Twitter Here, Twitter There, Twitter Everywhere

What looked like a chirp from one errant twitterer has apparently become a veritable chorus of twittering jurors.

No sooner did twitter make its way into the courthouse in Arkansas where a juror posted messages about a case, then it happened again -- in a high profile case here in Philly. I had just finished writing about the first twittering juror the other day, All A Twitter, when the issue arose in the trial of former state Senator Vince Fumo.

Shortly before his guilty verdict of 137 counts for crimes of conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice and related offenses, the defense moved for the dismissal of a juror who posted about the case on Facebook and Twitter. Fumo: Jury says "Guilty" 137 times. Although the court denied the motion and the jury announced its resounding guilty verdict shortly after, it certainly will be part of the sure to follow appeal.

The juror in the Fumo case made various vague comments throughout the trial, but the judge found that the postings were harmless error. As noted by the Inquirer, the impact of the postings on appeal is uncertain, Judge finds blogging by juror benign, but legal opinion varies:

"Thou shalt not Twitter."

That's what Edward Ohlbaum, a Temple University law professor, suggested should be the 11th Commandment of proposed jury instructions for the courts in the Internet Age.

That was Ohlbaum's reaction yesterday to the blogging juror, Eric Wuest, 35, of Collegeville, who had posted status updates on Facebook and Twitter social networking Web sites about the federal corruption trial of former state Sen. Vincent Fumo since last September.

While prominent attorneys agreed new jury instructions are necessary, they were split about whether issues raised by the blogging juror were appealable.

* * * *

Attorney David Rudovsky, senior fellow of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, said, "Courts generally will not overturn a verdict unless there was improper conduct and prejudice toward the defendant.

"Here it appears there's been improper conduct," he added, but "it's not clear the defense has been able to show prejudice toward the defendant."

Both Rudovsky and Ohlbaum called an appeal a long shot.

Members of the Federal Defender Association believe an appeal is warranted.

Felicia Sarner, supervisory assistant federal defender in the trial unit, said the juror "breached his duty to keep comments confidential. . . . He was provoking questions."

Brett Sweitzer, assistant federal defendant in the appeals unit, said, "At the very least, the juror should have been taken off the panel. Set the clock back and start over.

"All you need to know is there was blatant misconduct."

While it's true that the articles don't provide all the details about what occurred, this case sounds a bit like the earlier case I mentioned, where the actual comments were less inflammatory than the mere idea of a juror writing about the case on the internet. Just the thought of it raises major issues.

On the other hand, before it is deemed to adversely impact a trial, the standard requires more than a visceral reaction. Max Kennerly discusses the burden required in, Does The Fumo Juror's Twittering Warrant A Mistrial?:

Here, however,the situation is a little different: while particular tweets (say, "he's guilty as sin, ain't nothin' gonna change my mind") might provide "substantial evidence" of "jury nullification" or "a refusal to deliberate," twittering alone isn't necessarily "substantial evidence" itself of any particular misconduct.

Sure, the jury is instructed to keep the content of deliberations secret, but it doesn't seem the juror revealed any content, other than the cryptic reference to a "big announcement" on Monday, which itself doesn't reveal any content other than the jury being close to a resolution.

Moreover, there's the bigger question of: so what? The Third Circuit still hasn't settled on a standard for removing a juror. Suffice to say it's not easy . . .

What is more of a concern is internet use generally by jurors to do research about the case and/or the parties outside the confines of the evidence presented at trial. The NYTimes describes the phenomenon, As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up:

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock."

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, a waste of eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.

“We were stunned,” said a defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he had been on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.

* * * *

Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised by the fact that jurors have cell phones and BlackBerrys in the courtroom -- maybe the rules are different for jurors than other visitors. I thought they had to be checked at the door of the courthouse. In any event, obviously, the courts need to re-work jury instructions to emphasize the dos and don't of appropriate behavior in the connected, internet age. Other than that, the same results will occur as did before. Some will violate whatever the rules are and most will try to comply.

(Cartoon via John Cole, TheTimes-Tribune)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. The Bishop of Scranton, Joseph Martino, did not cancel St. Patrick's Day.

Happy St. Pádraig's day!

For more on St. Patrick, see Suzie-Q.

_____________

To alcohol! The cause of... and solution to... all of life's problems.

-- Homer

Somebody Up There Likes Me

The Ides of March marked the end of the Palin-Be-Gone Wager with my LLWL colleague.

As I noted recently, Sarah Palin had dropped off the scene, leaving the gossip-mongers free to concentrate their efforts on her daughter Bristol and ex, Levi. See Out of the Spotlight.

Now that the deadline has passed (without declaration of a clear winner), Sarah has ascended to front stage yet again.

First off, she is the cover girl & subject of a (not very flattering) piece in next month's Portfolio (pictured above). As The Huffington Post reports:

Joe McGinniss' cover story, 'Pipe Dreams,' focuses on Palin's failure to build a gas pipeline in Alaska. The subhed reads:

Forget 'Drill, baby, drill.' Sarah Palin says she's building a $40 billion gas pipeline, which even President Obama wants. The only problem: It isn't there. And it's her fault.

And then, there's the news that Sarah has made it after all -- in the comics, at least. CNN reports the news, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin enter the world of comic books:


Move over Wonder Woman and Lois Lane - Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are breaking into the world of comic books.

Washington-based publisher Bluewater Productions released a series of comic books featuring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on March 11. The company says it has already sold 7,500 copies of each to distributors.

* * * *

Then they decided that Hillary Clinton's story needed to be told.

"She was the first [major] female presidential candidate, so we just started with [her], and there was so much interest in it," said Jason Schultz, executive vice president of Bluewater Productions.

The first two issues in Female Force, already released, feature Clinton and Palin. The next two will feature Caroline Kennedy and First Lady Michelle Obama.

The Michelle Obama comic is expected to be released in April, and has pre-sold 28,000 copies.

Then comes word that she's the featured speaker at a June dinner sponsored by the House and Senate Republican campaign committees. Sarah Palin, star of GOP dinner.

Or not. As noted in The Protecters of the Palin Brand:

There is no brand in Republican politics as powerful -- or as tenuous -- as that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

She is simultaneously the hottest commodity on the Republican fundraising circuit and a figure of ridicule among Democrats (and even many Independents) who believe that her status as a national figure is entirely undeserved.

Even Palin and her political team seem to be struggling somewhat with how much or little to expose her at the national level.

Witness the odd back and forth over the past 24 hours regarding her involvement in the annual Republican House-Senate fundraising dinner in June.

Yesterday afternoon the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a joint press release touting Palin as the keynote speaker at their fundraising dinner on June 8 in Washington. Then the governor's spokesman told the Anchorage Daily News that the NRSC and NRCC were mistaken in announcing Palin as the keynoter, insisting that she had agreed to no such thing.

Finally, back on the home front, things aren't looking so good for the Sarah. Her approval ratings have dropped from 55% in August of 2007 to 20% as of March 13, 2009. Palin’s Approval Index Continues to Erode in Her Home State. No wonder she's trying to make a comeback back in the lower 48. I'm just thankful that her timing was to do it right after the wager deadline passed.

