age-attention-deficit-disorder

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

I decide to water my lawn. As I turn on the hose in the driveway, I look over at my car and decide it needs washing. As I start toward the garage, I notice the mail on the porch table that I brought up from the mail box. I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car.

I lay my car keys on the table, put the junk mail in the garbage can under the table and notice that the can is full. So, I decide to put the bills back on the table and take out the garbage first. But then I think, since I'm going by the mailbox when I take out the garbage, I may as well pay the bills first.

I take my check book off the table and see that there is only one check left. My extra checks are in my desk in the study, so I go inside the house to my desk where I find the can of Coke that I had been drinking. I'm going to look for my checks, but first I need to push the Coke aside so that I don't accidentally knock it over.

The Coke is getting warm so I decide to put it in the refrigerator. As I head to the kitchen with the Coke, a vase of flowers on the counter catches my eye - they need to be watered. I set the Coke down on the counter, and I discover my reading glasses that I've been searching for all morning. I decide I better put them back on my desk, but first I'm going to water the flowers.

I set the glasses back down on the counter, fill a container with water and suddenly I spot the TV remote. Someone left it on the kitchen table. I realize that tonight when we go to watch TV, I will be looking for the remote, but I won't remember that it's on the kitchen table, so I decide to put it back in the living room where it belongs, but first I'll water the flowers.

I pour some water in the flowers, but quite a bit of it spills on the floor. So, I set the remote back down on the table, get some towels and wipe up the spill. Then I head down the hall trying to remember what I was planning to do.

At the end of the day:

The lawn isn't watered, the car isn't washed, the bills aren't paid, there is a warm can of Coke sitting on the counter, the flowers don't have enough water, there is still only one check in my check book, I can't find the TV remote, and I can't find my reading glasses either, I don't remember what I did with the car keys, but my neighbor called to tell me he turned off the hose that was flooding the driveway.

Then when I try to figure out why nothing got done today, I'm really baffled because I know I was busy all day long, and I'm really tired. I realize this is a serious problem, and I'll try to get some help for it ... but first I'll check my e-mail.

Do me a favor, will you?

Forward this message to everyone you know, because I don't remember to whom I already sent it.

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

empire building

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

How is it that the Americans cannot keep the electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day, yet still manage to build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth?

Irritation grows as residents deprived of air-conditioning and running water three years after the US-led invasion watch the massive US Embassy they call “George W’s palace” rising from the banks of the Tigris. While families in the capital suffer electricity cuts, queue all day to fuel their cars and wait for water pipes to be connected, the US mission due to open in June next year will have its own power and water plants to cater for a population the size of a small town. There will be impressive residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff to work in. There will be what is rumoured to be the biggest swimming pool in Iraq, a state-of-the-art gymnasium, a cinema, restaurants offering delicacies from favourite US food chains, tennis courts and a swish American Club for evening functions.

In the pavement cafés, people moan that the structure is bigger than anything Saddam Hussein built. They are not impressed by the architects’ claims that the diplomatic outpost will be visible from space and cover an area that is larger than the Vatican city and big enough to accommodate four Millennium Domes. They are more interested in knowing whether the US State Department paid for the prime real estate or simply took it.

Iraqi politicians opposed to the US presence protest that the scale of the project suggests that America retains long-term ambitions here. The International Crisis Group, a think-tank, said the embassy’s size “is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country”.

A State Department official said that the size reflected the “massive amount of work still facing the US and our commitment to see it through”.

— Daniel McGrory, London Times (2006/05/03)

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

The Daily Show Effect

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

Since taking over The Daily Show in 1999, Stewart's cut-the-crap humour and endless send-ups of politicians and the world they inhabit have made him a force to be reckoned with in American politics. He has been on the cover of Newsweek and won Emmy awards. His U.S. audience has doubled in the last five years, to 1.3 million. In Canada, his ratings are also on the rise, with 400,000 watching him on the Comedy Network and CTV, according to Nielsen Media Research.

But is his sarcasm turning those who watch him the most — young adults — into giant cynics with a diminishing trust in politicians and the institutions of democracy?

One new study, published this month in the journal American Politics Research, says "yes." Reseachers have connected The Daily Show to lower opinions of politicians and greater cynicism toward the mainstream media and the electoral process itself. At the same time, for reasons the study's authors propose are none too flattering, these same young people also figure themselves quite confident in their own knowledge about the complex world of politics.

