: I'd probably submit to life without one of my big toes to see W try to stand on the same debate stage as Bill Clinton.)

***

PTSD alert: I recently received an email inviting me to the 2006 Ohio Democratic Party's annual dinner, where the featured speaker will be Senator Barak Obama.

Now, I'm a fan of Barak Obama. Not nearly as much as my mother, whose fondest hope would seem to be that I give up fighting for battered mothers and start working for the junior senator from Illinois, but still, I'm a fan. And I'm looking forward to seeing him.

There's just one thing: the dinner will be held at Veterans' Memorial Auditorium.

Those of you who have been reading this for a while will recall I spent two and a half days there last summer at the end of July. (Remember, when you watched me take the bar?) I really wasn't looking for a return engagement. (I even said this as early as last November 5.) Even though I passed, I'm in no hurry to revisit it.

Oh, and the other thing? Generally, when Anonymous and I go to these things, we find ourselves at the very back of the room. I mean, way way way back. (Last year was a rare exception; we were right next to the stage.) But, if form holds true, this year, we will find ourselves in the back corner of the room.

And that's where I sat last year. I believe my exact quote was: "I'm so far south, I'm applying Kentucky law."

Ah, well. There are worse ways one can return, you know.

***

I'm in a good mood. Can you tell?

Another Blackwell Run Election...Another Mess?

2006-05-02T13:59:00.000-04:00

Bassett here, from deep in the nerve center of the Port Clinton Bond Issue election effort. Just got this email from the Brian Flannery for Governor campaign saying "Polls Are Open...Mostly"

We have received dozens of calls today from voters being turned away from polls, being pushed to take Republican ballots, and other election day oddities. If you have experienced anything out-of-the ordinary at the polls today, please email Communications Director, Anthony Fossaceca immediately at afoss@flanneryforgovernor.com

This morning, after hearing numerous reports of polls opening late, Bryan issued a request to the Secretary of State to keep polls open an additional 45 minutes to accommodate voters who were turned away this morning. The release is below:

FLANNERY REQUESTS EXTENSION OF VOTING HOURS
Issues With Electronic Voting Machines Disenfranchising Voters

(Cleveland) Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Bryan E. Flannery this morning made a request to Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to extend voting hours to 8:15pm this evening in response to numerous reports of voters being turned away at polling locations in Cuyahoga and Summit Counties. “Voters of this state deserve every opportunity to cast their ballots.” Flannery said. “Turning away voters because of defective machines or inexperienced poll workers is inexcusable. We must do everything possible to ensure fair, safe, and honest elections. Extending poll hours and giving those turned away this morning an additional opportunity to cast their ballot is the right thing to do.”

A Day In The Life of the Sneaker of the House

2006-04-28T21:29:00.000-04:00

It was a long and tiring day for Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Speaker of the House of Representatives.

First, recognizing, as we all do, the crunch gas prices are putting into the American wallet, he went to a gas station and gave a press conference on the issue.

The Speaker discussed ways we can save money on gas, such as using fuel cell vehicles. Then, environmentalist that he is, he got into a fuel cell vehicle. (OK, according to Wonkette, a press aide had to gently prod him along.)

Nonetheless, let's give him credit for practicing what he preaches. Here's Denny, leaving the press conference.

It is good to see the Speaker got into a fuel cell vehicle. They can run over spotted owls just as well as the other car. And they are apparently very good for...

...transporting you a block away to a sidestreet where an SUV sits guzzling to take you another block to your office.

Republicans. If God didn't give 'em to me, I'd have to make 'em up.

Back in Ohio

2006-04-27T10:42:00.000-04:00

I'm back.

My return home was something of an adventure. It began with my grandmother getting the flu, leaving my grandfather (who does not frequently drive with or without my grandmother) taking me to the airport. I could spend three paragraphs describing it, but in the interests of time, I'll just share this little conversation with you that occurred as we got on the road:

GRANDPA: Do you know how to get to the airport?
MICHAEL: Uh...no...
GRANDPA: OK. I think I know how to get there.

You get the general drift.

My adventure continued as my flight was delayed in two places, first in Sarasota (was rather grateful for that, actually); and then in Atlanta. Atlanta heralds the coming of a new C Concourse. This must be something everyone agrees they need, because there are big signs up all over C Concourse reading, "The New C Concourse: Cleaner. More Comfortable. But Your Flight Will Still Be Delayed, So You'll Still Pay Exorbinant Prices To Eat Stuff That Isn't Airline Food. Coming in 2006." Well, the exorbinant prices have come but I can tell you that the rest of the C concourse is not cleaner or more comfortable. (Although, I will tell you that the Atlanta Bread Company makes an AWESOME Italian vegeterian sandwich. That place could almost compete with Panera.)

I landed in Cleveland around 12:30 last night. It was really cool walking through Cleveland Airport when there was almost no one there. In fact, from baggage claim to the ticket taker at the parking garage, I never saw another human being. It was quite an experience, being in areas that was built for thousands of people to pass through, and I was the only one passing through.

(Having Frank Sinatra and Bono doing a duet of "I've Got You Under My Skin" helped the mood.)

***

I have finished William Shirer's 1,147 page masterpiece The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I feel compelled to point this out because completing it is a major achievement. It's, obviously, long, somewhat deep, and took me years to be able to get into and about a month or a month and a half to read. (I don't remember the last time I was NOT reading this book.)

What I found most amazing was how so many megalomaniacs could be running a country at one time. And not just one country -- you had Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy (not to mention Hitler stooges like Seyss-Inquart and Quisling.) But Goerring, Himmler, Goebbels -- all these infamous people who were clearly birds of a feather to Hitler's mental illness.

What is it? Is it that like attracts like? Is it that Hitler was just a recruiting genius? Were they all just self-serving that no one ever stopped to say they were wrong?

***

If you're looking for some good political writing, check out Dear John: We Won't Take You Back by Ellen Goodman. She suggests, basically, "Stop Him Before He Kills (the Democrats' Chances Again.) Two great quotes:

On 2004, and how Democrats voted for Kerry in the primary because they thought he could win (not all of us did!): "Democrats are cute when they get pragmatic, but not necessarily successful."

And: "In the end, a majority of voters thought we were on the wrong track and voted for the conductor anyway."

Aaaaaaaaarrrrghhh...

My Grandmother, Catholic Theologian Extraordinaire

2006-04-22T23:07:00.000-04:00

Michael and his grandmother are having a discussion of why Michael does not consider himself a Catholic. Among these reasons are the Catholic church's organized obstruction of justice (ahEM, Cardinal Mahoney) and its refusal to talk about condoms to people in Africa who desperately need them.

Plus...

MICHAEL: And I'm not big on this whole praying to saints. I believe in a direct line.

MY GRANDMA: Well, so do I. But didn't you ever go through your mother to get something from your dad?

MICHAEL: OK, that's kind of hard to argue with...

Greetings from Heaven

2006-04-21T22:05:00.000-04:00

Howdy, from Sarasota, Florida. It's been a degree warmer than perfect for the past two days since I've been here. I've been sitting by the pool and reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. For those of you not familiar with this little volume, it's 1147 pages long. A fellow by the pool remarked yesterday he read it thirty years ago. I replied it felt like I started reading it thirty years ago. (Actually, it was only six...)

***

Just before leaving yesterday morning, I announced I will not seek reelection as Chairman of the Ottawa County Democratic Central Committee. While I am a committed Democrat, the time has come to do some other things.

Perhaps I can start by teaching spelling to our local news reporters. Here's the story that ran on my departure; please rest assured that my statement had the correct spelling of principle.

***

Also yesterday, I was "Blawg of the Day" on Inter-Alia.net . Thanks for the promo, Tom!

Solo Practice (Tax Implications Of)

2006-04-17T07:45:00.000-04:00

I believe I knew this -- probably even learned it in Fed Tax -- but it had slipped my mind until recently.

The US government does not like having to wait for its money.

Hence, the reason why those of you who get steady paychecks (lucky stiffs) and have to report to work at a prescribed time every day (hehehehe I'm ahead of you there) have taxes withheld from your paycheck.

I, on the other hand, write my own paychecks, couldn't calculate withholding to save my life, and hence do not have that deducted from my paycheck.

Instead, the federal government can wait until April 15 every year to get a chunk of change from me, right?

WRONG.

They're impatient little SOBs. So, they take a look at your tax return for last year, call whatever you're paying for last year what you'll pay for this year, divide it into four, and say, "Send us four payments!"

Quarterly.

On the fifteenth of the first month after the quarter ends.

Which means that today, I get to send in 125% of my income tax bill. Woo-hoo!

The thing I really object to? My income is likely to steadily increase over the years. (Rubs worry beads....prays...) So, my tax bill next year will be larger than this year. Meaning that what I will send them this year won't really be enough to take care of next year's (although it will, one hopes, ease the pain somewhat.)

I realize there's not really a better way to do it, but still...if I have a year where I lose money, can I ask the government to send me my refund in four quarterly installments?

Didn't think so.

Focus On What We Call A Family

2006-04-16T10:50:00.000-04:00

Bassett here. Happy Easter, first of all. I apologize for the lack of posts lately; I've just had not much to say and figured your disappointment at seeing no new posts would be less than your disappointment at seeing crappy posts.

All right, that out of the way. There's this ugly little end of domestic violence jurisprudence percolating in Ohio that I haven't really blogged on much because every time this issue is raised, most judges see how ridiculous it is. Sadly, that appears to not be the case in Ohio's Second District, which led me to think it was time to write about it. The straw that broke the camel's back, though, was when I discovered that a supposedly pro-family organization is out there campaigning (albeit quietly) to remove protections for people who are abused.

Back in 2004, we here in Ohio passed a defense of marriage amendment to our constitution so that none of those liberal pinko Commie prevert gays could go gettin' hitched like in those crazy places like Massachusetts or California. (Some people think it was on the ballot to get W reelected, but I'm quite sure Karl Rove got all these things on the ballot because he was really worried about the defense of marriage.)

We call this the defense of marriage amendment because you know that every time another gay couple gets married, one of two things happens: (1) A man, heretofore straight and happily married for 40 years, suddenly announces, "Honey, I'm gonna go marry Freddy because I can!" and skips out of the closet to become a sodomite, or (2) A high school sophomore, who has heretofore been ogling the cheerleaders and looking at "Playboy" suddenly makes the choice to become gay and starts lusting after the quarterback and sneaking glimpses at "Playgirl." (You'e seen it happen so often. Who among us doesn't know a high school sophomore male who has suddenly lost all interest in girls?)

Plus, if we allowed gay marriages, pretty soon, there would be no men and women getting married at all, because it would make people decide to be gay.

Nasty business, that. So glad we all voted to defend marriage.

Well, it appears that defending marriage does not come without a price. (That's in addition to driving away people who are gay, and who often have higher incomes and spending power. Because if there's one thing we in Ohio don't need, it's upwardly mobile professionals with money to spend.)

The statute that makes domestic violence in Ohio a crime (ORC 2919.25) lists a number of persons who are not to be victims of domestic violence. One class listed is a "person living as a spouse," that is, someone who has been cohabitating.

Well, in the course of defending marriage in Ohio, we added this dandy little provision to the Constitution: "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

What that means, according to defense attorneys, is that the "person living as a spouse" provision gives you the same protection of being a spouse, it gives your unmarried-persons relationship a legal status that approximates the effect of marriage, ergo, you can beat up on your live-in all you want. If she wants protection from domestic violence, she'll have to get married. (And frequent readers of this blog can guess my views on how well that works out.)

So, people have gotten Common Pleas court judges to dismiss their indictments for domestic violence so long as the person they were committing violence against wasn't married to them. Some (in fact, I would say the majority of) appellate courts have said balderdash to this proposal, but others have upheld it. Insofar as we have appellate courts conflicting, the matter will most likely go to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Second Appellate District is one of those places in which unmarried persons do not have protection against domestic violence. A decision recently handed down found that the defense of marriage amendment left unmarried persons defenseless.

I won't bore you with the details of the decision (as I said, this will all be decided by the Supreme Court), but I found interesting one of the groups that the court indicated has taken a position on this issue. The "Citizens for Community Values" organization has come down in favor of not extending domestic violence protection to unmarried persons.

I was interested to see who the Citizens for Community Values was, so I visited their website. It appears they don't like pornography or sexually oriented businesses, are against gambling, and, of course, homosexuality is a problem. Surprisingly, they did not list anywhere that I could see that they were making it easier to get domestic violence charges dismissed.

What really interested me was this -- a very small-print comment on the top of the page. "Officially Associated with Focus on the Family as a Family Policy Council in Ohio."

You all know Focus on the Family -- that's Dr. James Dobson's group, which is hugely interested in family issues.