Sarah-Be-Gone

Note: Newer posts are below.

I'm soliciting votes on the future (past) of Sarah Palin. The Question is: Is it time for Sarah-Be-Gone? If you answered, Who is Sarah Palin, you are just the person for me.

Please read my post, Out of the Spotlight, regarding the Palin Voting Gadget (on left) to see what the contest is all about. Oh, and vote (especially is the answer is she's history).

(Image via Superstar Morons)

The Ides of March

Today is the day. March 15th. The Ides of March.

The Ides of March is the first day of the Roman New Year.It also marks the first day of spring in the Roman calendar.

On this day in history, Julius Caesar was warned by soothsayers to "beware of the Ides of March". Apparently, he did not heed the warning strongly enough as he was stabbed by Marcus Brutus on the Ides of March in 44 BC.

It is definitely not a lucky day for some.

As the Chicago Trib notes, Beware the Ides of March, when superstition reigns:

A word of warning to those who believe in lucky numbers, auspicious colors and star-crossed dates: beware. The Ides of March are upon us.

Only those familiar with history or William Shakespeare’s play “Julius Caesar” readily may recognize the reference to March 15, the day of JuliusCaesar’s assassination in 44 B.C. The Roman calendar designated monthly Ides, or midpoint, days that fell either on the 13th or 15th day, depending on the month.

After Caesar’s untimely exit, superstitious Romans well may have avoided launching a business, marriage or other important venture on a date so cloaked in doom it eventually entered the lexicon as a metaphor for impending catastrophe.

More importantly for me, it's also the last day for determining the winner of the LLSL wager: wither Sarah.

Perhaps the answer is best found in Sarah Palin's day. As People Magazine reports, she spent the day selling Girl Scout cookies at a supermarket in Juneau. Sarah Palin Says Daughter Bristol 'Doing Just Great'.

I'd say that's hardly the kind of celebrity that was predicted by my wager buddy. She should have heeded the advice: Beware the Ides of March!

Of course, rather than face her likely loss, my colleague left town for a week, supposedly to go on vacation. I think she needs to make a detour through Scranton on her way home to pick up the pizza.

All A Twitter

When I first read this post, captioned "What a Twit" via How Appealing, my initial thought was that Twitter had invaded the jury room and had compromised deliberations.

The linked AP story made it sound like a juror had been twittering about the case during the jury's deliberations:

A building materials company and its owner have appealed a $12.6 million verdict against them, alleging that a juror posted messages on Twitter.com during the trial that show he's biased against them.

The motion seeking a new trial was filed Thursday on behalf of Russell Wright and his company, Stoam Holdings. It claims juror Johnathan Powell sent eight messages - or 'tweets' - to the micro-blogging Web site via his cellular phone.

According to the motion, one posting listed the company's Web address and read in part: 'oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they'll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.'

Another described what "Juror Jonathan" did today: "I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money."

In his motion, filed in Washington County Circuit Court in Fayetteville, lawyer Drew Ledbetter wrote that the messages show Powell "was predisposed toward giving a verdict that would impress his audience."

See also, Juror's Tweets Prompt New Trial Request.

However, based upon later reports, it appears that the juror in question, Johnathan Powell, did his "tweeting" before and after the trial, not during. First of all, he sent out a tweet saying he had been picked for jury duty and had spent some time researching what's involved. Sounds like he was trying to do his civic duty, not compromise it. Afterward, he posted about the verdict. See Twittering Juror Explains Posts and An interview with the juror “who tweets”.

Here's what he twittered:

"Juror Jonathan" sent the following eight tweets out through Twitter before, during and after the case, according to the motion for a new trial.

Those messages were:

• "Well, I finally got called for jury duty. It is kinda exciting"

• "trying to learn about Jury duty for tomorrow, but all searches lead me to Suggestions for getting out if it, instead of rocking it"

• "I guess Im early. Two Angry Men just wont do"

• "Im the only one who brought toys: my laptop and a book"

• "I got selected!"

• "And the verdict is ... Penguin Eds can not make fries"

• "So Jonathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money"

• "oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they'll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter. http://www.stoam.com"

The fact that his ruminations about jury duty and the case itself came before and after the case makes all the twitter to be much ado about nothing. Just a bunch of twitter-twatter.

As Anne Reed, who blogs about juries and jury trials at Deliberation concludes, The One Simple Rule When Jurors Go Online, Powell's conduct didn't violate any rules:

He's right. There's nothing wrong with his 'tweets'. If we weren't so busy making the issue of jurors on the Internet more difficult than it needs to be, this story would never have gotten any play and Johnathan would be sleeping just fine.

One simple rule

Little band of people who read this blog, we can resolve this issue once and for all if we just tell every lawyer and judge we know that there is One Simple Rule for handling every case in which jurors access the Internet. One Simple Rule. Here it is:

If the juror had done the same thing off line, what would we do?

She reviews the circumstances of each tweet & concludes he's OK, since "after the verdict, he can say anything he wants to. It is, as they say, a free country."

And this gives me an excuse to post Jon Stewart's Twitter skit:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Twitter Frenzy

Daily Show Full Episodes

In the end, I think The Next Web called it: "This will make an interesting Law and Order one day…"

Cartoon of the Day

Tom Toles, NYTimes

Time to Go

The Washington Post has penned a totally disingenuous piece on the appointment of US Attorneys by the Obama Administration. Fusing the Bush firing scandal in 2007 with the traditional post-election replacement of US Attorneys, the Post suggests that Obama should not exercise his prerogative upon assuming office.

In How Obama Will Handle U.S. Attorney Posts Remains Unclear, Carrie Johnson implies that the appointment of a new contingent of US Attorneys, which is standard procedure upon the election of a new President, is somehow unseemly or unethical:

One of the better spoils of winning the presidency is the power to appoint nearly 100 top prosecutors across the country. But filling the plum jobs has become a test of competing priorities for President Obama. While he pledged bipartisanship during his campaign, replacing the cadre of mostly conservative U.S. attorneys would signal a new direction.

When President Bill Clinton took office, he fired all U.S. attorneys at once, provoking intense criticism in the conservative legal community and among career lawyers at the Justice Department.

President George W. Bush took a different approach, slowly releasing several of the prosecutors but keeping in place Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, while she pursued terrorism cases and a politically sensitive investigation of Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Obama has not made clear how he will build his own corps of prosecutors, a group that shapes an administration's approach to law enforcement and is critical to its smooth operation.

A new direction? You've got to be kidding! On the contrary, with the subversion of the Department of Justice by the Bush Administration with partisan hacks, a clean house is needed now more than any other transition in the past.

Nor would this be anything other than the way it's always done. As Talk Left explained in 2007 during the US Attorney scandal, How U.S. Attorneys Get Appointed:

The job has always been a political plum. The U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President, based on recommendations from the Senators in the particular District. Almost without exception, the appointee is from the President’s political party. When a new President is elected, we get new U.S. Attorneys.