The researchers took three groups of students, exposing one group to a video montage from The Daily Show and another to a montage from the CBS Evening News. The videos' subject matter was matched as closely as possible, including content about the two major presidential candidates, Bush (the Republican candidate) and Democrat John Kerry. The third group served as a control and viewed neither clip. Everyone was then given a questionnaire evaluating the candidates.

Watching The Daily Show, but not the CBS Evening News, led students to rate the candidates more negatively. The impact was more profound on those students who had had only limited previous experience with The Daily Show. Other questions revealed that those who watched The Daily Show but not CBS had less trust in, and thus were more cynical toward, both the electoral process and the mainstream news media.

— ANDREW CHUNG, Toronto Star (2006/05/21)

I totally agree that people in a democracy have a right and responsibility to be critical. The real issue is whether that translates into a "right" to be cynical. It's definitely not the fault of Jon Stewart or the Daily Show; they wouldn't have any material if it weren't for the politicians and leaders themselves providing the comedic fodder. But while it's all well and good to poke fun and laugh at the foibles of elected officials, it shouldn't be mistaken as a replacement for true civic engagement.

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

clerks cashing in

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

Finishing a year as a law clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the summer of 2005, Joshua Klein had his pick of high-powered jobs. The firm he settled on, Baker & Botts, offered him a congenial atmosphere and an opportunity to get trial experience. It didn't hurt that there was a hefty signing bonus, too.

"Around $200,000" was considered "market rate," Klein says.

Now, as the current court term winds down, the justices' brilliant and industrious aides can once again expect to be wined and dined by major law firms seeking to hire them -- and to be offered bonuses near the $203,000 an associate justice earns each year on the high court, according to several lawyers familiar with Supreme Court clerk recruitment. The "law clerk bonus," as it's known, is on the rise. Compared with judges' salaries, which Congress refuses to bump up, the soaring clerk bonus "devalues the position of the judiciary," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy complained at a recent congressional hearing.

The clerks are benefiting from the realities of the legal marketplace. Each year, there are multiple firms and multiple jobs -- and only three dozen clerks. Law firms pursuing top-flight appellate practices in Washington and other cities will pay a premium for the ability -- and cachet -- that Supreme Court clerks bring. "It's very competitive to recruit the very best young lawyers," says David Ogden, a partner at Wilmer Hale who is involved in the recruitment process. "The process that selects out Supreme Court clerks tends to pick who the best young lawyers are likely to be. There's a limited number of them."

At major Washington firms, the signing bonus comes on top of a salary of about $150,000 per year, as well as any other annual bonuses a firm pays.

i think i'd be lucky if i saw a quarter of that after my clerkship...

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

instead

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

Prime Minister Stephen Harper reflects on his first 100 days in office...

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

BoyGroove

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

just saw the show last weekend... Richard Ouzonian's review is right on the money:

"Even if you've never owned an album by 'NSync, you'll find plenty to laugh at in Boygroove, the 80-minute pop culture romp currently running at the Diesel Playhouse in Toronto. Author Chris Craddock has cleverly catalogued the rise and fall of four feckless young men who become superstars, with nothing to recommend them but good looks and the ability to sing close harmonies. There's bad boy Jon, hot guy Kevin, sensitive Andrew and the, er, gifted one, Lance.


With titles like "You Make My Hips Buck, Baby," composer Aaron Macri's tunes sound almost like the ones you've heard on radio, only with deceptively satiric lyrics. Kay Grigar has provided choreography close enough to the real thing for authenticity, but exaggerated enough to bring the house down with laughter. But what makes this show leave a smile on your face for hours afterwards is the work of the boys themselves. The cast (Matt Alden, Andrew Bursey, Jon Paterson and Scott Walters) are all ace performers. BoyGroove is definitely something to recommend to anyone looking for a fun night out on the town."

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

vive la difference!

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

It all began as a lunchroom dispute over a grade 2 student's table manners, but has now escalated into an international cause célèbre with Filipino authorities accusing a Montreal school board of insulting their country's culture. The case of 7-year-old Luc Cagadoc has become front-page news in his parents' native Philippines and a Quebec-based rights group says it will haul a suburban Montreal school before the provincial human rights commission after it repeatedly disciplined the slight, bespectacled boy because he allegedly "eats like a pig." At issue is the traditional Filipino method of using a fork to mush food into a spoon before swallowing the contents.