Dr. Dobson has written numerous books on how to raise children. I would expect he's truly interested in their well-being.

Dr. Dobson, do you really think it's a good idea that unmarried persons now have no protection under domestic violence statutes? How about the children of these unmarried persons, who are either victims of or witnesses to violence?

So, I visited Dr. Dobson's website. I typed the word "domestic" into a search engine, and the first thing that popped up was an article entitled "The Truth About Domestic Violence in Marital Versus Cohabitational Relationships."

The first paragraph begins, "Domestic violence is a rampant problem and plage in our nation today." Well, I agree with that. The writer is concerned with a perception that marriage is a dangerous place as a result of the prevalance of domestic violence. In fact, the article says, "With the use of the term domestic violence, the connotation of spousal abuse or "wife beating" is quick to follow. However, after considering the following you may actually find that “girlfriend beating” is a more appropriate term."

I'm going to dissect those two sentences. Hang with me.

"With the use of the term domestic violence, the connotation of spousal abuse or 'wife beating' is quick to follow." -- Here, the author suggests that there is a definition in place of domestic violence which indicates that it only occurs between married persons.

" However," -- term commonly used to indicate a viewpoint contra to what has just been expressed.

"after considering the following you may actually find that “girlfriend beating” is a more appropriate term." -- and, ergo, that girlfriends can be subject to domestic violence, as well.

The article then goes on to indicate how safe marriage is. Apparently, of all violent crime committed against women by intmate partners, 65% occurs by a "boyfriend or ex-husband," while only 9% is committed by husbands. Ergo, marriage is safe.

(Wait. Didn't they say 65% was boyfriend OR ex-husband. Ex-husband -- term commonly used to denote a person one has been married to in the past. So, apparently, you can't be not married and you can't be divorced, either.)

The author then indicates that those who cohabit are far more likely to find themseles in a violent relationship. Among other reasons, there is a lack of support, and, the question is asked, "Where is a woman to turn when her cohabitational relationship becomes abusive?"

Not, apparently, to the domestic violence law.

Dr. Dobson's organization apparently believes that people who are not married are at the greatest risk of domestic violence. And an organization affiliated with Dr. Dobson's apparently believes that those at the greatest risk should have the least protection.

Focus on the Family should immediately disassociate itself with the Coalition for Community Values -- just as they would not associate with anyone who thinks making life easier for batterers is a good thing.

Michael Meditates on Mediate of the Masters

2006-04-09T21:57:00.000-04:00

The next time you have a tough day at the office, I want you to just repeat, over and over, two words: Rocco Mediate.

Now, I've never heard of the fellow before in my life. But, apparently, he came into the final round of the Masters today one shot off the lead. And he was achieving some success -- and being followed earnestly by CBS -- until he hit the twelfth hole.

The twelfth hole is a par three, with a pond in front of the green. Rocco's first shot goes into the pond.

This is an occupational hazard of golf -- it's actually called a water hazard, come to think of it -- so Rocco stepped dutifully into the little circle of chalk so helpfully placed there as the "drop area" for those who have sunk one into the pond. You then hit from there, but add a penalty stroke.

The goal is to hit it onto the green and (one hopes) into the hole, but Rocco, for a second time, managed instead to submerge his ball in the water.

Now already two over par for the hole, Rocco decided to attack. He hit that ball HARD, and it went sailing right over the pond...and the green....and into the bunker.

This brings us to poor Rocco's fourth shot, which would have been counted as his sixth. It appears that Rocco managed to get out of the sand trap -- only to find himself back in the water.
I say "it appears" because CBS decided at that point to cut away from Rocco Mediate's Marathon Par Three out of pity (or an acknowledgment of the fact the guy was now several strokes over par for the match and had moved from might-be to has-been and finally on to definitely-never-will-be.) In fact, other than noticing that Rocco finally escaped Hole Twelve with a ten (!), they never so much as mentioned his name on the broadcast again.

So, the next time your boss comes up with some new innovation to keep you miserable, your copy machine shuts down, or your coworker can't stop blabbing on, just meditate on Mediate.

And Rocco, I don't know what became of you. I don't know if your clubs ended up in the same pond that so many of your golf balls did, but wherever you are now, good buddy, I hope you're surrounded by lots and lots and lots of empty beer bottles.

Greetings From Northwest Ohio, Where We Are Desperate For Summer. Apparently, Very Desperate

2006-04-08T16:25:00.000-04:00

So.

It's, like, 47 degrees out today.

This is the last cold day we'll have for some time; tomorrow it hits 58, and then we're into the seventies in the early part of next week.

Now, for those of you out in California, this may sound like some sort of deep freeze, but for those of us who have survived yet another Ohio winter (although admittedly mild; it was usually only in the thirties), this is good news. I am quite excited about the return of warmer weather.

So are some other people, it seems. I was getting hungry and didn't have anything in his condo that sounded like a good lunch, so I decided that, since I had to run downtown to get my mail anyway, I'd stop at the dairy queen for a sandwich (actually, two. I was hungry.)

Now, you've been to a place like this, even if you've never been to Port Clinton. It opens in mid-March and closes around Halloween. It serves ice cream and ice cream based products, and if you really want it, you can get frozen yogurt, although they'll look at you a little funny when they order it. (So will I. It doesn't taste like ice cream and I'm glad that, after being all the rage in the late eighties, it's basically dropped off the map.)

In addition, they serve any number of "real food" entries, ranging from the moderately inoffensive to your system shredded chicken to something called pizza steak, which I have never had the temerity to order (or, for that matter, ask what it was.)

Anyway, I figured I would just pull up, order my shredded chicken sandwich and my barbeque beef sandwich and be off and gone.

Imagine my surprise to find a line at the dairy queen.

This is not a day for queuing, let me assure you. It's cold and it's windy and we're by the lake. Not a pleasant experience.

And here was the thing of it: These people were actually ordering ice cream. Two or three. One woman came up, shivering, wrapped in a shawl an carried two or three off. Another van pulled up as I was leaving, full of people who are apparently so starved for ice cream, they didn't notice it was 47 FREAKING DEGREES OUTSIDE.

Warm weather is coming tomorrow. Not, apparently, a moment too soon.

O, ODOT

2006-04-07T08:25:00.000-04:00

If you live in or around Toledo, you no doubt have heard that the junction of 475 and US 23 has been closed. If you do not live in Toledo, you will understand this is a major way to get north to Michigan, south into Ohio. In addition, the implications are big on I-475, which is your blogger's preferred method of choice for getting to places like Toledo's predominant mall (Franklin Park -- er, Westfield Shopping Towne), Toledo's predominant restaurant (the Beirut), and Toledo's best grocery store (Bassett's Market. What were you expecting?)

But this situation will only last for six months. (Ack!)

Anyway, our friends at the Ohio Department of Transportation have suggested a detour route. The Blade (one of America's great newspapers, according to The Blade) sent three people out to drive ODOT's route, as well as two other routes. The trip they usually took takes twenty minutes.

Driver A took one route. It took 21 minutes.

Driver B took a second route. It took 20 minutes.

Driver C took ODOT's suggested route. It took 24 minutes.

God bless ODOT, where they never let common sense darken their door.

(Incidentally, I found myself in the heart of the affected area last night and took what looked to be Driver A's route - getting off 75 at Monroe Street by the museum, and then just sticking on Monroe Street. Yes, there were more stoplights, but I got where I was going with a minimum of fuss.)

Well.

2006-04-06T15:27:00.000-04:00

Libby: Bush Himself Authorized Leak on Iraq

hehehehehehehehehehehehehe

I Know It's Far Too Cliched To Title This Entry Anything Having To Do With

2006-04-03T08:03:00.000-04:00

"the unfriendly skies," but that, apparently, is how we see it.

Complaints about airline service are up, according to a new survey out today. People's luggage is getting lost and flights aren't leaving on time.

Michael's own anecdotal evidence would suggest, as well, that things are getting worse. Northwest is now selling, for $15, extra legroom in coach. ("For that little taste of first class you can't afford?") Please. And some airlines are now making you PAY for airline food. And pay through the nose. (To their credit, the food options I heard on one flight at least sounded decent...although not $7.00 decent, which is what they were asking...)

I found this tidbit interesting and, also, indicative that we are expecting less from our airlines. The "worst" airline for on-time departures, Alaska Air, had a 69% on-time departure rate. The best, which was something like AirWest or some other regional carrier in the west, had an 82% on-time departure rate.

What that means is that, if you fly the absolute best airline for on-time departures, you're still going to have a delayed flight one time out of five.

Now, admittedly, some flights just need to be delayed. When the hydraulics aren't working or you aren't quite sure why the check engine light is on, that would tend to unnerve a person. And there's also the very-reassuring "your pilot needs more training on this aircraft...OK, he's had his ten minutes. Git on board!"

But there are two interesting factors. One of them was mentioned in a TV report on this survey this morning, which is that people have come to expect less and so aren't complaining about some of the really egregious things. What a beautiful, cynical ploy by the airlines: Make us expect less and we'll complain less. (Yes, I realize the survey says complaints are up; but it seems that our standards have gone down.)

Here's the other, which is pointed out in the article linked above. While customer levels have returned to pre-9/11 numbers, there are 200,000 fewer employees out there to serve them.

This is bad. This is also not something we should allow the airlines to get away with. Because if we don't miss those 200,000 people, heavens knows they won't.

By The Dawn's Early (and Evening) Light

2006-04-02T21:19:00.000-04:00

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. I don't particularly care for Daylight Saving Time.

Now, by July, I'll be acclamated and glad to have a little more time in the evenings to be outside, although that may be less true this year. You see, the condo where I have moved into has no outside porch for me, although there is a pool. Getting my quotient of being outside will require a little more ingenuity this year.

But, back to DST and why I'm not wild about it. There's something that's just, well, WRONG about taking the darkness out of the evening. I mean, it's supposed to be DARK at night, and LIGHT in the daytime.

This also goes semi hand in hand with my recent pet peeve of me waking up to find it's already light outside.

I truly do not hate the sunshine (although I know it sounds like it from this post), but there is something wonderful about waking up at 6:15 and the sky slowly getting lighter as you wake up. Instead, these days, if you wake up at seven these days, you feel like the sun's been up for hours and you're the last one in bed.

In the end, Daylight Saving Time probably works out okay. It does stay lighter later.

But until I get used to it, I feel entitled to grumble.

(And, btw, there will be NO grumbling when we flip back to Standard Time. For some reason, that never bothers me.)

Move over, Match.com...prepare to be eviscerated, eHarmony

2006-04-01T16:29:00.000-05:00

Google has entered the online dating business!

No longer will the search site be ONLY a place to go to snoop on prospective sweeties, they now have started Google Romance, which, I am sure, will be as much of a hit as anything else they have done.

Make sure you take their tour.

And, you will almost assuredly be confused by SOMETHING and want to report something as offensive. See that you do.

Should You Just Have $22.00 Burning A Hole In Your Pocket...

2006-03-30T19:21:00.000-05:00

...thanks to GG, here is a way to get rid of it.

Now, truly. Is this necessary? I mean, one of the many, many reasons I love my iPod is that it fits conveniently into the pocket of whatever pants I am wearing. I do not feel the need, nor the desire, to clasp this technological marvel to my groin, however. I can walk through an airport, take a speedwalk around my condo complex, or go wherever I want, and the iPod is already portable enough and carryable enough.

Good grief...

I Can't Remember If I've Told You This One...

2006-03-28T22:04:00.000-05:00

One of the problems of having a blog with 365 entries is that you sort of forget what you've said to your readers and what you haven't. I don't know if I've told you the story below, but, even if I have, it's worth your read again. Plus, I'm not the one telling it.

It's written by my Uncle Tom. He sends it out every March 28.

After five years of teaching university, I moved to Ohio and the only job I could find was selling shampoo. I was given one hundred beauty salons spread over a dozen towns and told to visit them every two weeks.

One day, I noticed a client going through her very large appointment book, crossing off a week here and a week there.

I said, "Jody, what are you doing?"

Jody said, "Oh this? I figured out that I make enough money to pay my bills and take a vacation every six to eight weeks. So I am crossing out the weeks I won’t be here so my clients know when they need to book with me."

Of course as a former university professor, I pointed out to her why she shouldn't do that. I proceeded to explain how it made her less productive, most people don't take that many vacations, and the effect it had on her return on investment etc.

That’s when it happened. That’s when she gave me that one simple piece of philosophy that I still struggle to live by.

Jody said, "Wait a minute. You don't understand.

I don't live to work.

I work so that I can live!"

I hope you remember the words of that very wise client I married a couple of years later:

"I don't live to work. I work so that I can live."