The Assistant U.S. Attorneys get to stay, under civil service rules. They can't be ousted because of political reasons.

* * * *

The Administration should have decided in 2004, following Bush's re-election, which U.S. Attorneys it wanted to replace. In 2005, all U.S. Attorneys were subject to replacement. In fact, all of them are expected to submit their letters of resignation and either be retained or have their resignation letters accepted.

In 2007, there should be no replacements, except for any U.S. Attorneys who proved to be unqualified. The fact that the Bush Administration is trashing the reputations of U.S. Attorneys it once endorsed for the job, in a non-election year raises considerable questions.

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. There is no reason to replace them in a non-election year, except for malfeasance. If it turns out that the fired U.S. Attorneys did nothing wrong, but were replaced anyway in a non-election year, then the Bush Administration has overstepped its bounds.

* * * *

Once appointed, the U.S. Attorney is not supposed to be a political hack. He or she, like every prosecutor, is supposed to make decisions to ensure that justice is done.

In her article, Johnson also neglects to point out that Bush may not have fired all of the US Attorneys immediately, as Clinton did, but he did do so within a few months. See Does The President Get To Decide Who Will Be US Attorneys?.

Merely because Obama has expressed a desire to work with the GOP does not obligate him to maintain the baggage of his predecessor. See Bush League Leftovers. Especially in this situation, as I written about many times before. It's a Crime. That is, Bush is the man who forced out a number of Republican US Attorneys that he had previously appointed, who were too considered to be too independent for refusing to target partisan political vendettas, as desired by the Bush Administration. See e.g., House on Fire. And let us not forget that parade of characters Bush put into these positions. Remember Monica Goodling? Close, but no Cigar. How about Rachel Paulose, the US Attorney from Minnesota, who caused several Assistant US Attorneys to demote themselves rather than work with her, before she eventually left when her "reign of terror" was being investigated. 7 Deadly Sins. See also, The Face of a "Loyal Bushie".

And then, of course, there's Mary Beth Buchanan, the US Attorney from Pittsburgh, who is referred to in the Post piece, who has refused to do the right thing & tender her resignation:

Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, who oversaw a recent FBI raid of fundraisers close to Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), told local reporters after the November election that she did not plan to voluntarily resign.

Buchanan had held top political jobs in the Bush Justice Department, where she directed the office of violence against women and led the unit that oversees the nation's U.S. attorneys. She is a member of the conservative Federalist Society legal group and cultivated close connections to former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), an advocate for antiabortion and Christian groups.

Because of my ties to Pittsburgh, I have followed the Cyril Wecht case for some time, which has been prosecuted by Buchanan amid claims of political prosecution. The Party's Out of Step. As I noted in another essay on Buchanan's refusal to leave, Bush League Leftovers:

I've written about Mary Beth Buchanan before and her adherance to the GOP party line, The Devotee. In fact, the partisan prosecution of Cyril Wecht of Pittsburgh earned the ire of former Governor Dick Thornburgh, a Republican, who testified in Congress against conduct of Buchanan. The Party's Out of Step. And the fact that she's a crony of former Senator Santorum -- need I say more? She was, of course, in good company in a department stacked with the likes of [Alice Martin of Birmingham] and other disreputible US Attorneys. See The Face of a "Loyal Bushie".

I have only one thing to add: Fire her ass!

Cartoon of the Day

Jim Morin, The Miami Herald

That's Not the Way It's Supposed To Be

I'm sure mostly everyone has seen The Daily Show's interview of Jim Cramer by Jon Stewart by now, which had been hyped for some time and has been the "talk of the town" afterward.

As many people have noted, it was not at all what I expected. Based upon the build-up, I thought I might be a little like the Stewart-Colbert-Conan showdown from last year, with Cramer & Stewart tussling a little bit and then kissing & making up. Instead, it was a seriously pointed indictment of the genre, where the Cramers acted as cheerleaders for the market rather than providing the public an informative, watchdog role of Wall Street.

Here's the full interview:



The uncut version of the Cramer interview is a must see (rather than the Show's cut down version). Unfortunately, this interview may well be "Exhibit A" as to why journalism is fairing so poorly (even before the economic downturn). It takes a "comedian" like Jon Stewart to do the work of journalists -- print or otherwise. Newspapers have become scriveners, reprinting press releases, rather than providing independent reporting (calling out the prevaricators). And TV news? Pure entertainment. Not much difference between Meet the Press and Entertainment Tonight, other than the fact that one deals with Hollywood and the other DC.

Glenn Greenwald likewise remarks upon the fallacy of the financial reporting programs (which applies to straight reporting as well -- a la the lack of critical reporting in the run up to the War). When Cramer tries to justify his bad calls, saying he was misled by the CEOs of the companies, Stewart calls him on it, There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer:

That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.

As the LATimes observes in its aptly captioned piece, Jon Stewart can be funny -- until he's interviewing you:

Forgoing his typically caustic humor, a serious and at times angry Stewart eviscerated Cramer for jocularly discussing how to manipulate the stock market and slammed CNBC as an ineffective watchdog of Wall Street.

In the process, the host of "The Daily Show" provided one of those memorable television moments that distill the public mood -- in this case, angst about the economy's swift decline. Stewart also displayed the tough interviewing skills that belie his insistence that he's merely an entertainer.

* * * *

The much-hyped showdown between the two men grew out of a bit last week on "The Daily Show" in which Stewart satirized CNBC's coverage of the market as overly credulous. But by the end of Cramer's appearance on the late-night program Thursday, the episode was being cast as a triumph for Stewart and a public relations disaster for CNBC, which airs Cramer's show, "Mad Money."

James Fallows of the Atlantic declared that Stewart "has become Edward R. Murrow," while Rick Aristotle Munarriz of the investor website the Motley Fool concluded that "financial journalism's biggest celebrity looked defeated." Stewart even got a shout-out from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who praised him for asking "a lot of tough questions."

" 'The Daily Show' has delivered a reminder of the need for independent-minded journalism -- and in the process rendered CNBC a laughingstock to many casual viewers that might not have afforded the channel much thought previously," Brian Lowry wrote on Variety.com.

Stewart was certainly on target, as the Times noted:

Stewart, who pressed Cramer about comments he made during a 2006 interview with TheStreet .com in which he casually discussed how to manipulate stock prices.

"I understand you want to make finance entertaining," the comedian said. "But it's not a . . . game. And when I watch that, I can't tell you how angry that makes me."

Stewart acknowledged that his ire was aimed more broadly at CNBC and the financial press in general for not alerting the public to the market's highly leveraged structure.

"To pretend that this was some sort of crazy once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst," he said.

My husband, who has always considered my devotion to Stewart/Colbert to be odd, watched the Cramer interview yesterday and admitted that he had a new admiration for Stewart, as an intelligent, serious, compassionate journalist.