The Philippines' ambassador to Canada issued a statement of support for Cagadoc's family and Montreal's Filipino community, which he said was rightly offended by the school's reaction to the way the boy eats using a fork and spoon. "The embassy considers the alleged incident an affront to Filipino culture," Ambassador Jose Brillantes wrote. "To assert one's accepted eating practices, which after all are most proper and which have become part of one's cultural identity is, in fact, encouraged under the Canadian immigration policy on creating a Canadian mosaic rather than a melting pot."

School officials contend the punishment — Cagadoc was separated from his classmates and made to eat alone — had to do with disruptive behaviour, not slovenly eating. The Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, which operates the École Lalande where Cagadoc studies (and the same school board involved in the "kirpan case" involving the right of a Sikh student to carry his ceremonial dagger on school grounds), sent a letter to his parents last month saying an April 12th "educational intervention" was "in no way aimed at the cultural practices of your community. It was very specifically linked to the way your son was ingesting his meal that day and in no way to the method or utensils used to bring his food to his mouth."

— SEAN GORDON, Toronto Star (2006/05/05)

i was born and raised in the Philippines, and came to Canada when i was 9 years old -- i prefer to identify as a Canadian with a Filipino background, rather than as a hyphenated breed... in many ways, i've disavowed a lot of my own culture's practices, being drawn towards and borrowing from other cultures i've been exposed to (both by circumstance and by choice)... as a result, i've often been referred to as a "coconut" (i.e. brown on the outside, white on the inside) or, worse, "white-washed" or a "sell-out"... in that regard, it may not be entirely appropriate for me to pontificate on this issue...

i don't know if this story has simply been blown out of proportion because of the "broken telephone" phenomenon... it could very well be that the kid, as many 7-year-olds have done from time to time, was simply playing with his food and doing certain offensive things... maybe the parents are the type of people who simply like to cause a commotion about every perceived slight against their culture... then again, this same school board's attitude towards minority cultures has been impugned before...

in any case, it's pretty sad that this situation is going to end up being decided as a "legal" issue, what with the parents' decision to pursue a human rights complaint... of course, basic human rights have to be protected, and where there are gross violations of dignity, litigation should be a viable option... but does it have to come to this? do we have to sue over everything? do we have to frame these issues in the language of "rights", instead of simply addressing them as the larger social-political questions that they are?

maybe what all the parties in this case need to do is to simply talk things over at a working lunch or dinner -- hopefully where everyone could use whatever utensil[s] they preferred... as many a business consultant would advise, sharing a meal together would open up lines of communication and, in situations like this, would likely help clear up any misunderstandings... that would probably be a grown-up solution to what seems to be a rather childish dispute... but then again, maybe that's just the Euro-centric "reasonable person" in me talking (reminds me of Melanie Brouzes’ "A Very Polite Genocide")...

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

what about the victim?

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

Childs v. Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18 (per McLachlin CJ for a unanimous Court):

"Social hosts of parties where alcohol is served do not owe a duty of care to public users of highways. The proximity necessary to meet the first stage of the Anns test has not been established. First, the injury to Childs was not reasonably foreseeable on the facts established in this case. There was no finding by the trial judge that the hosts knew, or ought to have known, that Desormeaux, who was leaving the party driving, was impaired. Also, although the hosts knew that Desormeax had gotten drunk in the past and driven, a history of alcohol consumption and impaired driving does not make impaired driving, and the consequent risk to other motorists, reasonably foreseeable.

Second, even if foreseeability were established, no duty would arise because the wrong alleged is a failure to act or nonfeasance in circumstances where there was no positive duty to act. No duty to monitor guests’ drinking or to prevent them from driving can be imposed having regard to the relevant legal principles. A social host at a party where alcohol is served is not under a duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by a guest’s actions, unless the host’s conduct implicates him or her in the creation or exacerbation of the risk. Short of active implication, a host is entitled to respect the autonomy of a guest. The consumption of alcohol, and the assumption of the risks of impaired judgment, is in almost all cases a personal choice and an inherently personal activity. Absent the special considerations that may apply in the commercial context, when such a choice is made by an adult, there is no reason why others should be made to bear its costs.

