Son, We Need To Talk About This Supreme Court Obsession Of Yours

--------------------

had to take a break from packing to revel in this bit of silliness, courtesy of The Onion... and yes, i do have a warped sense of humour...

--------------------

Son, could you come in here for a second? Well, I'm sorry, but that newspaper's just going to have to wait, because we really need to talk. Son, your mother and I have been worried about you. Your grades have been slipping, you've been spending less time with your friends, and you've been shutting yourself in your room for hours at a time. Now, I know it may make you feel uncomfortable to talk about it, but this Supreme Court obsession of yours has become a problem.

You can debate with me and defend yourself all you want, but it's evident to your mother and me that your interest borders on unhealthy. The Supreme Court is all you talk about. You lie awake at night making up fantasy scenarios about what kind of decisions William Rehnquist might make in the matter of Jill L. Brown, Acting Warden v. Payton. You get more excited about the first Monday in October than your friends do about Super Bowl Sunday! Son, you shouldn't plan your life around the start of the new Supreme Court term.

Okay, name one thing you do, besides sleeping or eating, that doesn't involve the Supreme Court. Bassoon lessons don't count. Your mom and I make you take those. If you had your way, you'd be up in your room, cutting pictures of your favorite justices out of the Washington Post to add to your mural, which is another thing we need to discuss.

It's perfectly natural to go through a Supreme Court phase. I went through one myself when I was your age. I remember spending hours in the library poring over orders of the Court. I spent nights lying in bed imagining I was presiding with Warren Burger or John Jay. I even had quite a collection of court drawings from the Furman v. Georgia case that — well, I think I was able to get them because my friend's dad knew someone who knew a lawyer. No, son, I don't still have them. My point is that I know what you're going through.

But here's the difference: Even though I was an enormous fan of the Supreme Court, I had other interests. I read mysteries. I went to movies. I kept up on the appellate and state courts and played basketball with friends. I had some of my favorite opinions up on the wall, much like you do, but I also had a couple of pictures of hot rods and a poster of Mia Farrow. Look at your room — there's nothing but collages of court justices through the years. Your floor is covered with printouts of opinions and dissents. You spend all night on the Internet holding mock Supreme Court hearings in the chat rooms. I don't want to say it's not normal, but I do think it's behavior we need to evaluate.

Well, because it's affecting your school career. When you fake being sick, it does. Do you think your mother and I are stupid? Do you think we don't know when Court TV airs major Supreme Court decisions? Son, everybody is interested in what the Supreme Court has to say, but you can't skip school just so you can watch the outcome of U.S. v. Galetti. Why can't you be more like everyone else and read it the next day in the newspaper?

Your mother and I thought if we talked to you, we might be able to show you just how far you've sunk into this Supreme Court obsession. But it's clear I'm not getting through to you. From now on, no Supreme Court of any kind. No decisions, no dissenting opinions, nothing. We're taking away your computer, and I'm going to talk to the school librarian, so if you think you can look at Supreme Court information at school, you've got another think coming. If I catch you with so much as a stay application, you'll be grounded for a month!

You're still free to read about the appellate courts, and of course I won't take your law reviews. I know it's not the same. But if you behave, maybe your mother and I will let you have your copy of Closed Chambers after a month or two. This isn't easy for me, either, but crying isn't going to help. Let's see if you can stay away from the Supreme Court for six months. Yes, six months. No, you will not die.

Don't be so dramatic. The Supreme Court is the most important judicial body in America, but it isn't everything. I'm sure you'll find plenty of things to occupy your time. Well, you'd better, because for the next six months, you are going to be Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor-free, whether you like it or not.

Yes, my decision is final.

--------------------

moving frenzy

--------------------

not that anybody really cares, but i hate the fact that i haven't had a chance to update this blog in a while... my laptop [a/k/a my lifeline] was out of commission for a good 2 weeks or so, and with all the craziness of work -- trying to handle several different files and planning an entire law course -- not to mention the move that's upcoming in just 4 freakin' days... i'm going nuts trying to figure out lists in my head of things that are still needed... it's enough to drive someone mad or, in my case, to just crank up the dial on the anxiety switchboard... i can't figure out whether i'm coming or going these days... i can't wait to just plop down on the new couch or the new bed and heave a big sigh of relief and get some rest...

--------------------

dependence

--------------------

i hate not having my laptop...


but thank g-d for extended warranties...


does "five to ten business days" really mean five to ten business days?

--------------------

the heart stirs — selectively

--------------------

Most of us would do anything we could to help and comfort the victims of last week's terrorist bombings in London. Millions of us opened our hearts and our wallets to the victims of last winter's tsunami in South Asia.