And thanks to Andrew Sullivan, he can peruse some of Stewart's other rants on the media, The Accidental Activist:

Jon Stewart has, of course, been on the warpath with his fellow media stars for many years now. A reader offers some helpful links: the Crossfire showdown, the Blitzer take-down, the worst interview in Chris Matthews' life, and the sinking of Jonah's whale. Good times.

I guess it just confirms why Jon Stewart has been considered one of the most trusted names in journalism. See Who You Gonna Trust?. He's earned it.

Cartoon of the Day

Steve Kelley, Times-Picayune

Off The Radar

It's another Friday the 13th. Second in a row, no less. I don't think I'm even leaving the house today, just in case.

I've already had my share of bad tech karma yet again (with a dose of bad karma generally, for good measure). First off, my work computer died earlier this week (after my back-up program went on the fritz not too long ago). That same day, my iPhone was not working due to some technical problems AT&T was having in Maryland & Pennsylvania. I experienced intermittent service on a few other days as well.

To take my mind off things, I figured I'd turn my attention to one of my favorite topics -- my wager with one of the LLWL on the fickle fate of Sarah Palin. See Out of the Spotlight. At least on that front, my luck seems to be going my way.

Of course, as I mentioned the other day, the Bristol Break-up is all the news. One of the LLWL gang sent me a link to a gossip website, Crazy Days and Nights, which had its own take on the split, Levi & Bristol Break Up:

Come on. All of you thought Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston were going to last forever didn't you? From what I have read today it didn't even last until the birth of their baby. It seems to have ended right about the time that Levi's mom was arrested for drugs. Since then, depending on who you believe, Levi and Bristol have been model parents and Levi has seen his son everyday, or you could choose to believe that the Palin family considers Levi's family to be white trash and so Levi is not allowed to have his son at his house. Or, you could go to the other extreme which is that Levi's family are a bunch of money hungry pigs cashing in on the Palin name.

* * * *

I think we all know they probably stayed together longer then they would have if it wasn't for being in the spotlight. I bet they had already broken up prior to the Vice President announcement because there are just too many stories about both of them cheating to not be believed. When it comes down to it they are just two teenagers who had a kid and broke up. Happens everyday. It just so happens one grandparent is facing serious time in jail for drugs and the other grandparent wants to run for President in 2012.

Now this little dust-up would ordinarily be of no concern to anyone other than the involved families, if not because of who she is. Since she comes from a "family values" conservative family, it has caused no end of glee in the liberal community, because it highlights the hypocrisy of the conservatives, who would have been all over Bristol if she were the daughter of a Democratic politico.

To temper that view, the great conservative, Jon Swift, counters that this is irrelevant, Why Bristol Palin Is Different, noting:

Why is Bristol Palin different? She is different because she is a conservative.

It's different when unmarried teenage mothers come from conservative, wealthy Christian families. Although it would be preferable if her child had a father, even a white trash one, she will still be able to raise her child with the kinds of values that liberals, poor people, gays and non-Christians would not be able to give to their little bastard children who are destined to become our future criminals. Why are conservatives so reluctant to point out this obvious fact?

* * * *

Why can't we unequivocally state there should be different standards for liberals and conservatives? One of the problems with liberalism is that they believe everyone is the same and that all morality is relative. But if there is anything that conservatives reject it is the idea of moral equivalency. When America tortures a terrorist suspect that is not the same as when a terrorist tortures someone. Killing civilians in a war or accidentally executing the innocent is not the same as abortion. Denying gays the right to marry is not the same as outlawing miscegenation. Giving corporations tax cuts is not the same as welfare. David Vitter and Larry Craig are not the same as Bill Clinton. Liberals are always trying to confuse us by making false analogies but conservative ideology is based on rejecting false equivalencies and making important distinctions. So we shouldn't be reluctant to say that indeed it is different when a conservative teenager has a child out of wedlock and an inner-city liberal teenager does. We should have the courage of our convictions and not play the liberal game of moral equivalency. Instead of trying to explain away Bristol's pregnancy we should be defending it, holding her up as an example of the difference between liberal teenage unwed mothers and conservative teenage unwed mothers. Because just as it is true that, as Richard Nixon once said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." when a good Christian conservative has a child out of wedlock, that means it's not immoral.

Certainly sums up the philopophy of the GOP correctly.

However, Palin the mother isn't looking so good right about now to the "family values" crowd, so she's nowhere to be found. That, to me, is the best part of the story, since it forces Sarah Palin to hide out -- just in time for our wager to be decided.

Finally, what really made my day was the Countdown piece on the Palin split up. Keith Olbermann may have clinched it for me, in this segment by saying that Sarah Palin has been off the radar lately:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News

Check it out at the 3:53 mark. For my LLWL pal, listen & get ready to take the pizza order.

Dam Eagles R Screwed Up

As a lawyer who sometimes gets involved in employment law matters, a situation like that of Dan Leone could well end up on my desk. I mostly represent corporate clients, which includes counseling them about personnel issues. But I also do occasionally deal with issues on behalf of the terminated employee as well.

Dan Leone is the game-day employee who worked for the Eagles and was fired because he dissed the Eagles on his Facebook page for firing Brian Dawkins to the Broncos (along with the rest of Philly).

As was first reported by the Inky, Leone, a long time Eagles fan, had worked for the Eagles for 6 years as a game-day stadium employee at Lincoln Financial Field, despite his neurological disability that made his job as west gate chief difficult. However, as John Gonzalez notes, Cold Eagles sure are thin-skinned:

Last week, the Eagles fired Leone.

Like a lot of Philadelphians, Leone was upset when Dawkins became a Bronco. So he did what a 32-year-old does these days: He vented on Facebook. "Dan is [expletive] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver. . .Dam Eagles R Retarted!!"

It was a rash, stupid thing to do, and Leone regretted it almost instantly.

"I shouldn't have put it up there," Leone said. "I was ticked off, and I let my emotions go, but I didn't offend any one person or target a specific individual. I was just upset that we lost such a great guy. Dawkins was one of my favorite players. I made a mistake."

Less than two days after posting the Dawkins remarks, Leone said, he was contacted by Leonard Bonacci, the team's director of event operations. According to Leone, Bonacci said they needed to talk about Leone's Facebook page, and Leone agreed. Leone - who deleted the comment - figured that the two would sit down and that he could apologize to Bonacci in person. But Leone said Bonacci never got back to him after that.

Two days later, Leone said, he received a call from Rachel Vitagliano, the team's guest services manager. Leone said she fired him over the phone. The conversation lasted less than 10 minutes.

No warning. No suspension. No face-to-face meeting. Just a quick call to tell Leone he'd been terminated.

"I tried putting in my case to Rachel," Leone said. "I told her I worked there for six years. I did whatever they asked. I only missed one Eagles game the entire time I worked there, and that was because I'm a Mummer. I told her it was my dream to work for the Eagles and that I'd never do anything like that again."

Leone said Vitagliano didn't want to hear it. He said that she told him he couldn't be trusted, that the post made the team look bad, and that the only way to resolve the situation was to fire him.