Lastly, with respect to the factor of reasonable reliance, there is no evidence that anyone relied on the hosts in this case to monitor guests’ intake of alcohol or prevent intoxicated guests from driving. While, in the commercial context, it is reasonable to expect that the provider will act to protect the public interest, the same cannot be said of the social host, who neither undertakes nor is expected to monitor the conduct of guests on behalf of the public."

I have no problem seeing this decision as "correct" in "law" -- as we've seen before, law and equity aren't always co-extensive. What makes this decision particularly unpalatable is the idea that Zoe Childs, on top of being rendered a paraplegic, having her fiancé killed, and being loaded with medical bills, will now have to incur the costs of the appeal.

Chief Justice McLachlin refers to the example of "a hostess who confiscated all guests’ car keys and froze them in ice as people arrived at her party, releasing them only as she deemed appropriate" and, although commending this conduct as "exemplary", demurs that "the law of tort, however, has not yet gone so far." Of course, little mention is made that the "law" of tort is judge-made law and thus, if the Court had the courage this time around, they could have very well moved the law "so far." Unfortunately, it will take another (or perhaps many other) tragic accident like this before drastic steps are taken to deter drunk driving.

Yes, drinking and driving is a personal choice -- one which carries legal and moral responsibilities. Likewise, doing nothing -- taking no action to prevent harm -- is a choice. In so doing and chosing, social hosts who let drunken party guests take the wheel are irresponsible and negligent.

Some may be saying the same about this decision of the Supreme Court.

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

on illegal immigrants...

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


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

when some things stop being funny

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

Dear Mr. Leno,

My name is Jeff Whitty. I live in New York City. I'm a playwright and the author of Avenue Q, which is a musical currently running on Broadway. I've been watching your show a bit, and I'd like to make an observation:

When you think of gay people, it's funny. They're funny folks. They wear leather. They like Judy Garland. They like disco music. They're sort of like Stepin Fetchit as channeled by Richard Simmons. Gay people, to you, are great material.

Mr. Leno, let me share with you my view of gay people:

When I think of gay people, I think of the gay news anchor who took a tire iron to the head several times when he was vacationing in St. Martin. I think of my friend who was visiting Hamburger Mary's, a gay restaurant in Las Vegas, when a bigot threw a smoke bomb filled with toxic chemicals into the restaurant, leaving the staff and gay clientele coughing, puking, and running in terror. I think of visiting my gay friends at their house in the country, sitting outside for dinner, and hearing, within hundreds of feet of where we sat, taunting voices yelling "Faggots!" I think of hugging my boyfriend goodbye for the day on 8th Avenue in Manhattan and being mocked and taunted by passing high school students.

When I think of gay people, I think of suicide. I think of a countless list of people who took their own lives because the world was so toxically hostile to them. Because of the deathly climate of the closet, we will never be able to count them. You think gay people are great material. I think of a silent holocaust that continues to this day. I think of a silent holocaust that is perpetuated by people like you, who seek to minimize us and make fun of us and who I suspect really, fundamentally wish we would just go away.

When I think of gay people, I think of a brave group that has made tremendous contributions to society, in arts, letters, science, philosophy, and politics. I think of some of the most hilarious people I know. I think of a group that has served as a cultural guardian for an ungrateful and ignorant America.

I think of a group of people who have undergone a brave act of inventing themselves. Every single out-of-the-closet gay person has had to say, "I am not part of mainstream society." Mr. Leno, that takes bigger balls than stepping out in front of TV-watching America every night. I daresay I suspect it takes bigger balls to come out of the closet than anything you have ever done in your life.

I know you know gay people, Mr. Leno. Are they just jokes to you, to be snickered at behind their backs? Despite the angry tenor of my letter, I suspect you're a better man than that. I don't bother writing letters to the "God Hates Fags" people, or Donald Wildmon, or the pope. But I think you can do better. I know it's The Tonight Show, not a White House press conference, but you reach a lot of people.

I caught your show when you had a tired mockery of Brokeback Mountain, involving something about a horse done up in what you consider a "gay" way. Man, that's dated. I turned the television off and felt pretty fucking depressed. And now I understand your gay-baiting jokes have continued.

Mr. Leno, I have a sense of humor. It's my livelihood. And being gay has many hilarious aspects to it — none of which, I suspect, you understand. I'm tired of people like you. When I think of gay people, I think of centuries of suffering. I think of really, really good people who've been gravely mistreated for a long time now.

You've got to cut it out, Jay.

Sincerely,

Jeff Whitty

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