Yet we are not stirred to urgent action by the fact that a member of the human race dies of malnutrition every 3.6 seconds; a life is lost to AIDS every 14 seconds; a child in Africa succumbs to malaria and a woman somewhere in the world dies in pregnancy or childbirth every 30 seconds.

Nor are our consciences rubbed raw by the poverty and despair that stalk Canada's aboriginal people.

It is impolitic to mention this hierarchy of compassion in the aftermath of a heart-rending disaster. People want reassuring rituals, not perplexing moral questions. But moments like this, when empathy seems second nature, provide an opening to think about the nature of generosity.

Why do some tragedies compel us to respond and others allow us to turn away?

Rita Karakas, chief executive officer of Save the Children Canada, believes the determining factor is our ability to visualize ourselves as victims. Most Canadians can imagine themselves being caught in a bus or subway car in a terrorist attack. Similarly, they can see themselves on a South Seas beach, enjoying the holiday of a lifetime, when a killer wave strikes.

But they have difficulty envisioning themselves dying of hunger or untreated AIDS. They can't picture themselves living in a wretched displaced persons camp in Darfur or a hope-starved native reserve in Northern Ontario. Karakas' years fighting child poverty have convinced her that donors need to be able to connect, in some visceral way, with those they are helping.

Amir Attaran, an immunologist and lawyer who serves as Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy at the University of Ottawa, believes the critical factor in shaping our response to suffering is media exposure. When a crisis receives sustained and compelling press coverage, as the London bombings and the South Asian tsunami did, there is an outpouring of sympathy and assistance, he says. When the media don't pay attention, even though the death toll may be much greater, people are largely indifferent. "I lament this all the time," he says.

Art Van Seters, principal emeritus of Knox College at the University of Toronto, offers a third, and more unsettling explanation, of why we sometimes reach out to those in need but often don't. He believes it comes down to a question of blame. If the victims are clearly not at fault — as in the case of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack — we rush to their aid. If we consider the sufferers to be responsible, in some way, for their hardship — as many Canadians do in the case of poverty or AIDS — we hold back.

"The whole notion of desert is the subtext," he says.

It troubles Van Seters, as a theologian, that we (subconsciously in some cases) divide the needy into the worthy and the unworthy. Our judgment, he contends, is skewed by the misperception that our privileges are earned and the hardship into which others are born is merited. "We need to discuss these questions and look at our sub-surface motives," he says.

It's a lot to ask at a time when many of us are feeling anxious and vulnerable.

But if not now, when?

— Carol Goar, Toronto Star (2005/07/13)

--------------------

"crazy eights"

--------------------

well, at this point, everyone and their mother's uncle has probably opined on the Live 8 concerts and the upcoming G-8 summit... so i won't deign to repeat the various viewpoints already espoused, ranging from hopeful to cynical to indignant to defensive... ad infinitum... my worthless 2 cents on this (which would be the equivalent of 2.66 nigerian nairas or 1.526 kenyan shillings) is that it does seem disingenuous to engage in the party atmosphere of a rock concert while millions of people are dying, but at the same time, how else can we actually engage the next-to-non-existent attention span of liberalized Westerners to the plight of Africans? there are a whole host of factors that play into the situation in Africa, and to simply insist on throwing more foreign aid in their direction belies the systemic roots of poverty and the unequal distribution of wealth... corruption on the ground, stifling trade agreements, the absence of democracy, the inherently unjust effects of capitalism -- these are just a few of the many complex issues that remain (and will remain) unaddressed, despite all the media coverage and the good intentions of all those involved (this i do not doubt)... i won't get into any blue-sky theorizing here, but if i can be forgiven for being idealistic (and for "infringing" copyright): "there are people dying, but if you care enough for the living, make a better place for you and for me"...

--------------------

terre de nos aïeux...

--------------------

Ô Canada ! Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix;
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
Et ta valeur de foi trempée
Protègera nos foyers et nos droits;
Protègera nos foyers et nos droits.

--------------------

O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love thou dost in us command.
We see thee rising fair, dear land,
The True North, strong and free;
And stand on guard, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.

O Canada! Where pines and maples grow.
Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow.
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western Sea,
Thou land of hope for all who toil!
Thou True North, strong and free!

O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies
May stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise,
To keep thee steadfast through the years
From East to Western Sea,
Our own beloved native land!
Our True North, strong and free!

Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our dominion within thy loving care;
Help us to find, O God, in thee
A lasting, rich reward,
As waiting for the Better Day,
We ever stand on guard.

--------------------

leaving a mark...

--------------------

i guess we all leave a lasting impact in our own way...

--------------------