A self-imposed hiatus, wherein life got busy. (and taxes had to be done).
April reading: P.S., I Love You – by Cecelia Ahern (the daughter of the Prime Minister of Ireland; a rookie writer, this having been her 1st book; she’s got two or three since, and she’s still only in her 20’s!). Protagonist Holly is only 29, and her husband Gerry – the love of her life, her soulmate and best friend – has died of a brain tumor. She spends the next ten months trying to live with the grief and love and laughter, as Gerry’s final letters – meant for her to open each month after his death – helps her with the transition. A chick lit book, but not a typical one, where the girl isn’t about getting a love (she had one), but about getting a life. A pretty good subway read.
Ah, too bad Brooklyn Restaurant Week ended. Managed to do Shinjuku on Atlantic Avenue. Pretty good food. Liked the shrimp tempura – very tasty. Me and the fried food thing.
On Monday night, 4/9/06, I was at the Korematsu Lecture, sponsored by the AALSA of the NYU Law School; Congressman Honda (D-Cal.) was the speaker. Very inspiring.
Fascinating NY Times reading: Fibonacci poetry. Sort of like haikus, but even odder.
The passing of Rev. Williame Sloane Coffin, a former chaplain of Yale/Vietnam War protester/Civil Rights advocate – and one who inspired Garry Trudeau to create Rev. Scott Sloan of “Doonesbury” (the too-cool-for-coolness pastor who counsels the Doonesbury gang).
Speaking of “Doonesbury,” Mike Doonesbury’s daughter, Alex, has been accepted by all the colleges she applied (the tech schools: Cal Tech, RPI, RIT, MIT, the Ivies, Mike’s alma mater the somehow accredited Walden, etc.). Now, it’s just a matter of Alex’s deciding. She might even shock Mike by not going to any of the schools – since she dropped the bombshell on Saturday’s comic that she might want to take a few years off. Oops… 😉
The curious nature of the incidences wherein the Supreme Court Justices blab to the public – Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick worries about what this means:
Because the Supreme Court justices want to be a part of the national conversation—and especially where that conversation pertains to Supreme Court justices—they often launch these little speech bombs into the ether. Since there is no Supreme Court blog, no cable television show about them, and no way to insert “Shut up, Tom DeLay” into a written opinion, the justices are left with the most roundabout modes of communicating: O’Connor talks to John Cornyn through the students at Georgetown, with an assist by Nina Totenberg. Scalia talks to Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens through the students at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. And Justice Kennedy talks to editorialists through international lawyers.
This is not the smartest way to conduct a national dialogue about policy. It’s how parents fight in front of the children. (“Tell your father the litter box is full. Again.”) [….]
The problem with these accumulated extrajudicial comments is that they often happen in such liminal political spaces: in foreign lands, or unpublished formats, assailing unnamed adversaries, and through indirect channels. This sort of shadow-dialogue only fosters more resentment and criticism. Justices wishing to take part in the national conversation must stop pretending they aren’t really speaking, or that nobody’s really listening, or that their words don’t have consequences.
Perhaps it’s unfair to ask that Supreme Court justices speak openly and directly if we simply plan to call for their recusals whenever they do. But judicial attempts to speak from the shadows are plainly backfiring. If they want to be a part of the conversation, it’s time for the justices to step up to the mike and talk. [internal link is Slate/Lithwick’s]
Checked out the Macy’s Flower Show. Quite nice.
Great weather; happy Easter and Passover and spring!