Of course, the story has been picked by not only by the local news, but has been covered by ESPN and other sports outlets, like NFL FanHouse, making the Eagles look worse. They have been blasted for their heavy-handedness in dealing with this relatively minor matter. See, e.g., "I want Joe Banner and Jeff Lurie to fail" and You thought Brian Dawkins was treated rough?. Brendan Calling provides the most scathing take, in The Philadelphia Eagles Are Bums:

OK, let’s review the Philadelphia Eagles for a few minutes, shall we?

Here’s a team that last won the Super Bowl… oh, right. They’ve NEVER won a Super Bowl.

The head coach embarrasses our city with his “family in crisis”, his home characterized as a “drug emporium” by the judge handing down sentencing. Later, one of the kids, britt, was busted for violating his bail violation…wait for it…”after police said they found 33 pills, including the painkiller hydrocodone, on him.” The other, Garrett, got sent up to the state pokey for smuggling 81 pills into the county lockup.

We all know that Philadelphia loaned the Eagles $8 million bucks when their chips were down. But when it came time to pay back, the Eagles came up with all sorts of excuses.

* * * *

The Eagles are the team that doesn’t care. Thanks for the $8 million Philly, now go fuck off. Hey Dan, thanks for making us look good for six years and working your ass off even though your legs are messed up, now go fuck off. Thanks for the stadium taxpayers, too bad we can’t actually win anything, so fuck off.

Bums. Nothing but a bunch of bums.

The case has also been picked up by several employment law blogs, since it raises an issue that's addressed by more & more by lawyers. As noted by the Ohio Employment Law Blog, Employee disloyalty and Facebook:

All over the Internet, the Eagles are taking a beating for Leone’s. For example, according to an ESPN.com poll, 80.5% believe the Eagles were not justified in firing Leone.

Let me take the other side. It may seem heavy-handed for the Eagles to take a stand against a part-time seasonal employee. If an employer wants to effectively enforce policy, it has to do so across the board. The Eagles are sending the message that it will not tolerate its employees publicly making negative statements about the organization. While some will consider it unfair for this message to be sent at Leone’s expense, this employer will be better served the next time, when it is a high level front office employee instead of a part-time stadium employee. In employment law, consistency is key, and to be consistent, someone always has to be first.

See also, Eagles Employee Gets Benched for Comment on Facebook Page.

This may be true generally, but this case is a tough one from the perspective of what's off limits for an employee to be able to express an opinion about. Leone's comments, while referring to the Eagles, weren't really about the team in the employer-sense. He wasn't discussing the team in a work-related manner -- his comments related to the Eagles from the perspective of a fan.

Obviously, we don't have all of the information about the matter, since the only official word provided is: "Through a representative, the Eagles said, "The only information we can share is that Dan was a seasonal game-day employee and not a full-time member of the Eagles staff."

Yet, based upon what wasn't said here, I also wonder whether the Eagles had a clear policy delineating what is considered to be inappropriate work-related comment related to use of social networking sites -- as to content related to work vs. content related to personal life. See Lawful Mining of Blogs on Social Networks. That is, the representative did not say that Leone had violated clear company policies, instead they said he was a seasonal part time employee. In other words, he was an "at will employee" who could be terminated at any time -- and they did it because they didn't like what he said, not because he was violating any rule. Certainly permissible, but clearly it was an overreaction to the "offense." In some sense, it's poetic justice that they are now getting a public dissing -- which is precisely what they were trying to avoid.

And the over-the-phone termination? What school of personnel management ever let that one get by? The only thing that could have been worse would have been to do it via email. The HR person who allowed that to happen is the employee who should be terminated, not Leone.

The Bristol Break-up

No, it's not the newest dance craze.

The wedding is off (if it was ever truly on) between Bristol (she of Palin fame) and Levi Johnston. According to The Political Carnival, The wedding is off: Bristol Palin totally broke up with Levi:

Shhh! Don't tell Limelight Palin... Bristol has embraced freedom of choice again. First, she decided to keep the baby, and now, well, so much for wedded bliss:

Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter Bristol has reportedly broken off her engagement with Levi Johnston, the father of her 2-month-old son Tripp. It's surprising because in an interview just last month with FOX's Gretta Van Susteren, Bristol said the 19-year-old Levi is a hands-on dad and that they planned on marrying after finishing their education.

What's so surprising? Maybe they never finished school... which, based on their ability to make educated decisions, seems pretty obvious.

But in a new interview with Star Magazine, Levi's sister Mercede Johnston says Bristol actually broke up with Levi more than a month ago, is not attending school and rarely lets her baby daddy see their young son.

Told ya so.

Mercede also says Bristol even told him that she hates him and, when she learned she was pregnant, wished the baby wasn't his.

Wow, that's pretty harsh. She could have said she was just not that into him.

Mercede told Star: "Bristol's just crazy. That's the nicest way I can put it. ..."

As Mudflats put it, "Ruh-roh. Trouble in paradise."

Crazy? Maybe so. And, not exactly the way she portrayed things on her recent TV interview. She definitely is afflicted with the same aversion to truth telling that her mother suffers from.

And, of course, Sarah "Family Values" Palin isn't talking, Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston Split Up. There are even rumors that the problem may be that Levi is about to be a father yet again, which certainly would account for the fact that Bristol isn't too enamored of him.

Of course, as I noted way back in October, before the election, Wedding Bell Blues:

So, the baby's due in December, they're planning a summer wedding, but plans could change. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the translation for this one.

That is, if McCain/Palin loses, and Sarah slinks back to Alaska, the wedding's off. On the other hand, should they somehow squeak by (or steal the election), the wedding will be moved up to a date prior to the inauguration, so we save the country of the embarrassment of an 'out of wedlock' (grand)baby in the White House. You know, Christian values being what they are and all.

Maybe my LLWL colleague wagered on the wrong Palin staying in the limelight -- she would have been better off betting on Bristol, not Sarah.

Quote of the Day

So true. And, imagine that -- I finally found something I could agree with the Pope about:

Instead of men kneeling in confessionals admitting to lust, maybe they should be encouraged to regard greed...as a more devastating and destructive sin. In this respect, it is interesting to note that Pope Benedict has recently suggested that there is a close connection between original sin and the greed that has created the current economic crisis. It is also notable that the credit crunch has been created by a profession that is almost exclusively male. In the line-up of failed bankers, not a single woman's name has appeared. Male greed has proven to be a murderous sin, destroying the livelihoods of millions, bringing down economies and social institutions and threatening starvation to the most vulnerable people on earth. Recent research at Cambridge University has revealed a connection between men's behaviour on the trading floors and their testosterone levels. Men with high testosterone levels are more willing to take financial risks, and that risk-taking boosts their testosterone levels even higher. The global economic crisis may be the result of a testosterone tornado sweeping through the banking world. There is also mounting evidence that business productivity and efficiency increase when women are involved in management and decision-making, and it has long been recognised by aid agencies that women invest money more responsibly, implement development projects more effectively and are more likely to yield a return on the investment than men. Many surveys have also shown that women in all societies tend to work longer hours than men, which is perhaps why "sloth" is not high on the list of women's sins. (Emphasis added).