Jody Stoyan 1958 -- March 28, 1998

I Can't Quite Get Over This One

2006-03-25T08:34:00.000-05:00

Bassett here. Been down the past few days with a weird fluish-coldish sort of combination; so have found myself a little listless and more inclined to watch TV than normal.

Last night, found myself watching a documentary about the Titanic on the History Channel (and remarking again that it's a channel I should watch more often.) They were talking about the evacuation and how badly it was carried out, with hundreds of seats on the lifeboats going unfilled. On one side of the boat, they enforced the rule of "women and children first." On the other side of the boat, while they announced it as "women and children first," if there were no women and children in sight at that moment, they'd let men on.

One of the comments made, I find equal parts telling, disturbing and grossly comical. It went something like this:

"The morals of the time were such that a man might take a seat that should have gone to a woman or a child, but he would feel very bad about having done it."

Well, doesn't that make everything better?

Move Along, Nothing to See Here (other than a police department failing to get domestic violence...again...)

2006-03-22T09:58:00.000-05:00

A fellow by the name of Oscar Rabadan of Wheeling, Illinois, had visitation with his kids (a 14-year-old and a 9-year-old) over the weekend. He was to bring them back at 8:00 PM.

At 10:30, their mother, Adriana De Leon, called the police.

Now, Oscar and Adriana are apparently on the outs. There appears to be an order of protection against Rabadan which specifically prohibits him from concealing the children.

Now, protection orders are issued by judges.

Who interpret the law.

And create a set of expectations about what people can and can't do.

And, apparently, this judge specifically prohibited Oscar here from concealing the children.

Now, we're out of court, and Oscar's violated that set of expectations, so, of course, we should turn to the police.

Which, in this case, is the Gurnee, Illinois Police Department.

And they have indicated they aren't issuing an Amber Alert because the case does not indicate "a direct threat to the safety of the children."

And, y'know, he's probably right. I mean, it's the kids' dad. He's just got them at his apartment, they're just staying a few extra days.

Oh, wait. The police were told he cleaned out his belongings in Wheeling, and may be headed to San Antonio, Texas, or the surrounding area.

"Surrounding area?" Could that mean, like, Mexico?

Yeah, no direct threat here.

Other than the fact that these kids may never see their mother again.

BTW, this article from the News-Sun Online is fascinating in its description of the things said by Police Commander Jay Patrick.

First, he makes the aforementioned comment about not issuing an Amber Alert due because "there is not a direct threat to the safety of the children."

Then he says that Oscar has filed court papers in an attempt to gain custody, and a hearing is scheduled later this month.

He then said there was an active order of protection against Oscar.

And then he mentions that the guy cleaned out his apartment and may be headed for points south.

Jay? Jay? Are you listening to yourself and what you're saying? Because I am.

I like that you first pointed out that Oscar filed for custody. Jay, a lot of people can file a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to them. For instance, just to pick something at random, the kids' mother could file a complaint against you for not getting domestic violence and assuming that the fact custody has been filed for means that his taking them isn't a bad thing. She probably wouldn't be entitled to get anything, but she could file for it.

So, just based on her complaint, we should fire you? And just because Oscar filed for custody (the way he would take custody of them legally,) we should turn our heads when he can't be troubled with laws and rules and hearings and just takes them illegally?

What you're really saying, Jay, is that this is just a nasty divorce and they're fighting over custody and possession is nine-tenths of the law. Right? I mean, we can level with each other here. That's what you MEANT to say, right?

And these kids don't deserve their mother. I mean, the parents are fighting, so clearly, it's a screwed up family, and they're just going to end up screwed up, so, why trouble yourself, right?
(Of course, maybe these kids will end up screwed up from not having a mom, but let's not trouble ourselves with that little detail, OK? I mean, these are facts, and we wouldn't want to get into those in domestic relations.)

Oh, and the fact you ACKNOWLEDGE there is a protection order (which, where I come from, only gets handed down when someone does something bad), might give some people all they need to know to think there might be a direct threat to the kids.

But, not you.

And, sadly, many other law enforcement officials across the country are the same way. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard, "Oh, it's just a messy divorce" as a reason for law enforcement not stepping in, I could be on easy street for the rest of my life.

It's just a messy divorce, so, parents don't really deserve protection, do they?

How about kids? Nah.

It's just the law. It's not like we want the police to, y'know, enforce it or anything.

Attention, Eve: Here's A Character for Your Barzam Novel

2006-03-19T07:07:00.000-05:00

WARNING: If you took the bar exam recently, this story may cause your head to explode.

Last night, I had dinner with a friend from law school who was in town. Through the course of it, she mentioned she had talked to a classmate of ours and he sent his regards. This fellow had not been with us for our third year in law school, because he was like a "visiting student" at some school in Maryland, pursuing becoming a sports agent. So, I asked what he was doing, and was told he was working for the Cleveland Cavaliers.

So, I said I assumed he hadn't taken the bar. My friend (who has also taken and passed a bar exam), said, "Wait 'till you hear this story."

Seems he was registered for the Maryland bar and started taking BarBri when he got his job offer, two weeks into BarBri. He decided to go work for the Cavs.

Three days before the barzam, his boss said, "Here's a plane ticket to Maryland. You're signed up, you may as well go see how you do."

"Don't tell me he passed."

My friend put her hand up. "Just wait," she said.

"He went to Maryland. Got SMASHED the night before the bar exam. Took the first day.

"Got SMASHED that night. Took the second day."

I'm thinking, what an idiot, to have a free shot at the bar and get smashed.

"And he passed."

Yeah. He owes everyone who took the bar one summer.

Or at least, reeeeally good Cavs tickets.

I Wonder Every St. Patrick's Day

2006-03-17T20:55:00.000-05:00

why the poor Prime Minister of Ireland always finds himself at the White House on March 17.

Seriously. Every St. Patrick's Day, the President, be it Bush or Clinton or Bush (or, in a few years, maybe, Clinton?) hosts the Prime Minister of Ireland, and talks about how many Irish-Americans there are in the United States, and how his great-grandfather's uncle's college roommate was Irish.

And I'm thinking the poor Irish PM is standing there through this photo op, thinking, "Ach, Seamus, here ye are, the Prime Minister of Ireland and here I am with some Texas cowboy who won't even have a damn green beer with me today."

Seriously. It's St. Patrick's Day. He should be in, y'know, Ireland. I mean, we don't send W over to Ireland for the Fourth of July, do we?

Sick of Hearing Me Talk About the Plight of Battered Women & Custody?

2006-03-16T22:31:00.001-05:00

Fine. I'll be quiet for a bit, and instead let you read an article by the Suburban Chicago Newspapers on three women who are fighting the good fight: Annette Zender, Carroll White and Kirsten Tippett.

I met Annette at the Battered Mothers' Custody Conference in Albany in January. All three of these ladies have found themselves in horrible circumstances. And rather than giving up, they're trying to make sure that others don't find themselves similarly situated. This makes some judges and attorneys rather uncomfortable, but that's OK. It should be called embarassment at the situations they've created.

OK, I'll shut up before I start preaching. More.

Sick of Hearing Me Talk About the Plight of Battered Women & Custody?

2006-03-16T22:31:00.000-05:00

Now Exiting The State of Logic. Return In Doubt.

2006-03-14T09:28:00.000-05:00

Wow.

Just, wow.

Here's a leap in logic for you. Because women have a choice in whether or not to give birth to a child, the man should have a choice in whether or not to pay child support.

A lawsuit is being filed in Detroit, apparently, on behalf of the men's rights movement, making this argument. They're calling it "Roe v. Wade for men."

I'd call it "Responsibility vs. Financial Evasion for men."

Apparently, Mr. Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer technician from Saginaw, would like the Michigan child support law declared unconstitutional.

Dubay told her he didn't want to be a father. He claims the woman he was dating assured him she couldn't get pregnant, due to contraceptives she was taking and other physical issues.

There is now incontrovertible evidence that this was inaccurate, and Mr. Dubay now finds himself ordered to support his eight-month-old daughter.

"It's just not fair," he tells the Detroit News. "She has options in this. As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices. I was up front. I was clear that I didn't want to be a father and she reassured me that she was incapable of getting pregnant."

OK, Matt? Matt? Let's just take your story that she said she was on contraceptives and physically unable to get pregnant.

First of all, in the words of jury instructions read in courtrooms everyday, "All human activity involves some risk." And the activity which you engaged in which has gotten us to this point in time is no exception. Contraceptives occasionally fail. The human body repairs itself. People are inaccurate about the medications they are taking or their state.

The good news is, there are things you can do to reduce your risk, which (while the Detroit News did not, thankfully, go into specifics) it appears you may not have done. So, if everything you say is true about what your girlfriend told you, you still might have been able to reduce the amount of risk. So, simply stating that "As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices" is a gross oversimplification. As a man, you had options to understand the nature of the risks and not assume that her word was the be-all, end-all. You made a choice not to. You are forced to live with choices both of you made.

And, by the way, if your logic prevails, your child will be forced to live by the choice you are making not to support her. So, if we assume that the mother was a lying, conniving person, and as a result, you get a pass at support, the child (who did not choose either of you) will suffer.

So, really, Matt, the only one who does not have options and never has had options is the child you would like to get out of supporting.

(PS: The mother is raising the child, so it's not like she's exactly getting off with no responsibility.)

All right, let's leave Mr. Dubay's case alone for a moment and just think about what the consequences it would have if we adopted his position.

This should not take long, but let's spell it out. Essentially, you would be telling women that a man could threaten them that, if they chose to give birth to a child, they would be left to raise them completely on their own.

And most everyone agrees that, as a matter of policy, we would prefer women to give birth. As Bill Clinton said, "Abortions should be safe, legal and rare." You make them rare by creating an environment where a few things happen:

(1) Fewer unplanned pregnancies. That means you educate people on how to reduce the risk of the risky activity described above. (It doesn't mean you tell high school students to stop thinking about sex.)

(2) You ensure a system of adoption that will make a woman feel that, if she wishes to carry a child to term but give it up for adoption, the child will be raised in a nuturing and appropriate environment.

(3) You ensure that the woman feels she can make a go of it for herself and her child, should she choose to carry it to term and keep the child.

What the Matt Dubays of the world are proposing manifestly does not help us get to #3. Rather, it's giving every guy the right to say, "You wanna have the kid, witch? Then you pay for it!"

Of course, this all may be academic in that, soon, women may not be able to make that choice.

PS: In writing this post, I have assumed that Mr. Dubay did not take certain protective measures. If I am wrong, and he did everything a "reasonably prudent person" should do, I apologize, although even when you do all of that, you may still find yourself in a situation where you receive a surprise nine months later. However, even if he's completely innocent (which I doubt), the precedent his case would set for non-innocents would be horrible.

Tuesday Takes

2006-03-14T08:31:00.000-05:00

I watched Keith Olbermann the other night on CSPAN's Q & A. He made the comment that the difference between, say, a weekly column and a blog is that you only have to blog when you have something to say. A good guideline; hence, why occasionally I disappear off the map for a while.

***

I will say, the past few days have been pretty damn pleasant. We got up to the mid-sixties here in Ohio (don't worry, we're back into the mid-40's today); and I spent a good part of my weekend relaxing and reading. Lest you think I'm letting my brain turn entirely to mush, I'm reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which weighs in at well over a thousand pages. I started it last week and am around page 230. It's written very well.

Apparently, I'm in the midst of a World War II kick. The book I read before this was a collection of Eleanor Roosevelt's columns; next will be a book of Franklin Roosevelt's speeches. Just the way the books were stacked...

***

Having the windows open and being able to spend a little time outside did wonders for my soul, I'm happy to report.

On the other hand, I do have a problem. The condo where I'm living has no outside porch. There's a "porch," by which I mean there's sliding glass doors and you can open the windows and let the air in, but you still have a roof over your head. In additions, the places in the immediate vicinity to sit outside are relatively few, at least until the swimming pool opens.

And, on the subject of the swimming pool: I hope someone can tell me there is an officially-sanctioned way to close your pool for the winter while leaving water in it which becomes quite dark and frightening, because that's what they do at the condo. I at least hope they drain the damn thing before it's open for business.

***

I also continue to work at unpacking enough stuff in my guest room, which will eventually become my home office, that the door to it is no longer permanently closed. I was surprised by how it changed, to some degree, the character of the whole condo.

***

I mentioned a moment ago I hadn't had anything to say in a while but, after this rather inane update, I'll be preparing a post about something I have a lot to say about. How much I can put on a family blog is debatable, but, anywho...

***

EDIT: Good God, people. I posted this, and two minutes later, it's SNOWING. SNOWING, for Pete's sake. Not 18 hours ago, I was sitting outside sunning myself.

Ah, the joys of being in Ohio.

Don't Make The NCAA Mad

2006-03-10T22:00:00.000-05:00

Disclaimer: The author should note he is wearing an Ohio State national championship (football) t-shirt. That said, I'm at best a casual fan of OSU basketball, which has fallen into disrepute recently because of blatant NCAA violations.

OK, so, the NCAA has slammed Jim O'Brien, Ohio State's former basketball head coach, and Ohio State. They've ordered the school to remove any mention of their trip to the 1999 Final Four, because they were playing with an ineligible player. And so they'll change a penant currently hanging in their arena mentioning they made that trip.

But, here's the quote from SI's article on the subject that got me: "[R]ecord books will be blotted out to eradicate pictures and statistics for the four tournament teams that included an ineligible player..."

Blotting out pictures? Didn't we get over that with, like, Stalin standing on Lenin's Tomb?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, draconian, thy name is NCAA.

Now Taking Bets: How Long Will This One Last?

2006-03-07T08:08:00.000-05:00

The Ohio State Bar Association publishes a report every Monday. of notable cases from the Ohio Supeme Court and the appellate courts around the state. These are sorted by topic. This week, while looking through the report, I noticed that the Supreme Court had reinstated a fellow by the name of James King to the practice of law.

Just on a lark, I was interested to see what Mr. King had done to get suspended, and how he got back in the good graces of the Supreme Court again.

Well, the case header said that King was disbarred for "dishonesty, deceit, or misrpresentation," not to mention a "false statement to client regarding status of case." Fair enough.

Then I read a little further. It turns out this is not Mr. King's first resurrection from being suspended; he was suspended in 1990 for "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." This happened after King was convicted, in federal court, for filing false income tax returns. In 1991, King was restated.

But he had another chance to argue before the Supreme Court. In 1996, he was suspended for six months for "neglecting an entrusted legal matter." This was his last disciplinary infraction until 2004.

Now, here's my question. We've got one "neglecting entrusted legal matter." We've got two "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentations."

At what point, precisely, do we say, "Jim, y'know, maybe you should take up some other profession?"

He's already had his three strikes, hasn't he?

If A Duck Is Your Control Group, Don't Be Surprised When It Tests High For Being A Duck (And Please Don't Call It A Psychopath)

2006-03-05T09:05:00.000-05:00

About a week and a half ago, a friend sent me an article about the use of the MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) in custody evaluations involving battered mothers. It's an article from the Spring, 2005 edition of the ABA Family Law Quarterly, entitled "Use of the MMPI-2 in Child Custody Evaluations Involving Battered Women: What Does Psychological Research Tell Us?" (39 Fam L.Q. 87) by Nancy Erickson.

I suppose we should start with defining our terms.

The MMPI-2 (hereafter, just "the MMPI"), has been around since 1942. It was first developed to assist in weeding out people in the military with psychological problems. It was updated in 1989, and tests the person who takes it on ten "scales," for such maladies as depression, hypochondria, psychopathic traits, paranoia and schizophrenia.

When they score your questions, they see how you scored on each "scale." They refer to this as the "T-scale." If you score above a 65 (sometimes 70), it's considered clinically significant.

Once they have this all together, they determine the participant's three highest scores. So, if you had scored highest on scale 2 (depression), second-highest on scale 4 (psychopathic deviate) and third highest on scale 9 (hypomania), you would get a score of 249.

The psychologist or psychiatrist administering the test then uses the score to reach a conclusion about the person's psychiatric makeup. At least, that's how it's supposed to happen. At the Battered Mothers' Custody Conference I attended in January, we heard that there are computer services to evaluate scores and spit out responses. (congratulations! My Dell Inspiron says you're crazy!)

Now, how does this relate to battered mothers? Well, they evaluated thirteen studies that evaluated the three-number score that women who took this test and had been victims of domestic violence got. In six of the thirteen, there was a code with a three-point combination of 4, 6 and 8, also known as "psychopathic deviate," "paranoia," and "schizophrenia." Schizophrenia, by the way, is defined as "confusion in thought processes; feelings of being overwhelmed."

Let's take the last two first. OK, paranoia. You're just coming out of a relationship where a person you loved and trusted with your most intimate thoughts, fears, dreams and hopes has not only decided he doesn't love you, but in fact will make you a target for all types of abuses. And you present with trust issues? You don't say!

Schizophrenia, also known as confusion in thought processes. You're in the midst of a custody battle, you don't know what's going on, someone's trying to pull the rug out from under you, you probably are working very hard to make ends meet (and only occasionally succeeding), and your thought processes are confused? How is that possible?

But let's go back to the "4" scale, psychopathic deviate. Now, the description given is that it implies "anger," which one might assume someone who's been the survivor of domestic violence would have a good deal of. But, let's be clear, a disguising of "psychopathic deviate" is not something that you want to hang on your wall. The typical high scale-4 person is, basically, the description a batterer would give of his victim, showing, among other things, "impulsiveness, poor interpersonal judgment, unpredictability, social alienation, and a reduced sense of responsibility and morals." Also, these folks have trouble adjusting to marriage and work, and sacrifice long-term goals for short-term desires. (One could argue this last one is a tradeoff a battered woman must make all the time, trying to survive to the next day and not being able to plan for ten years down the road.)

Clearly, you would not want such a person getting custody of a child, would you? This is a monster. I mean, when they crafted this test, they must have talked to the worst, the lowest of the low. We're talking Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy, Manson, right?

Wrong. First of all, they specifically excluded anyone from the group who had committed capital offenses. Per Nancy Rhodes in Comparison of MMPI Psychopathic Deviate Scores of Battered and Nonbattered Women, 7 J. FAM. VIOLENCE 297 (1992), "The group they used was a group that was "predominantly female," who had been placed in a psychiatric setting by the courts for "stealing, lying, truancy, sexual promiscuity, alcohol abuse and forgery."

This is of some note. You see, "Behavioral indicators of sexual abuse include running away from home, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, truancy and shoplifting. Such antisocial behaviors are also associated with physical abuse and neglect."

Uh-oh.

So, what we're saying here is that we based the psychopathic scale on women who have exhibited certain problems. And these problems are, very frequently, symptoms of abuse in an earlier time. We've taken the personality traits they exhibit, and we've distilled them into a test.

Then, we give them to a woman who has just been abused.

And, surprise! She scores high!

Let's put this in terms of the psychiatrist testing. "Your Honor, this woman who claims she was abused was tested on a scale developed by looking at women who have done things which are frequently traits of being abused. She scored high. Ergo, she's a psychopath. Let's give her children to the man she claims abused her, because, clearly, she's making up the abuse."

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH! *bangs his head on table*

OK, but, let's just (for the heck of it), go with the argument that scale 4 is valid, and a person who scores high for scale 4 behaviors will show those behaviors and shouldn't be around kids. What happens to the scores of someone who has recently been abused after the abuse ends?

Guess what. It goes back down.

(Someone might suggest that, if we want to discourage the behaviors in scale 4 we don't like, we could end the abuse for women, instead of taking their children away, but that would, of course, be way too simple.)

(BTW, the article also discusses -- and debunks -- much thought there was a predisposition to being a battered woman. If you have normal scores, and you go into a battering relationship, you may very well come out with high scale 4 scores.)

Now, one last thing. When servicemen used to come back from the war with flashbacks and bad psychological "baggage" from the war, the term used was "shell-shock." It has since been called "post traumatic stress disorder."

And, not surprisingly, if you are a survivor of domestic violence, you frequently will suffer from PTSD.

Except, a more severe form than people who are in combat.

But the MMPI doesn't HAVE a scale for PTSD; rather, they created a "supplemental scale," which just uses the answers to the current questions, instead of specifically asking questions directed at finding out whether the testee has PTSD. As I understand the problem with this, it's like this. Let's say we need to know whether a person likes sweet foods or foods that are not so sweet. We ask the question: "Would you like broccoli or chocolate ice cream?" If they say chocolate ice cream, it means they like sweet foods.

Now, let's say we want to know, additionally, whether the person likes sugary beverages or more natural offerings. Adding a scale for this would involve adding questions such as, "Would you like Coca Cola or milk?" Adding a supplemental scale for this would involve asking the broccoli-or-ice-cream question, and using THAT answer to determine whether or not they want sugary beverages. (And if you think that works, just check to see how many people have a Coke classic with chocolate ice cream.)

So, we aren't testing for PTSD. Wonderful. But, at least the abuse survivor feels safe because it's over when she's being evaluated for custody, right?

Wrong. In a custody dispute, according to Erickson, "The victim must see the batterer in court. Additionally, she usually has contact with him when visitation starts and ends, and sometimes she must even have some contact between visitations in order to make visitation arrangements and communicate with regard to the children. These constant reminders of the trauma of the abuse may delay her healing process and may extend her PTSD symptoms. Those symptoms, in turn, may cause a forensic evaluator to view her as a poor candidate for custody."

Ya don't say.

As Erickson concludes, the whole issue "raises the question of whether custody evaluations should be carried out with abused women in transition, because their acute state of psychological distress may influence an accurate evaluation of their capacity to parent."

Failing that, we could stop using a scale developed with a large number of abuse victims as the control group and be surprised when others who have been abused display the same traits.

Or, at the very least, we could stop labeling them psychopaths. That's not too much to ask.

Is it?

To See Some Good Ol' Civil Obedience,

2006-03-05T07:32:00.000-05:00

click here.

It's a short film by some college students entitled "A Meditation on the Speed Limit." Find out what happens when everyone goes the speed limit on the Atlanta superhighway.

Hilarious. :)

Watch Me Take The Bar (ver. 2.1)

2006-03-04T12:35:00.000-05:00

You may notice a few changes on the blog. As you can tell, it's not a redesign; just an upgrade. To wit:

The "About Me" section now takes you to a more descriptive post about me, which even includes a picture (for those of you wondering what I look like.) This has the added bonus of nixing the link to my podcast site that was never used...
I've added a link to all my posts on domestic violence-related issues, as well as some links and resources. (If you can think of any others, please feel free to let me know!)
I fixed the link to Lindsionary. (Yeh, I know, it's been a few months, but I just hate getting in and monkeying with the template.)
Changed the description. Got rid of the surplus comma that always bothered me (but not enough to get in and monkey with the template.)

Enjoy your stay!

If You Are Reading This, You May Already Be In Danger of Being Suspended!

2006-03-02T22:49:00.000-05:00

This is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous stories I have ever read.

A student in Costa Mesa, California, got on the popular teen website Myspace and created a group, the name of which was, "I hate [name of the girl.]" He invited some friends to join this group. He had a folder, within which was posted, "Who here in [this group] wants to take a shotgun and blast her in the head over a thousand times?"

Now, this is clearly disturbing and something that needs to be dealt with. The school district is attempting to expel him.

But here's the thing: The students who looked at the group -- didn't actively participate, simply LOOKED at the group -- were suspended.

Come on.

This is thought police stuff, folks. I'm all about preventing bullying and that sort of thing, but all these students did was click on a website. At home. On their own time.

Abandon all thoughts of the constitution, ye who enter the TeWinkle Middle School.

Good grief.

The People Have Spoken...

2006-03-02T07:18:00.000-05:00

Leave it to the Onion to make me laugh...

(thanks to Janet for the link.)

OK, Now We've Got Ricky Martin Singing

2006-02-26T22:32:00.000-05:00

That means I'll be having nightmares tonight.

anyone else think

2006-02-26T22:25:00.000-05:00

...this closing ceremony will create nightmares for half of the populace?

I mean, we've had

clowns who marched straight out of a John Wayne Gacy painting;
folks who apparently broke into the Star Wars set for some costumes;
and what one poster on a discussion forum I was on tonight described as "The Wandering Brides of Italy."

Perhaps a little too much vino, eh?

Olympics Wrapup: Michael's Short Takes

2006-02-26T19:28:00.000-05:00

Joey Cheek = class

Shani Davis + Chad Hedrick = both, rhyme with class. Seriously, it got old.

Apolo Anton Ohno = glad he got a gold, for Laura's sake, anyway

Yoko Ono = glad they didn't let her sing, for everyone's sake

Bode Miller = well, he said he liked to ski drunk, didn't he?

Last night of the Ladies' Skating Competition = ok, what did they do with the Olympic athletes? The GOOD ones?

Clara Hughes winning gold, Cindy Klassen winning silver = awesome

MSNBC posting Olympics results on their main page = NOT COOL

Memo to Professor Harris

2006-02-25T18:57:00.000-05:00

Look, I enjoyed Crim Law and Crim Pro with you. But there was one thing you said on, I think, the last day of CrimLaw, that I have to disagree with.

You encouraged us to have all the philosophical discussions we could have on the law in law school because, when we graduated and were out in the real world, those just wouldn't happen.

I'm happy to report you were wrong.