Sunday Sermonette: James Wolcott

(Via onegoodmove)

Cartoon of the Day

Jerry Holbert, Boston Herald

The Monday Massacre

It used to be that day's end on Friday was the preferred time for employee terminations, since it was the end of the day/week and less people were around to gossip about the departure. Several years ago, there was a reconsideration of that philosophy, because of work-related incidents by disgruntled employees. The week-end was felt to be an isolating time for an impacted employee, without any resources to help deal with the job loss.

But until now, Monday has not been a big hit day.

In my continuing saga of law firm layoff news, yesterday definitely qualified as the Monday Massacre. K&L Gates began the day with a layoff of 36 attorneys and 79 staff, as reported by Above the Law. Although significant, it wasn't as bad as had been expected, K&L Gates Reduces by 36 Associates:

We hate to say it, but laying off just 4.9 percent of associates is almost something to brag about these days, with firms like Latham cutting as high as 10 percent in one fell swoop. Full memo, after the jump.

The announcement ends weeks of speculation as to expected layoffs at the firm. No word as to class levels, offices, or nature of the severance packages.

Then, Philly's Morgan Lewis has moved to Step Two in the Layoff wars, by letting go 55 attorneys and 161 staffers, after undergoing a round of layoffs earlier this year (and it's only March). See Morgan Lewis Lays off 216.

And Morgan was not alone. ATL reports that White & Case joined the fray by laying off 200 lawyers and 200 staff, White & Case Round 2:

We are now firmly into the 'second round' of law firm layoffs. We are increasingly dealing with firms who already laid people off in late 2008 or early 2009 who have to go back and make more cuts as the economic outlook continues to worsen.

White & Case, which laid off about 70 associates back in November , laid off 400 people today: 200 attorneys, and 200 staff.

These numbers, while devastating, don't even tell the full story. There have been other moves within law firms to trim the ranks of lawyers, under the guise of "performance reviews," which have been termed stealth layoffs. Starting dates for newly hired attorneys have been pushed back -- or rescinded. As the Inquirer observes, Layoffs quietly reaching higher:

But other cutbacks are taking place under the radar, and these, too, are causing their own kind of pain, financial and otherwise.

Typically, the numbers are small and scattered among firms in a piecemeal fashion.

Such was the case this year at Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads L.L.P. and Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young L.L.P., to name a couple. The firms trimmed a small number of associate positions.

At some firms, the stealth reductions, though small, seem to be reaching higher into the organizational charts. They've begun to hit so-called income partners, who are well-paid but do not have an ownership interest in their firms.

* * * *

They get no attention because laid-off partners typically do not pour out their souls to legal blogs like AboveTheLaw.com, the chatty, catty, and sometimes amusing Web site that likes nothing more than to torment the leadership of big law.

With all of this bad law news, who knows -- that man at the homeless shelter who snapped Michelle Obama's picture with his cell phone (who was deemed the new "Welfare Queen" for owning a cellphone while poor) may have been an out-of-work lawyer. See Michelle Obama serves food to D.C. poor and homeless, but...

All in all, no one, including lawyers, is immune from the economic crisis we are in the midst of.

Babs is 50!

I admit it. It's a deep dark secret, hardly ever acknowledged. Yes, I was a fan of Barbie. Loved the doll, loved the clothes. Had several Barbies and hated to give them up when I got too old to be playing with dolls.

Today is Barbie's 50th birthday (and my sister-in-law Esther).

Despite all of the bad raps she's received over the years, she's still hanging in there. As the Inky notes, Barbie at 50: Still giving them something to talk about:

The rap on Barbie has never been pretty.

Born 50 years ago today - happy birthday, doll - Barbie's been accused of a lot of things, from being politically incorrect to being groaningly politically correct - and has survived innumerable bad haircuts and senseless beheadings - and she's emerged remarkably unscathed.

And here's the original Barbie commercial which previewed in 1959, played during the Mickie Mouse Club:



And finally, if you think you're a Barbie pro, you can test your Barbie-Q, see The Barbie doll remains forever young at 50.

Pro Whose Life?

For a change, I'm not writing about antics of the Bishop of Scranton, Joseph Martino.

This time the outrageous news about the Catholic Church emanates from Brazil. The regional archbishop excommunicated the mother of a 9 year old rape victim and the doctors who performed an abortion on her. Not surprisingly, the Vatican approved the action of the archbishop, Vatican defends Brazil excommunication:

A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion in Brazil after being raped.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Catholic church's Congregation for Bishops, told the daily La Stampa on Saturday that the twins the girl had been carrying had a right to live.

"It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said.

Re, who also heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, added: "Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified."

The row was triggered by the termination on Wednesday of twin foetuses carried by a nine-year-old allegedly raped by her stepfather in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco.

However, the abortion was performed because the doctors were concerned that the 9 year old could not survive the pregancy:

The regional archbishop, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, pronounced excommunication for the mother for authorising the operation and doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term.

"God's law is above any human law. So when a human law ... is contrary to God's law, this human law has no value," Cardoso had said.

The Church has apparently evolved to to a single issue religion, the religion of the anti-abortion creed. As the Church see its, it's OK if the mother and twins had died during the course of the pregnancy or delivery, so long as there was no interference by abortion.

And for the stepfather, who had been abusing the girl since she was 6? And abusing her physically handicapped older sister?

[The archbishop] also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church. Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious".

Battista Re agreed, saying: "Excommunication for those who carried out the abortion is just" as a pregnancy termination always meant ending an innocent life.

Natch, the Church has always sided with the child-abusers, so why would they change now?

If only the Church could be a little more "Pro-life" after life begins.

(Via Oliver Willis)

Snark Attack

I'm all for sarcasm or snark, as its called on the blogs. Lord knows I've been known to indulge in a bit of snark myself on occasion (OK, maybe more than occasionally).

However, Maureen Dowd is swimming in it. Drowning, in fact. The problem is that its seem to have become the only stroke she knows. Her latest piece, Should Michelle Cover Up?, is a smorgasbord of snark. Starting from the mistaken premise that she is a "journalist" (lets try columnist or pundit), she jumps from a riff on Obama's treatment of the new British prime minister to a critique of Michele Obama's attire and physical appearance.

Although it is almost difficult to tell (if you can actually make it to the end of the column), Dowd in fact ends on a positive note regarding Michelle Obama. The problem is that it's buried in all the unnecessary snark:

She ignored that talk, thank heavens. I love the designer-to-J. Crew glamour. Combined with her workaday visits to soup kitchens, inner-city schools and meetings with military families, Michelle’s flare is our depression’s answer to Ginger Rogers gliding around in feathers and lamé.

Her arms, and her complete confidence in her skin, are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it. Unlike Hillary, who chafed at the loathed job of first lady, and Laura, who for long stretches disappeared into the helpmeet role, Michelle has soared every day, expanding the job to show us what can be accomplished by a generous spirit, a confident nature and a well-disciplined body.