There I was yesterday, having a philosophical discussion with a colleague about a case I'm working on and some thorny issues. These issues intrigue me and are things I've thought a lot about, and now I am living them out in practice.

And, I must say, the theoretical discussion is far more interesting when there's real life application to it.

Hmm, Steve, Perhaps It's Some of the Ills I Illuminated In My Last Post

2006-02-25T18:46:00.000-05:00

"Twenty-two astronauts were born in Ohio. What is it about your state that makes people want to flee the Earth?"
-- Stephen Colbert

Now, Here's A Legislative Proposal I Could Get Behind

2006-02-25T06:24:00.000-05:00

Greetings from Ohio.

We are losing jobs.

Young people move away in droves.

Corruption? Crikey, Richard Nixon is spinning in his grave at our incumbents.

But fear not: We've got people making sure that gay and lesbians can't adopt. I haven't felt this good since we said the sodomites couldn't marry. (And, since they can't marry, we all know this keeps them from having premarital sex. Have you heard how they do it? Ewww.)

In response to same, State Senator Bob Hogan has proposed (as a joke) my favorite piece of legislation this year: A bill banning registered Republicans from adopting children or serving as foster parents.

According to Hogan, of Youngstown, those raised by Republicans, while "significantly wealthier than their Democrat-raised counterparts," are "at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

Now, unfortunately, Republican Jon Husted, speaker of the House, says that the bill to keep gays from adopting shouldn't pass this year because he thinks we have more pressing issues to deal with.

I can't think of what.

(My favorite detail from the above article? As we are putting more restrictions on who may adopt, Ohio has 3,000 children on adoption waiting lists.)

I'm not sure that Hogan's proposal is so bad.

PS: Author's disclaimer: He was raised by a registered Republican and a registered Democrat. For a brief time, in early second grade, I considered myself a Republican because my dad was. If you don't believe that I cared in second grade, check with anyone who knew me then.

A Trip Down Memory Lane, Without (& With) Pictures

2006-02-23T06:41:00.000-05:00

A case I am working on right now required me to make two stops on memory lane yesterday.

The first was at R.C. Waters Elementary School, where I attended from Kindergarten to fifth grade. Lawyers, you have not lived until you have applied what you learned in law school in the building where you learned how to add and subtract. As I sat in the guidance counselor's office (which used to be the assistant principal's office), I remembered sitting in there in fifth grade because I had been accused of cheating. (And just in case anyone is wondering, NO, I wasn't...)

There were two changes in the school, and neither were for the better: One was that, when I pulled in, they have added a bus loop to the front of the school. I remember getting off the bus and walking up a sidewalk that was not long, but was still a bit of a hike. There wouldn't have been any safety reason to add that loop (other than to keep the kiddly-didlets from having to deal with the cold for an extra fifteen seconds.) (God, do I sound old. "When I was your age, I had to walk fifteen seconds in the snow to get to the school. We didn't have no freakin' bus loops.")

The other was the far more disturbing. When I was there...OK, if I'm going to sound this old, "In my day,"....you would walk in the front doors of the school (what used to be called the lobby), on the right was a picture of Ralph C. Waters, the man for whom R.C. Waters was named. He used to be superintendent of the Benton-Carroll-Salem School District, and was something of a local legend.

Now, this was not a picture that exactly drew your attention. It was one of those gray-background, 1960s affairs. R.C. looked like a typical 1960s principal: He had reddish-brownish hair, very light complexion, and little horn-rimmed glasses. I always pictured him having a hump in his back as well, but that was probably just my exaggeration.

And that was the sum total of my connection with the man for whom a building in which Ispent my first six years of education was named, but that was enough. I knew what the R stood for, and I knew what Ralph looked like. (Actually, his wife was still alive in 1992. My dad purchasd a 1963 Monte Carlo from her and parked it in our driveway. My mother told him that she hoped he liked it, beause if it stayed there very long, he'd be sleeping in it.)

Anyway, when I looked yesterday, the picture of R.C. Waters was gone.

I find this disturbing on a number of levels. First of all, it was the only way I knew who the building was named after. I don't know particularly what Ralph Waters did, but I knew he did something, and that was enough.

This is how I figure the students of R.C. Waters today are trying to determine the name of their school:

Timmy: Gee, I wonder how R.C. Waters got its name?
Tommy: My grandpa said it was named after Ralph C. Waters, who used to be superintendent of the school district.
Jonny: No, you idiot! [Slaps Tommy upside the head.] Royal Crown Cola bought the naming rights, and Muddy Waters played the opening, so it was named R.C. Waters.

But here's the other disturbing thing: Someone took that picture down. (There are new certificates or something hanging up there. I didn't even bother to see what they were.)

I don't know who. I don't know when. I don't know why. But at some point, some decisionmaker said, "You know what? Why's this old guy's picture hanging here? He only provides kids with a link to the past and lets them know why we aren't named the 'Oak Harbor Elementary School,' so, it's serving no useful purpose. Let's take it down and throw it in a storeroom."

Alas, poor Ralph, I knew his picture well. He deserved better.

(If anyone from RC Waters or BCS is reading this, I beg you, let's restore Ralph to his position of former glory.)

Later, I went to the Oak Harbor Junior High -- oops, now it's the Oak Harbor Middle School. (For some reason, educational types that go to the trouble of renaming their junior highs as middle schools get very perturbed when the rest of the world doesn't follow suit.) Now, things there were pretty much exactly as I remembered them. They've, however, had a picture added, of Mr. Daniel Kalo, who was principal when I was there.

Mr. Kalo was a little larger than life. He was a former (not ex) Marine, who served in Vietnam. When he shook your hand, you remembered it for a week. Screwing around had no place in his school. If kids didn't like him (and I did like him), they at least respected him.

So, Mr. Kalo's picture is a little larger than life, too. (This is as opposed to the picture of poor R.C. Waters, who, even before consigned to the dust heap of the Benton-Carroll-Salem School District, had a very small, square picture.) It dominates the wall, just like he dominated the junior hi -- dolgamit, middle school.

The sound of students changing classes sounds almost exactly the same, but they aren't dismissed with a bell now, they have "tones." (Which seemed a bit of a shame to me, really.)

But, for those of you OHJH -- er, -MS, -- alumni, the most important thing: Mrs. Weber is still there.

Mrs. Weber was the secretary when I was there. She still is. When I was there, it would have been an overstatement to say she ran the place, but she certainly knew what to do to make things happen. And she was also one of the zanier people I've ever met. The person you need as a junior high -- or, middle school -- secretary.

Just Something To Think About...

2006-02-22T05:57:00.000-05:00

Out in California, they were supposed to execute a fellow by the name of Michael Morales this week, but the execution didn't go forward.

It didn't go forward because of the concerns that maybe, after the first drug is injected into him, whihc is supposed to anesthetize you and is also administered in a quantity lethal enough to cause death all by itself, he might feel pain when we administered the second two drugs. Intense pain.

So, here's my question.

Did he offer anesthetic to his 17-year-old victim before he raped and murdered her in 1987?

Has the pain her family has been in since then anything less than intense?

And we're worried he's going to have TWO MINUTES worth of intense pain?

I can tell you, I wouldn't lose sleep at night over that.

All right, if we have to say goodbye to the "West Wing"...

2006-02-19T21:02:00.000-05:00

...at least it appears we're going to finally get Josh and Donna together. I've been pulling for that, at least.

Contentedly curled up in a warm condo in cold northwest Ohio, I remain, MRB, Esq.

My Own Brand of Urban Revitalization

2006-02-16T06:18:00.000-05:00

So, Tuesday was just a long day that wasn't much fun. I

started with a 7 AM meeting (!) of the safety committee for the school board I am on.
found myself doing a bunch of research I didn't expect to do.
found myself dealing with fires I didn't expect to deal with.
finished with an 8 PM meeting for the school board, getting home around 10.

Yesterday, while not as long or as intense, was just sort of a blah day most of the day. I got some stuff done that needed to be done and trudged through. I headed for Toledo for a meeting.

And something odd happened to me.

Toledo charged me up.

Now, this is odd because, well, Toledo isn't exactly Excitement City. Some claim it's impossible to get around in.

But, nonetheless, I spent three years living part-time there, and I love it. I know where everything is. I have things I'm used to. Like Barry's Bagels. (Got there, got a baked potato, got iced tea.) And Starbucks. (Didn't get there, unfortunately.)

I think part of it has to do with this change I went through between undergrad and law school. I realized, about midway through my college career, that American University wasn't exactly all it was cracked up to be. And I found that living in DC was difficult without a car, because you were always thirty minutes away from wherever you were going to.

When I got to Toledo, that wasn't the case. And I liked that.

Anyway, being back there charged me up a bit. Being in a meeting about how Democrats will take back the state in November charged me up a bit. And getting food from the Beirut -- that charged me up a bit.

And filled my fridge for the next few days, anyway. :)

Yoo Hoo, MSNBC

2006-02-12T18:35:00.000-05:00

Here's the deal.

YOU want me to watch NBC's coverage of the Olympic games this evening.

I want to watch NBC's coverage of the Olympic games this evening.

I want some suspense.

I don't want to know how Bode Miller or Apolo Anton Ohno fared today, but I do.

Please -- a simple link to Olympic results. SOMETHING.

Thanks!

I'm sorry...

2006-02-12T17:28:00.000-05:00

...but this is proof God has a bit of a sense of humor:

Cheney accidentally shoots hunting partner

Damn, I'm Good

2006-02-12T09:41:00.000-05:00

Actually, I'm just a heckuva nerd.

But I finally found the answer to a question that's been bothering me for some time, quadrennially.
I like orchestral TV theme music.

(And, in unison, the people all asked, "And WHY doesn't he have a girlfriend?")

"The Mission" from NBC News is awesome.

Both NBC and CNN's election night themes are terrific.

And so on. And so on.

But there was a piece that kept eluding me. It was something NBC used in their Olympic coverage. No, it wasn't that kettle drum thing they play at the opening (I've always found that kind of obnoxious myself.) Rather, it's the music they play in promoting what they'll show tomorrow and is meant to inspire the Olympic spirit and the thought of determination. It's usually layered over some promo like:

"Tomorrow night, we'll feature American figure skating champ Mary Sunshine. She's battled cancer, menengitis, irritable bowel syndrome, chicken pox and a plague of locusts, and is dedicating this performance to her piano teacher's mother's roommate's ex-husband, who died three years ago today. But can she beat Chinese figureskater Trisha Taikwando? Lots of people are rooting for her, none more than her father, who the Chinese authorities say they will execute if she does not bring home the gold."

Anyway, the music under this is very inspiring and sweet at the same time, and I've always liked it, and, much to my eternal chagrin, have never been able to figure out what it was.

It wasn't "Summon the Heroes."

It wasn't "Call of the Champions."

It wasn't anything by John Williams.

Now, I don't know if you've ever searched for a piece of instrumental music on the Internet, but this is no mean feat. Whereas when you hear music on the radio, if you can catch and remember a few of the lyrics, you can usually find the song. No such luck with instrumental music. And they haven't come in with a hum-your-theme-in and we'll tell you what you're listening to search engine, either.

So, this morning, I searched and I searched and I searched, and somehow (don't ask how) I stumbled across the answer. Which I guess I would have had if I had watched more TV in high school.

Remember the show, "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr."? (I did only in name, I never caught it.) It appears to have run for one season on Fox.

The theme song, however, lives on -- as the NBC heart-tugging, inspiration-building theme. And I found it here. (It's listed under Brisco County Jr.)

You don't know how delighted I am. I have wanted to find this song for EONS. And I'm rather proud I found it with no lyrics and just a few good search terms. (And yes, I know this makes me a complete nerd and cements my status as the answer whore for all time.)

Another one of life's little mysteries solved.

I Think They Should Give Michelle Kwan A Gold...

2006-02-12T06:31:00.000-05:00

...Just for not responding to this question:

"You're 25 right now and you're going to be 29 four years from now. how does it feel knowing you're probably going to end your career without a gold medal?"

...By either breaking down in a complete nervous breakdown or saying something like this:

"Well, asshole, I've only trained for this since I was, you know, like three years old. I gave up my childhood, any semblance of a normal life, and my parents made tons of sacrifices. I mean, it's only been my dream MY WHOLE FREAKING LIFE. In addition, the whole country's going to be talking about my groin for the next 72 hours, and I'll always be remembered as The Girl Who Never Won A Gold. So, in answer to your question, it feels great. Just great. Now, if anyone needs me, I'll be in the garage with the motor running."

I'm big on asking whatever question you need to get your story, but this was a rare occasion I thought the media could exercise more restraint, decency and common sense. Of COURSE she feels bad. Do we have to drive it home to her NOW, in front of the whole WORLD?