I also have no doubt she can talk cap-and-trade with ease and panache.

I think someone needs to buy her a copy of David Denby's book, Snark. He must have had Dowd in mind when he wrote the book, which describes Snark:

What is snark? You recognize it when you see it -- a tone of teasing, snide, undermining abuse, nasty and knowing, that is spreading like pinkeye through the media and threatening to take over how Americans converse with each other and what they can count on as true. Snark attempts to steal someone's mojo, erase her cool, annihilate her effectiveness.

Describing Dowd's column, Booman Tribune puts it so aptly: "I have no words."

And, I suppose I'm being snarky about the whole thing.

Cartoon of the Day

From my daily desk calendar, via The New Yorker

Diversity Defined

Diversity has no place in the Catholic Church, or its institutions of higher learning, announced Scranton Bishop Martino. Acknowledging that the "advancement of tolerance, understanding and harmony between people of different races and cultures" are worthy goals, the Bishop clarified that such teachings have no place in a Catholic Institution, since they conflict with Catholic values.

In his latest quest for the limelight in the Electric City, the Bishop of the Diocese of Scranton has defined the word "Diversity," at least for those Catholics who don't have a dictionary handy. As the Times-Tribune explains, Bishop Martino defines role of 'diversity':

Bishop Joseph F. Martino called on area Catholics to see a difference between 'authentic tolerance' and an 'anything-goes mindset,' in a public statement Tuesday.

* * * *

The statement describes a school’s responsibility to teach Catholic values. It says while diversity is a worthy goal, a Catholic institution may not compromise on the “objective, moral truth” of Catholic teaching.

“For example, would the Diversity Institute be justified in hosting a speaker who believes the Holocaust is a myth? Or one who believes slavery is OK because certain people are inferior? Or one who believes women can be exploited because they are the “weaker sex”?” the bishop asked.

“Their views are certainly ‘diverse,’ but does that qualify them to be given a platform in the name of tolerance?" Bishop Martino wrote. “As Catholics, we believe there is an objective, moral truth — given to us by Jesus Christ. This truth is timeless, and it cannot be altered by the shifting tides of popular culture.”

See also, Bishop, Misericordia trade statements on diversity institute.

Banning Holocaust deniers (sorry Bishop Williamson, you aren't welcome in Scranton), gays and people who know people who may be pro-Choice is the latest edict defining the limits of diversity, instructs Martino.

Of course, I'm speaking of the man who runs the Catholic Church in Scranton, Joseph Martino, who has taken time from closing churches in the Diocese to targeting colleges who foolishly believe learning means listening to views that may not be your own. As I've written (many times) before, Martino has attacked a local college because it dared allow a gay man to speak at a forum (sponsored by the Diversity Institute, of all things) as part of its Black History celebration. Santimonious: In Praise of Moron.

For more of the sad saga of sinful doings in Scranton, see The Intolerance Institute, Sinful in Scranton.

In his latest statement, Martino issues a final word to his critics and naysayers:

Bishop Martino concluded his statement by offering a “postscript” to people who criticize him for “taking public stances that may not be popular or ‘politically correct,’ or may not agree with their own personal notions of what ‘progressive’ Catholic doctrine should be.”

“My job as a bishop is to promulgate the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church to all the faithful,” he wrote. “I will continue to do so.”

I'm just sorry that I left the Church long ago, so I can't make a big scene & leave now!

Quote of the Day

This is apropos of nothing in particular, but I'd just like to mention that the past year has been an intellectually humbling one for me. As a general purpose blogger I'm accustomed to spouting off on topics I know only a little bit about, but all that spouting has become more difficult lately. There's just too much stuff I'm really not sure what to think about. For example: I don't know if we should send more troops to Afghanistan. I don't know if fiscal stimulus will work. I don't know what to do about Pakistan. I don't who or what is really responsible for our financial meltdown. I don't know if we need to nationalize some banks. I don't know the best way to handle detainees at Guantanamo. I don't know whether it's a good idea to bail out Detroit. I don't have even the slightest clue how to pursue peace in the Middle East.

On the other hand, Social Security is still a minor problem, national healthcare would be better than our current jury rigged hodgepodge, torture is wrong, global warming is real, preventive war is a bad idea, gay marriage will have no ill effects on straight marriage, Sarah Palin is still an embarrassment, and Inkblot is still America's Cat¹. So there.

¹Well, why not? If the Dallas Cowboys can be America's Team and Rudy Giuliani can be America's Mayor, why can't Inkblot be America's Cat?

Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, Epistemological Modesty

Cartoon of the Day

Matt Davies, The Journal News

What is the Floss?

I finally finished George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss -- only a week after our Book Group met to discuss it.

Since I hadn't finished the book, my first question was "What is the Floss?" OK, I guess I missed the reference to the Floss River in the first paragraph of the book. Of course, that was good for a few dentist jokes. Our book group had a guest attendee, a woman who was a Victorian Literature professor at Kenyon University before moving to Philly who provided a wonderful perspective on aspects of the book that we might otherwise have missed.

A brief description of the story:

George Eliot’s thrilling novel focuses on the loving yet turbulent relationship between siblings Maggie and Tom Tulliver. Maggie is impetuous and fervent while Tom is collected and pragmatic, yet their different natures are united by a strong bond. That bond is tested by many upheavals, including their family’s bankruptcy, the loss of their family’s mill, and their father’s eventual death. Maggie, meanwhile, experiences her own personal turmoil: though the sensitive, hunchbacked Philip is in love with her, she is drawn to Stephen Guest, a prominent town resident who happens to be her cousin Lucy’s suitor. Despite the fact that both of them are involved with other people, Maggie and Stephen cannot hide their feelings—from each other and from other characters. But when their relationship becomes public, Stephen flees the country, Maggie is cast out of society, and the bond between the siblings undergoes its toughest trial. In The Mill on the Floss, Eliot weaves a mesmerizing, devastating tale about various types of love, the deepest of which may be the love between families.

The novel was published in 1860 and was Mary Ann Evans' most autobiographical book. It is a variation on her real life and the impact of her affair with a married man. The writing style is much more wordy than we are used to today, but her writing and descriptions are beautiful. The novel definitely holds up as a classic. In fact, the group has put Eliot's Middlemarch on our to read list, now that we're showing a more literary bent (at least for a while).

There are certainly areas where the novel is somewhat dated, such as the sexist roles imposed on women, as seen through the subservient role that Maggie was forced to live, despite her "independent" spirit. Yet, there are also those aspects of the story that are timeless and there were even a few parallels to issues of today. For example, dysfunctional families are timeless and the Tulliver family can keep up with the best of them! Maggie's relationship with her brother is complex and forms the central theme of the book. Her brother Tom is a rigid, judgmental person, yet Maggie adores him. From childhood on, she craves his approval, which is often withheld. Apparently this mirrors Mary Ann Evans' own relationship with her brother, who also rejected her, as did Tom Maggie.