For A Good Time,

2006-02-11T18:44:00.000-05:00

Click here.

CAVEAT #1: Make sure you have your speakers turned up. The sound doesn't kick in till 20 or 30 seconds into it.

CAVEAT #2: Don't turn your speakers up when your kids/easily offended boss is around.

I find it hilarious, especially because this guy swears in sort of the same pattern I do.

And then he has the audacity to write the guy a traffic ticket!

Franken on Funerals

2006-02-11T18:25:00.000-05:00

Here's a great piece by Al Franken on the griping going on by Republicans about some of the comments made at Coretta Scott King's funeral.

Perhaps my favorite quote is this one:

Four presidents spoke. One of them, Jimmy Carter, made a passing reference to the fact that Martin and Coretta King had been the victims of domestic wiretapping by the government. Was it a shot at President George W. Bush, who was sitting right behind Carter? Probably. Was that inappropriate? Maybe.

Would Coretta Scott King have enjoyed the moment? I don't know. You know who would have a better idea than me? Jimmy Carter. He knew Mrs. King. Those who are currently complaining - most of whom claim to be offended on her behalf - didn't know her at all.

Sooooooooo incredibly grateful this isn't me

2006-02-11T17:07:00.000-05:00

I believe we are getting to that time when they give the February bar exam.

I don't know the exact date because, well, I don't have to take it.

But to my brethren and sistren out there who do: I feel your pain.

Clearly, the hour approacheth, based upon searches that have brought people to this blog like this:

www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22barbri practice mbe%22 scaled -- ahhh, the mysteries of the scaled score.

www.google.com/search?q=%22ohio essay%22 civil procedure&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N -- don't get me started

search.yahoo.com/search?p=outlines for the multistate bar subjects&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=21 -- AAAAAHHGHGHGGGGGHHHHHHH [hides under a table]

meanwhile, all this guy can hope for from me is my rendition of "Accidentally in Love" or "Hallelujah":
blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=lyrics to Shrek soundtrack

And, for our last entrant? You, sir, are just a pervert.

search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx?q=let me see and watch sexy lady&FORM=DNSERR

Mark Warner, Comedian + Opening Ceremonies

2006-02-11T06:16:00.000-05:00

Last night, in between watching the Olympics, I caught large parts of former Virginia governor Mark Warner speaking in New Hampshire. (There is only one reason someone with presidential aspirations goes to New Hampshire at this time of year.)

Anyway, I'd never really heard him speak before, and I was moderately impressed. First of all, he told his personal story with a great deal of self-deprication that kept the audience in stitches. He indicated that he was the first from Harvard to graduate without a job offer at either clerkship he had worked at during the summer; so he decided to go into business, invested $5,000 in an energy firm and promptly watch it go down the tubes. He then got into real estate, which went under in six months. Then, in 1982, someone suggested he should get into selling phones for people's cars. He thought it sounded like a good idea, and he and another fellow founded a company. His law school friends told him, "Warner, get a real job."

Those people are still practicing law and he's long been out of that cellular phone company he founded called Nextel. (I hadn't known that until last night.)

Anyway, he could use some polish but he might ultimately be the real deal. I know a lot of folks have been comparing him to Clinton; I'm not sure whether that's accurate, but it's worth keeping an eye on him.

***

A few short-takes on the opening ceremonies:

This is very Ugly American of me, I admit. But I always wonder why Team USA walks into the Olympic ceremonies wearing hats made by Roots, which is a company as Canadian as you can get. Aren't there ANY good apparelmakers in the US?...

The opening ceremonies seemed pretty good to me (although I admit to watching the first half last night, falling asleep around ten and then waking up and catching the rest this morning on NBC's primetime replay.) The only terrifying moment was when Yoko Ono emerged to read a poem about peace. I'm sure that, worldwide, everyone was afraid she might sing...

Luciano Pavarotti singing "Nessun Dorma?" Classic, truly classic...

The lighting of the Olympic torch is always an emotional moment, but I still haven't seen one that can hold a candle (ha!...pun intended...) to Atlanta 1996, when Mohammed Ali emerged from behind a pillar to take and light the torch. (I was barely awake for that one, too...I remember falling asleep and waking up...)

Another opening ceremony moment born out of Atlanta was this. My Aunt Jody, whom I've written about before, would later describe watching the opening ceremonies with my Uncle Tom. Now, Tom is a person very committed to ideas like the beauty of sport and competition, and was literally a split second away from the Olympics in track and field in 1972. Jody was big into design/fashion/visual.

"So there we were, watching the opening ceremonies," Jody said. "Tom was sitting there, tears streaming down his face because of the beauty of all these athletes from all over the world coming together to compete, and I was sitting there, tears streaming down my face, because everyone was color-coordinated."

She was one helluva lady.

Howdy Again...A Few Short Takes

2006-02-10T07:30:00.000-05:00

God Bless Anonymous

Two reasons:

First of all, you may recall my New Year's (Years'?) Resolution was to learn to make one healthy dish a year. This has had varying degrees of success, but on Wednesday, hit on one new recipe I'll be making again: Southwestern Black Bean Soup.

This came from a cookbook Anonymous gave to me. So, she got to be the first person (victim?) to try it.

At some point, I will try to post the recipe here but I will say it was good (although the shredded cheddar cheese I added sealed the deal, and that may have diminished the nutritional value somewhat.)

Secondly, yesterday I ran into a logic problem. This is one of those "why I'm glad I'm done with the LSAT" sorts of things, although not really. It was one of those everyday things that some of us are better at lookng at than others, and if you don't quite get it right, it will haunt you for all your days.

Many thanks to Anonymous, who hopped in her van and spent an hour and a half figuring out what I needed to do and where I needed to go and got me back on the right track.

***

And It Continues To Unravel

On a day after Cheney gets bad news, it appears Bush might be getting even worse news. That Jack Abramoff guy who no one remembers meeting remembers meeting Bush nearly a dozen times, and claims to have been extended an invitation to visit the ranch in Crawford.

Curioser and curioser...

***

Bill Gates Is Not Getting Any Less Evil

MSNBC tells me when I am in Firefox that I need to download the newest version of Windows Media Player. However, when I am in Explorer, it plays fine.

Something tells me they just want me using Explorer...

Chip Dip for your Commercial Watching Pleasure

2006-02-02T20:59:00.000-05:00

DISCLAIMER: Please be advised this recipe is NOT part of the MRB 2006 Eat Healthy Plan. Not even close. Thanks!

All right, team, we all know what Sunday is, isn't it?

It's the day we all gather around the set and watch the year's greatest commercials. In between times, we'll be subjected to a football game which, if history is any guide, will most likely not be terribly scinitillating and will be over in the first six minutes. (I'm rooting for the Steelers.)

Anywho, if you're looking for a chip dip to take to a party or to keep for yourself as you coccoon in your condo (not that I would ever do such a thing, mind you...hehehehe)...this is a Bassett family favorite:

Combine 8 oz Philadelphia cream cheese and 2 tbsp cream. Blend well. Add 2 tbsp Kraft Miracle French dressing, one tbsp. grated onion, 1/4 teaspoon of salt, and 1/3 cup of ketchup. Mix well. Refrigerate for at least an hour, hour and a half. Enjoy.

Divorce Lawyer Pride

2006-01-31T19:28:00.000-05:00

So, today, I was having a conversation with my friend Peter.

As a prologue, those of you who read the blog frequently understand I am looking to represent women who are victims of domestic violence, because I believe the system does a terrible job of addressing the problem. And what that means, in short, is I am going to spend a great deal of time in the world of protection orders, divorce and custody.

Now, when I told my mother what I was thinking of doing (and I apologize if I'm repeating this), she said, "Oh, Michael, don't do that. All my friends who are married to lawyers, as soon as they say their husband's a lawyer, will say, 'But he doesn't do divorces!'"

I mean, let's admit it. The term "divorce lawyer" doesn't exactly sound as selfless as, say, "firefighter," "Make a Wish volunteer," "humanitarian aid worker," "missionary for Christ." Indeed, even I opened a paper I wrote for a writing credit last year thus:

It is hard to imagine a professional in American life today who gets less respect than the divorce lawyer. Seen as a shark feasting on the misery of his or her client’s soon-to-be ex-spouse, these conniving creatures are thought of as willing to go as low as possible to exact an extra pound of flesh for their client. All this in the name of a hefty retainer and another notch in the attorney’s belt.

You think divorce lawyer, you think of some slimy little guy rubbing his hands and saying, "Ahhhh -- a marriage is coming apart! Let me run around under it and see what money I can find to spend on my next cruise to the Mediterranean."

So, I've been pretty good at the semantics of this. I tell people I want to represent victims of domestic violence. I don't say I'm a divorce lawyer.

Well, when I told Peter this, he said, "No. You're spinning. You are a divorce lawyer. It's what you do. Do it well, and be proud of it."

I have to admit, it's a pretty good point. What am I? I'm a lawyer. What will much of my work be? Divorces. OK, so, you put those two together?

I'm not doing it because I enjoy seeing people who thought they'd live their lives out together forever get bitter and angry at each other. I'm not doing it because I like dealing in misery.

I'm doing it because I've seen how bad the system deals with it and how much the bad guys can get away with, and because I'm completely pissed off and want to make things happen. It's what I'm passionate about.

So, I guess this means my mom can just start saying that I do handle divorces.

Because I am, after all, a divorce lawyer.

The Things Linds Finds...

2006-01-31T19:11:00.000-05:00

You seriously must check out the 2006 State of the Union Drinking Game.

Why We Love W

2006-01-31T07:27:00.000-05:00

Witnesseth, my friends, the little town of Randolph, Utah, where George W. Bush got 95.6% of the vote in 2004, and it appears they know who the seventeen people were who voted for John Kerry. This includes the postmaster, who one of the village residents refers to as "the village pseudo-intellectual." (He'd better watch his step, now, or his appointment won't last for long.)

Randolph sounds like about the kind of a place where you'd expect a 95.6% vote for the President.

When they talk about religious diversity, they mention the Catholic woman married to the illegal immigrant.

Race? Three African-Americans in the county. Two (twins!) on the cheerleading squad.

The author posits that Randolph has many reasons to be fond of the President:

There have been no funerals here from Bush's war on terrorism. There are no unemployment lines, no homeless people sleeping in doorways, no sick people being turned away from a hospital because of a lack of insurance, no crime to speak of, no security fence needed around the reservoir, no metal detectors at the schools.

Terrorist threats? That's anywhere but here. Iraq? That's somewhere over there. Hurricane Katrina? That was somewhere down there. Illegal immigrants? Not here, where everyone is fond of Ramon, who came long ago from Mexico and is married to the Catholic woman, who is the one non-Mormon everyone mentions when the conversation turns to religious diversity. As for racial diversity, everyone says there are three African Americans in the county, including the twins on the high school cheerleading squad, which also includes a Hispanic, according to the superintendent of schools, Dale Lamborn, which means "we've probably got the most diverse cheerleading squad in the state."

Yes, Bush is loved by most everyone in Randolph, including the woman who nearly dropped dead of heart failure and is working because of the health insurance, as well as the 77-year-old who works part time because social security won't finance her modest life.

Golly, I'm proud to be from Ohio today.

So, Ken, Is This Like When You Said Enron Was Going To Turn Out Fine

2006-01-29T19:37:00.000-05:00

Enron's Ken Lay: Trial Will Turn Out 'Fine'

Check it out

2006-01-29T10:20:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Linds for this clip. (Ignore the stupid ads on the sideline.) Here's a challenge for those research-minded among you: Can we show the President where the $12.7 billion cut is he doesn't know about? It appears to have something to do with student loans...

Saturday stuff

2006-01-28T08:36:00.000-05:00

OK, so, the head of the Abramoff investigation just got appointed to a federal judgeship, which means he has to step down from being the chief prosecutor on Abramoff immediately.

Anyone have a pblem with this? Anyone?

I mean, W, I know we reelected you last year, but we aren't dumb. We do understand what's going on.

***

My condo overlooks a harbor, and I'm on the "porch" right now (unfortunately, since it's the only place where my so-called "wireless connection" works...) About half of the harbor is water, the other half is ice that is dissolving rather quickly. It's fascinating to watch.

***

Could someone please pass a note to John Kerry that he's not going to be President of the United States? That ship has sailed. So he could stop trying.

***

I will say it was a cheap shot for the White House to claim Kerry was calling for a filibuster of Alito from the "slopes of the Swiss alps" at a five-star ski resort. Even they knew perfectly well he was at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

***

Being able to use your law license to fight for causes you are passionate about is awesome. I love being a lawyer.

***

Being paid for same is also a good thing. I love being a lawyer.