Then there are the issues related to class dynamics and the poverty that Maggie's family faced after her father lost a lawsuit and had to declare bankruptcy, which certainly provides echoes of what we're faced with today. Maggie's relationships with the two men in her life, Philip and Stephen Guest, are set out in light the mores of the time, so are limited based upon family dynamics. Philip is the son of a family enemy, so he cannot ever be accepted for Maggie, regardless of her feelings. Stephen Glass is involved with her cousin Lucy, so Maggie is unable to allow her own desires to prevail. The shunning that Maggie experienced an unchaperoned boat trip with Stephen Glass could only occur in Amish country today, yet the gossip and speculation about Maggie afterwards by the townspeople still rings true today.

Laura McDonald's review of the book at Girlebooks and description of Maggie is on point:

Maggie as a child is a beautiful character; Eliot portrays the workings of her mind so truthfully and compellingly. She is full of fiery defiance and lives for the moment, whether in her need for Tom’s affection or full of bitter regret after she realizes the consequences of her actions. One of the best illustrations of Maggie’s ornery personality is when, after being told since she was young that her looks and behavior are that of a gypsy, she decides to run away and live with “her people”. However, when she actually gets her wish and finds herself among the gypsies with no way to get home, it slowly dawns on her that she perhaps acted too precipitously.

Such stories from Maggie’s childhood prepare us for the challenges she will face as she grows older. Family troubles cause both Maggie and Tom to take on heavy responsibilities at an early age, turning grown Maggie into a shadow of her former self interspersed with flashes of emotion she can’t contain. Alongside their family drama we find several love stories intertwined. With these intertwined stories Eliot explores the themes of emotion over duty, passion over propriety. What if the one you desire is the last person who will make you happy? What place does obligation take in questions of the heart? What place does love of a family member take when conflicted with the love of a lover?

Although I did buy a real copy, the book is even available on Google Books, and I was able to read on the fly on my iPhone when I found myself with a few extra minutes here and there. Not quite the Kindle, of course, which I just saw this week-end for the first time (although I've been reading about it for some time). After seeing it, I think the Kindle is my next gadget "must have," but I can get by with books on the iPhone until then. Luckily, our next book up on our reading list is Crime & Punishment, is also available on Google Books.

View From My Window

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, except for the fact that it's March 2nd.

So, I call a snow day. Of course, that means that I can luxuriate in working at home, snug as a bug in my slippers. It's the good & the bad of my job -- that I can work at home.

3rd Time's a Charm

Third time may be a charm, but being tied for third place -- not so much.

Unfortunately for Sarah Palin, that's were she ended up in the beauty queen contest for the affection of the conservatives in the Republican Party. As noted by CQ Politics, Conservative Activists Still Favor Romney:

If the Republican Party’s conservative wing had the power to choose presidential nominees, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would be the hands-down choice.

* * * *

Of 1,757 registered attendees who chose to take this year’s survey, 20 percent said they would vote for Romney as president in 2012.

* * * *

A relative newcomer who has been much in the news came in second: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was favored by 14 percent of the conservatives at the annual Washington gathering.

Third place was a tie between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , who was the party’s vice presidential nominee in 2008 and former presidential candidate Ron Paul . Each was preferred by 13 percent of conference goers.

* * * *

Little weight is given to any survey this far out from the election, but the straw poll is an indicator of the current thinking in the GOP’s conservative wing.

I think Mudflats expresses the import of this vote best, CPAC Speaks.:

Sarah Palin…the conservative sweetheart, the down home girl who grew up in a small town in Alaska, whose meteoric rise to mayor, governor, VP candidate, and Presidential contender in 2012 can only be described as a phenomenon. She has fired up the passions of conservatives, inspired tens of thousands to join her fan club site “Team Sarah” and has been able to assemble crowds of cheering supporters, the size of which John McCain only dreamed about. She’s been wined and dined by GOP fundraising operatives, invited to speak at events all over the nation, has an 11 million dollar book deal in the works. The world appears to be her political oyster, and she’s reaching for the cocktail sauce.

At the conservative Mecca, (also known as the CPAC conference) this weekend a straw poll was taken. Who do conservatives want to see run for the presidency in 2012? Well, who d’ya think? Get ready to start chanting! Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH! Sa-…… Mitt?

* * * *

That’s right, Mitt Romney is the conservative’s choice. And Sarah Palin is tied for {third} place with Ron Paul. Wow. That’s as good as… Undecided and Mark Sanford combined. Is there a Hallmark card for that?

In other words, as Sam Stein of the Huffington Post said, Romney Wins CPAC Poll, Palin Tied For Third:

For the Alaska Governor, the belle of the conservative movement in the '08 election, the results aren't the best of news.

I might say the same for my LLWL colleague who wagered against me in the Palin Be-Gone contest. See Out of the Spotlight.

Let's Just Abolish It

Via Quaker Dave, I learned that today is Abolition Day (no we're post-racial now, remember, so I'm not talking about that). It's International Death Penalty Abolition Day, as observed by the Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty:

March 1, International Death Penalty Abolition Day, marks the anniversary of the date in 1847 in which the State of Michigan officially became the first English-speaking territory in the world to abolish capital punishment. It is a day to remember the victims of violent crime and their survivors; it is a day to remember those killed by state sanctioned violence - guilty or not- and their survivors; and it is a day for intensified education and action for alternatives to the death penalty.

A recent example of the need to eliminate the death penalty is the Troy Davis case, which I've written about before. In Hold On, I wrote about the Georgia man who has been on death row for 17 years for the murder of a police officer. With compelling questions raised about his guilt or innocence, after the US Supreme Court declined to issue a stay, the Court of Appeals stayed the case shortly before he was scheduled to be executed. The case was argued before a three judge panel of the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December of 2008 and a decision whether to allow a new rounds of appeals on the question of Davis' innocence is still pending. Troy Davis Makes Case for New Round of Appeals.

Amnesty International has created a video in conjunction with Indie rock group State Radio about the case:



Unlike the Bishop of the Scranton Diocese, who is more interested in stifling dissent than promoting the Church's teachings (other than his pet projects), the Archbishop of Atlanta has been an outspoken advocate against the death penalty. Speaking before an audience at Emory University, Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory remarked:

“The Catholic moral tradition shows an unambiguous preference to preserve life even when the order of justice is threatened and the safety of innocent life is at stake. While acknowledging the moral and legal prerogative of the state to execute criminals in strictly limited circumstances, the church pleads for restraint in the exercise of that prerogative. The moral requirement to protect the innocent stands alongside the imperative to stem the cycle of violence that keeps individuals and communities enslaved to vengeance,” he told the rapt audience.

The archbishop noted that since the 1970s, when the death penalty was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. bishops have issued statements against the death penalty at least four times.

* * * *

The late pontiff [John Paul II] claimed that the death penalty is “morally permissible only in those rare instances where it would not be possible otherwise to incarcerate someone safely and keep them from harming society.”

And today “such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent,” Archbishop Gregory said.

Sounds pro-life to me.

Happy Days Are Here Again

Why can't we all just be happy? Louis C.K. wants to know.

Happy March (it means spring is in the air).