***

A friend of mine talks about "moments of grace." I had one the other day. I kept expecting one of these to come along after getting through the bar, being sworn in, getting my license, and having something click to go, "Wow...you did it." And I had a great number of those emotions but no sort of "Eureka!" moment. Which sort of surprised me.

Our court of common pleas uses a computerized docket system to keep track of the status of cases. The other day, I had occasion to check a case of mine on the system, which I had not done. (I have used the system numerous times before when working for the prosecutor's office and doing research on other things, but never on one of my cases.) The attorney's name is listed across from the client's at the top, and then after anything filed by an attorney, the attorney's last name is in parentheses.

I have to admit, when I saw both of these things, it made my day. Major moment of grace.

What Hamas, etc.

2006-01-26T21:57:00.000-05:00

Wellll, here we are fighting this war on terror and it just went and won an election in the Palestinian Authority. (Wait -- I see the next step in this. Bush declares democracy doesn't work, and decides no more elections, starting here.)

This is not a good thing. It leads to all our diplomats running around and bumping into each other going, "What are we going to do?"

You -- you being US foreign policy muckymucks -- can't talk to a group that finds Israel's very existence offensive. As Chris Matthews said this evening, "Hamas not being against Israel is like Mothers Against Drunk Driving not being against drunk driving." Especially when they harbor terrorists and assist folks like Al Qaeda.

On the other hand, we would like a peace process. But you can't have peace when you can't talk to one of the two warring factions, and you can't talk to one of the two warring factions when it wants to destroy the other warring faction who's a close ally of yours.

I, Michael Bassett, do solemnly swear, that henceforth when I think that representing survivors of domestic violence is tough, I will remember I could be trying to bring about peace in the Middle East.

***

I did hear W use the phrase "Osama bin-Laden" today, which was interesting. I thought he might have been hoping we'd forgotten who he was. Or else he did.

***

We're back to arguing about executive privilege again, vis a vis the investigations into thef ederal response to Katrina. I'm generally sympathetic to claims of executive privilege and think we ought to be careful about intruding upon the advice the President receives from advisors; on the other hand, Michael Brown was recently paid to give a speech to a group about the advice he gave the president. So I think he should have to testify.

Your papers, please?

2006-01-25T19:44:00.000-05:00

The Alex Hotel claims they are a "serene and welcoming environment."

That wasn't the case for Karen Kelly, who went to the hotel to meet with a business associate, and was told that she would hav to present her passport just to have a phone call placed to a guest there.

They will keep her passport on file for five years. (They initially told her one.)

And the manager is more than happy to admit this. Besides security, she didn't want a "bad element" in the hotel.

It grows more and more difficult to be anonymous in this country. And something about that disturbs me.

In Which Our Blogger Proves What Kind of a Nerd He Is

2006-01-23T21:26:00.000-05:00

I am sitting here watching election results.

From Canada.

CANADA, for Pete's sake.

Why, you ask?

Because in my book, NOTHING -- with the possible exception of the Michigan/Ohio State game -- beats an Election Night for drama, adrenaline and excitement.

And I never get to watch US election results on TV in that happy isolation where I can surf the Internet or change the channel at will, because I'm always at some victory party or other.

So I poach relentlessly off of other countries. Great Britain; Canada; whomever. (Although when the UK did their election results last year, it was the night before my final law school final of all time, so I was studying more than watching.)

Yes, I'm a poli sci nerd. But at least I'm an international one. :)

Damn...now I'm going to sound like Linds...

2006-01-23T20:20:00.000-05:00

...who will occasionally post something saying "I had a good post started but Blogger died/I'm setting up a website/my cat ate my post."

Well, I had a good post started yesterday.

In fact, I had a good DAY started yesterday.

I was going to do some email, read, write a post, and make a few tweaks to this site. I was even going to watch a little football.

So, I sat down to read my email and found an email that gave me a good idea for a post. It appears Ken Blackwell's latest tax relief plan could make life difficult for the Ohio State Buckeyes.

This was pure blog gold.

So, I sat down and started to write.

It was around this time a box appeared in the middle of my screen saying "Freepod" was downloading.

I didn't want Freepod. I didn't know what it was, granted, but I was pretty sure I didn't want it. I imagined it would involve random popups and such.

As my grandfather on my mom's side would say, "And how."

Random popups would have been a dream come true compared to what I was getting. I was getting my browser hijacked -- literally, looking at one page and taken to another. I was getting ads in the middle of my screen, independent of any browser.

This was, to put it mildly, annoying.

And thus I spent pretty much the rest of my day until about 6:30. Finally upgraded Norton to Internet Security, which then spent the rest of the night and the morning running and getting rid of these programs.

Although I did visit the Drudge Report yesterday long enough to learn that they're taking "The West Wing" off the air.

This did not make my day more pleasant.

So, we'll chalk January 22, 2006 up as a lost day. Grr.

(I wish I could figure out who the purveyors of that spyware are. I'd like to send them a bill for the time I wasted dealing with their schtuff. )

The Grumbling Gourmet

2006-01-20T22:36:00.000-05:00

You may recall that, back in December, I said I was going to try to learn to make one new healthy recipe a week. I said that if I liked the recipes, I might put them on the blog. Tonight, I made tortilla soup.

Here is where the recipe would be, if I liked something that tasted a lot like what I imagine the net effect of soaking nachos in hot water and putting garlic powder over it would be.

The raw materials sounded promising -- onions, nachos and then tomatoes and garlic paste pureed in a blender. It was a fairly slow-cooked soup, taking an hour of slowwwwly adding things in.

It didn't take nearly that long to decide I wasn't going to hang around to see what it looked like tomorrow.

Ah, well. What's the old saying? You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet?

Anywho. I'll have to go back to the recipe pile. Anyone have any good sites for healthy recipes?

While we're waiting, here's a Bassett family favorite: Cucumbers and mint. This is an easy, quick and delicious salad.

Take 2-3 cucumbers; cut skin off. Slice.

Combine with yogurt. (Enoguh yogurt that the cucumbers are swimming in it.)

Add mint. (My parents like to add garlic. I leave it as is.)

Mix well. Enjoy.

Make this recipe if you want to eat something that's relatively good for you and tastes good. Make the recipe I made tonight if you just want hot, soggy nachos with no cheese. And want to spend an hour of your life making it.

So, Let Me Get This Straight...

2006-01-19T06:18:00.000-05:00

There was a plot to kidnap Tony Blair's son.

Led by the "Superdads," Britain's movement of the fathers' rights movement.

So, a group of people who spend their time complaining they have had their custody illegally and unfairly taken away from them were going to illegally and unfairly take away someone else's custody of their child.

Hmm. Isn't this enough evidence to stop pretending these people care about custody, and realize it's really mainly about control with them?

My Parting Words of Wisdom to My Brother, Departing for a Year in Macau, China

2006-01-16T20:34:00.000-05:00

"Just remember, if you're arrested, you have the right to...uh...nothing."

Expressions Educated Persons Should Not Use (Vol. 1)

2006-01-15T22:29:00.000-05:00

On this morning's edition of Meet The Press, Tim Russert had Ambassador Paul Bremer on the show. He read Bremer a passage criticizing his time in Iraq by the Inspector General of something or other, and asked for Bremer's response.

First thing Bremer said: "Let me answer that."

Paul? Paul? That was surplus wordage right there. We didn't need that. We asked you the question. We EXPECT you will answer that. It's appropriate to say "Let me answer that" when, say, some guy is accusing you of impregnating his sister and has pulled back his fist to punch you. (You'll want to evaluate if you have a good answer, of course.) But no one was trying to keep you from answering that. We expected you to answer that. You'd only have had to ask permission if you were going to do something unexpected. Like, "Tim, you've just accused me of mismanaging millions of dollars in my handling of Iraq, and I am deeply offended you think the Bush administration could mismanage anything. Now, let me dance a jig." That would have been unexpected. Your answering it was not unexpected and, hence, did not require our permission.

Sheesh. Do I have to spend my time explaining everything to Republicans?

Sunday Sundry stuff

2006-01-15T19:52:00.000-05:00

I agree with Linds. It's January. It's Ohio. It's supposed to be cold.

Now, I don't particuarly enjoy the cold, but I don't like seeing the sun so much in January, either. And I still think there's nothing like watching a gorgeous snowfall from snug inside your abode. Looking out at water that's not iced over with a blue sky and green grass in January is...creepy. To the max. Makes me think of global warming. Crud.

***

BTW, Linds, I will be linking to your new blog address when I do a little maintenance on Ye Olde Template here sometime this week. (Nothing major, just some additional content for the sidebar, updating of links, et cetera.) I hate getting into my template, because even though I'm competent enough to work my way around it, there's always the fear I'm going to completely decimate it.

***

Are any of you other "West Wing" fans out there having a hard time seeing John Spencer in the opening credits, knowing that, sooner or later, Leo is going to have to go?

I Have Been Remarkably Gloat-Free...

2006-01-14T22:52:00.000-05:00

...about the recent passel of scandals plaguing Republicans in DC, but this thought just occurred to me:

Everyone seems to agree that after forty years in the majority of the House, some Democrats grew a little too comfortable, and forgot who they represented.

It took the Republicans exactly ten.

On Thin Ice

2006-01-14T21:23:00.000-05:00

I had forgotten
What it's like
To watch people skate their hearts out
With dreams of Olympic gold

To listen to beautiful music
(Alan Silvestri, John Williams, anyone?)
And be pacified by it
And yet, simultaneously, horrified
At the prospect

Some poor sophomore in high school
Could see her dream fall through the ice tonight
With one fall
One trip
One misstep

Or could win Olympic gold.

Alittle on Alito

2006-01-13T07:31:00.000-05:00

I was getting my oil changed the other day (more accurately, my car's oil), and sitting in the waiting room watching the Alito hearings. In walked a fellow about my age who sat down, looked at the TV, and said, "Isn't this ridiculous? All the guy wants is to do a job and do it well, and they're asking him all these questions. Like it really matters."

I wish I'd have known where his car was, so I could have checked for the W04 sticker.

***

Yesterday, when I tuned in briefly to CSPAN, I caught some of Russ Feingold's questioning of Alito, and he was asking if the fact fellow judges of Alito were coming to testify in Alito's behalf would mean Alito would have to recuse himself from hearing cases of theirs appealed. Feingold asked Alito how he would analyze a recusal motion. Alito said he'd never thought of it.

I found that vaguely disturbing. (Although I'm not sure I agree with Feingold, I wish it would have run through Alito's head, at least.)

***

Completely different subject: Last night on the History Channel, I found a show that I thought was quite interesting called "Declassified." They talk about documents kept secret by the government and what they reveal.

I thought it was interesting because they were talking about John Lennon, who I've always enjoyed hearing about. But I also had to admit to myself that part of why I liked the show was that it reminded me of public records law and some of the arguments that go into it. (I have a friend who refers to me as the "Public Records Nazi.")

And people wonder why I don't get out more.

Going Postal

2006-01-11T21:49:00.000-05:00

The price of stamps went up $.02 the other day.

So, as a good American, this is your chance to complain, moan and whine about the postal service and what a lousy job they do and how you can't afford $.02 more.

And if you believe that, you probably voted for W out of a sense of patriotic duty, too.

Look, I've got a proposition for you. I'm going to send a letter to California. I'd like it there soon. I'll give you $.39 for your trouble.

Any takers?

OK, I'll raise my bid to $.78.

All right. So, you won't be the transporter. Perhaps you'd like to be a cog in the well-oiled machine that will get it there. You will be expected to deliver in rain, sleet, snow and hail. Be attacked by every Doberman on your route. And then there's the occasional perception that you are prone to workplace violence.

Anyone? Anyone?

First one to volunteer can complain about the recent postal rate hike. The rest of you, shaddup and lick it.

BMCC '06: Appealing

2006-01-11T08:26:00.000-05:00

Blogger's Note: This is the third of what will be several entries on the 2006 Battered Mothers' Custody Conference, which I attended over the weekend. It was an experience in which I learned and absorbed a great deal about things as wide and varied as the system, those who manipulate it, are manipulated by it, and are victimized by it, and about myself. To try to do this all in one entry would not do it justice.

This'll be fairly quick, as I'm out the door in a moment, but it did occur to me one thing that was encouraging in Albany was the idea that appellate courts are at least starting to get an idea of what's happening to battered mothers out there. The word is that 2/3 of custody cases where custody is awarded to batterers get reversed at the appellate court level. (Of course, that assumes that the battered mother has enough money and energy to fight that long -- many of them don't.)

The Bridget Marks case, which I mentioned a bit earlier, was a victory, where an appellate court in New York recently returned custody of children to their mother on a unanimous 4-zip decision.

And, in the course of looking at some of this stuff, I was pleased to find that the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Ohio has some understanding of what's going on. Neat that they identify it as such, even better that they are willing to say something. Too often, guardians ad litem stop advocating for the best interests of the child and advocate for the parent they think should get custody -- even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. So, it was a delight to find this little nugget:

The trial court also should have considered taking the time to explain its ruling on the contempt to the three young women/girls. Although the guardian ad litem could normally fulfill this role, the guardian ad litem in the contempt hearing conducted himself in many ways as if he were a second attorney for the girls' father, cross-examining the mother in very hostile fashion at times. Schottenstein v. Schottenstein (Dec. 12, 2000), Franklin App. No. 00AP-285, unreported, quoted by Schottenstein v. Schottenstein (November 29, 2001), 2001-Ohio-3987

BMCC '06: The Lawyers

2006-01-11T06:34:00.000-05:00

Blogger's Note: This is the second of what will be several entries on the 2006 Battered Mothers' Custody Conference, which I attended over the weekend. It was an experience in which I learned and absorbed a great deal about things as wide and varied as the system, those who manipulate it, are manipulated by it, and are victimized by it, and about myself. To try to do this all in one entry would not do it justice.

No one is exactly wild about divorce lawyers.

When I first told my mother I thought I wanted to represent battered women in custody cases, my mother (who despises the idea of any child being abused with the very fiber of her being), replied, "Oh, don't do that. All my friends who are married to lawyers make sure to say when they explain what their husband does, 'But he doesn't do divorces."

But, to get a divorce, you need a lawyer. And, at the Battered Mothers' Custody Conference, it was clear that lawyers were pivotal people.

By way of perspective, one should understand that these people were in high conflict divorces, and it was not uncommon to meet people who were in their third, fourth, fifth, seventh or twelfth year of litigation.

It also appeared very clear that most people were on their second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth lawyer. (The average is four.) This is because many lawyers don't understand domestic violence or the dynamics of it. Several people referred to their first lawyers as bozos or slightly less polite words.

However, there were a number of presenters in Albany last weekend who not only understood the dynamics of domestic violence but spend a great amount of their time representing the victims of it.

Preeminent among them was a fellow by the name of Richard Ducote. I first came across him when I read a terrific article he authored called "Guardians ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case for Abolition." (It is peppered with such section headings as "Rules? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules!" and "Fees: There Goes The College Tuition.") Since then, I have learned he is the preeminent attorney for battered women in custody cases. Among others, he represented the aforementioned Sarah when she sued her multimillionaire father to help with her college tuition (they lost.) He also represented Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, the mother who fled to New Zealand with her daughter rather than force visitation between her daughter and the father who the daughter said had molested her.

Ducote (along with Lundy Bancroft, who presented on Friday night) was one of the rock stars of the conference. His whole demeanor indicated someone who was a presence in the courtroom, and I think it would be a heck of a lot of fun to watch him cross-examining a guardian who hasn't been doing their job.

I don't get out much, OK?

Also at the conference were Charles, Kristin and Diane Hofheimer. Charles and Kristin are a father-daughter team of lawyers who only represent women, and Diane is a paralegal. They spoke on a panel of about eight or nine lawyers that appeared Saturday morning. (Yeah, imagine -- giving eight lawyers microphones and 75 people to talk to. Short and sweet was not the order of the day.)

A few of the notes I took from the panel:

The idea that the system has an attitude of bureaucratic indifference towards domestic violence
The fact batterers can use privilege to define reality
The idea that a mother's maternal instincts work against her in court
Part of the problem with proving abuse is that skepticism works in the abuser's favor, because to buy the story of abuse, the judge must mentally "go there" and admit there are people who beat, molest or abuse.
A strong belief that we need to remember that family court is a real court. Too many practitioners and judges go in there forgetting that rules, laws, constitutions apply, and just want to play "Let's make a deal." A defense lawyer who did not follow up on inaccuracies or inadequacies of a police officer's investigation would be guilty of malpractice. So, why should attorneys let guardians ad litem get off the hook?

(Often, because they have another case with the guardian ad litem the next day where the GAL is in their favor.)

One of the stories we heard was of a woman who was held at Rikers' Island for 27 months after speaking out about custody of her daughter being given to the father who molested her. When an attorney came into the Clerk's office to file a motion to get the mother out, the clerks hounded him. Was he filing under Rule 7? Or perhaps Subpart 12k8b7-6? It was clear they didn't like that he was exposing what was going on. Finally, in frustration, he told them he was filing under the US Constitution.

In other words, lawyers need to be lawyers. Even in family court.

Another attorney we heard from who impressed me greatly was a fellow by the name of Tim Tippins. More about him later, but he's gone so far as to subpoena the printouts of psychiatrists who make custody recommendations, only to find out that the computer programs that do some of the evaluation were intrinsically biased against mothers. (This starts to sound like weird, Black Helicopter stuff, but I promise you, we have gone so far off the map it is going to be very difficult to find our way back.)

And here's the other problem with the lawyers: They charge, a lot. And because the most precious thing in the world to a woman is her child, she will pay as much as she has. And when they have exhausted their resources, many women end up representing themselves.

As a result, they learn a great deal. The woman who spent 27 months in Rikers said she studied the law five days a week because what else was she going to do?

It was certainly more productive than thinking about how screwed up the system is.

BMCC '06: Courageous Kids

2006-01-09T19:58:00.000-05:00

Blogger's Note: This is the first of what will be several entries on the 2006 Battered Mothers' Custody Conference, which I attended over the weekend. It was an experience in which I learned and absorbed a great deal about things as wide and varied as the system, those who manipulate it, are manipulated by it, and are victimized by it, and about myself. To try to do this all in one entry would not do it justice.

As I was preparing to go to Albany, it occurred to me that the stories of abuse that would be collected in one room would be staggering.

I was right, although not in the way I had contemplated. While I was thinking of abuse at the hands of a husband or boyfriend or father, the abuse that was center stage was abuse of a very different sort: that of a system that not only does not care about allegations of domestic violence, but often shoots the messenger, the person who brings bad news about what has happened.

The first speaker we heard was a girl named Sarah.

Sarah is nineteen years old, and was originally from Ohio. Her father is very, very prominent -- a multimillionaire with the family name on big buildings. In 1998, a divorce was filed, and Sarah says, she became a "pawn in my father's vendetta against my mother."

Because Sarah refused to say she wanted to live with her father, she became a target.

Sarah and her two sisters said they wanted to live with their mother because of his awful temper; because they found themselves hiding out in their rooms to dodge him; because they felt used since, while he fought to have them not spend time with their mother, when he had them, they were placed with babysitters.

Sarah attempted to tell these things to the guardian ad litem appointed for her; but he simply told her she needed to spend time with her father or her mother would be in serious trouble.

Sarah's father, who frequently told her that children had no rights, made sure that she became a moving target. Literally.

First, he put her in a boarding school in Connecticut.

She got out of there. So, he put her on his corporate jet, told her she was going back to Ohio, and instead flew her to Utah, to a juvenile delinquent camp.

Her mother couldn't find her, and had to get the FAA involved to figure out where she was.

When the Utah boot camp released her, he sent her to Kansas. To a psychiatric hospital. Her roommate was a coke addict.

Throughout this, he refused to address the fact she had lupus.

Sarah only got out of the situation when she turned eighteen and "aged out of the system." This is a fairly common phenomenon. When a child approaches eighteen and is loudly trying to proclaim her rights, the goal is to keep them in a holding pattern until they supposedly have no stake in the outcome. Of course, what that frequently means is a severing of sibling relationships.

Sarah spoke on behalf of an organization called the Courageous Kids Network, which is for children who've been abused by the court sytem. If the hair on the back of your neck isn't standing on end yet, visit their website. It will be.

Little bits

2006-01-07T22:38:00.000-05:00

Little bits of my weekend at the third annual Battered Mothers' Custody Conference are all I can give you right now.

I can only process this a bit at a time.

I could tell you things that would make your skin crawl, your hair stand up on the back of your neck, your lunch to be disgorged.

I can tell you about women who have had the most precious thing in the world to them -- their children -- torn from them.

Here's a collection of news stories about Bridget Marks, one woman who presented today.

My favorite quote, speaking of the fathers' rights movement: "They have a lot of money. Of course, they don't pay child support." (Lundy Bancroft)

More later. Once I can process.

Four Things Meme

2006-01-05T21:03:00.000-05:00

Thanks, TSC!

Four jobs you've had in your life:
1. Chairman, Ottawa County Democratic Central Committee
2. Member, Port Clinton City Schools Board of Education
3. Chief of Civil Research, Ottawa County Prosecutor's Office
4. Summer associate - awesome pay, great perks, almost no responsibility. What could be better? ;)

Four movies you could watch over and over:

1. "Father of the Bride" (1991 version)
2. "The Sound of Music"
3. "My Fair Lady"
4. "1776"

Four places you've lived:
1. Oak Harbor, OH
2. Port Clinton, OH
3. Washington, DC
4. Toledo, OH

and that's it!

Four TV shows you love to watch:

1. "The West Wing"
2. "The Simpsons"
3. "All In The Family"
4. "Larry King Live

Four websites you visit daily:

1. GMail
2. MSNBC
3. Blogger
4. Port Clinton News Herald

Four of your favorite foods:
1. Lobster
2. Beef stroganoff
3. Lasagna
4. Burritos

Four places you'd rather be:
1. Grand Cayman Islands
2. the pool at my grandparents' condos in Sarasota, FL
3. Aruba
4. Tempe, Arizona

Four albums you can't live without:
1. Frank Sinatra, The Main Event Live
2. The Beatles: 1967-1970
3. My One and Only Original Soundtrack
4. The Prince of Tides Original Soundtrack

Miscellany

2006-01-05T18:55:00.000-05:00

You blog less when you must position your computer at your bar and sit on a rather hard bar stool.

***

Tomorrow morning at the crack of dawn, I am off for the 2006 Battered Mothers' Custody Conference in Albany, NY. The schedule of presenters looks like a who's-who of people whose names I've been seeing as I've researched how the system deals with domestic violence. It should be very interesting.

***

Does anyone else find it amazing that I can be driving down the street, hear a song, come home, type a few selected lyrics into Google, figure out the name and the artist, download it for $.99 to my computer into a little white oblong thing that holds, at this moment, 2.4 days of songs (3.31 GB of information), and then plug it into a tape player and flood my apartment with the sound, all in about ten minutes?

***

BTW, the song is "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter.

***

The other day, I was in Borders and I picked up a book that I'd seen before that looked interesting, Courtroom 302: A Year Behind The Scenes in an American Criminal Courthouse. I read the first few pages and was hooked, and have remained so.

I worked for a prosecutor's office during the summers from the time I was a sophomore in high school until the summer before my final year of law school. One of the perks of the job is that you get to work with police officers, who put their lives on the line daily to ferret out the bad guys and keep everyone protected.

One of the things that is difficult for me reading this book is that it deals with some officers who aren't very professional. For instance, I didn't think the fellow who was being processed into jail and was asked why he was shaking by a deputy was treated very professionally. He replied, "MS," to which the deputy replied, "Oh, he has PMS." I also didn't like the officer who told a woman charged with drug abuse, "Your life is over. You might not want to hear it, but it is."

Well, there's an incentive to straighten up and fly right.

OK, if I had to deal with the folks these officers do, too, I would probably have a jaded view. I still find it disturbing.

But most disturbing is that it becomes clear from the book that the idea of the system in a place as large as Chicago is not finding justice or the truth or trying to prevent people from reoffending, but rather to achieve the all-powerful "dispo" or disposition. Move the case along, get it closed.

Now, I'm all for moving justice along. (For instance, there's a divorce that was filed during my first week of law school and is still going on, and I'd be all in favor of that one being concluded.) But I'm also for making sure that we know what we're doing and what's going on and that the "dispo" that we're choosing has some chance of getting at the heart of the problem. Because cases don't involve numbers; they involve people.

The book raises a host of other issues, including the question of whether we are truly waging an efficient war on drugs, as well as whether we would do better to invest in kids BEFORE we pay however much we pay to house them in prisons for years on end.

I think anyone who is a lawyer should be encouraged to read it. And anyone who wears a black robe should be required to.

***

I can't stop wondering whether Daniel Powter is related to the rather manic Susan Powter.

***

Me: "I think I've decided the first step to dealing with domestic violence more effectively in this country."
Anonymous: "What's that?"
Me: "Quit holding the Battered Mothers' Conference in Albany, New York during the first weekend in January. "
Anonymous: "Yeah, I guess they figured we haven't suffered enough."
Me: "Or else they figure they're all destitute, and rates are really cheap in Albany, because NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND GOES THERE IN JANUARY."

***

I'm sorry, but in my unbiased opinion, Bassett's Market has the best muffins in the universe.