Author: ssw15

Ah. Much nicer temperatures in NYC.

A NYC story – I’ll link to the NY Times’ version – the passing of Edith I. Spivack, described in the NY Times’ obituary as “by far the longest-serving civil servant in the department and quite possibly in the city.” I also liked the anecdotes about her:

A colleague, Jeffrey Friedlander, the first assistant corporation counsel, said that Ms. Spivack’s formal expertise was tax law. But, he added, her wide-ranging legal knowledge, administrative ability and extensive institutional memory were “the support behind the men who had the titles.”

Indeed, if Ms. Spivack had been born a man, Mr. Friedlander said, she would not have worked in obscurity for the many decades that she did.

“She was, essentially, the power behind the throne,” he said. “It was clear she was the brains.”

Her most important legal work came in the 1970’s, when she was well into her 60’s. She helped negotiate loans to keep the city out of bankruptcy. In the Penn Central Railroad bankruptcy, she helped collect many millions of dollars in real estate taxes. She successfully argued a major tax case, Walz v. Tax Commission, before the Supreme Court.

Short, small-boned, impeccably dressed, with a courtly manner from another era, she had a tart wit.

At a Christmas party last year at which Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg awarded her a public service plaque, the mayor tried to make small talk and asked when she graduated from college. Ms. Spivack replied that she graduated from Barnard College in 1929.

The mayor said his mother had graduated from New York University in the same year. Ms. Spivack looked at the mayor and said, “Well, I guess she couldn’t get into Barnard.”

Ms. Spivack was born on April 19, 1910…

After graduating from Barnard at 19, she went to Columbia Law School. She married a fellow student, Bernard H. Goldstein, who died in 1998. She retained her maiden name as a tribute to her parents.

She is survived by [Amy] Bass of Port Washington; another daughter, Rita Christopher Frank of Madison, Conn.; and four grandchildren.

Ms. Spivack was rejected by law firms, in part because of the Great Depression, but also, she maintained, because she was a woman and Jewish. When Fiorello H. La Guardia took office in 1934, political appointees were removed and replaced through civil service examination.

Told that the city had no money to pay her, Ms. Spivack worked in the Law Department as a volunteer and was finally hired at half salary: $1,700 a year.

In January 1980, the city began to force foreign consulates to pay their municipal water bills, but the consul general of Colombia refused.

After many telephone calls, she left a message: “If a check is not delivered this afternoon to the corporation counsel’s office, I’m coming up personally to shut off the water.” The check arrived.

In the 1980’s, Ms. Spivack took advantage of the elimination of mandatory retirement and continued to work until 1995, when she officially retired. After three weeks she returned to the department in an advisory capacity.

“My mom didn’t knit, never cooked, never drove,” Ms. Bass said. “She never typed. My mom was a professional woman, a professional lawyer.”

After the Penn Central bankruptcy, her efforts recovered $90 million in back taxes. “For some reason, Penn Central made out the $90 million check directly to me,” she recalled later. “But being an honest woman, I handed it over to the city.”

A certain known bar review provider is in trouble with a certain Multistate Bar Exam provider, because said bar exam provider ain’t too happy that the employees of said bar review provider take bar exams for the purpose of prepping hapless bar review students (link to the Yahoo posting of this article, which I originally found on Law.com). Hmm. Makes me wonder if the SAT people have gotten around to suing either Princeton Review or Kaplan for analyzing the SAT so well such that they’ve had to modify the SAT to trip up college-bound kids over and over. Is it really said bar review provider’s fault that said bar exam provider can’t be creative enough to find ways to prevent law graduates from becoming lawyers? Uh hmm…

More uh hmm – “Just how sexy are lawyers?” – Salary.com says lawyers rank 10th in their list:

The top three “hot jobs” were firefighter, flight attendant and chief executive officer. Lawyers ranked just below doctors and just above veterinarians.

The folks at Salary.com seemed to think their survey shows that salary is not a key component in determining a person’s sex appeal. […]

Fort Lauderdale labor lawyer Alex Londono, 29, doesn’t buy it. He passed the Florida bar exam two months ago.

The lawyer at Fisher & Phillips reports steady success on the social circuit. “As long as I slip in how much I make,” he added with a laugh.

Londono offered another bit of evidence that the survey may be flawed. After he passed the bar exam, his mother bought him a shirt that reads, “Trust me, I’m a lawyer.” Contrary to the survey findings, he said, wearing the shirt increases his chances of chatting up women. It doesn’t hurt that he speaks French.

Even if their sex appeal is dipping, lawyers are still better endowed, financially speaking, than professionals who ranked higher in the survey.

Salary.com reports that the median salary for lawyers is more than three times that of news reporters, who ranked third on the sexy jobs list.

That means lawyers can afford to console their lonesome selves with solo trips to exotic vacation destinations, while poor but charismatic journalists must invite their dazzling dates home to dine on Ramen noodles.

But wait.

News reporters ranked third, in a three-way tie with interior designers and event planners. That seems preposterous enough to invalidate the whole survey.

So, don’t be a lawyer, have some money, and speak French, gentlemen. That’ll get you the ladies. 😉 Enjoy Friday!

Ugh, I hate this kind of heat and humidity. At least the weather’s getting better tonight.

Hmm. Some bit of news on the “Alias” front, presuming anyone wants to know (not that it’s that big a spoiler, since Jennifer Garner’s real life condition would make her acting as Sydney a bit complicated).

Since I didn’t go to work Tuesday (floating holiday!), I managed to watch the Shuttlecraft Discovery lift off. Scary stuff – the idea that we can send someone up there. Now let’s make sure that the astronauts can come home safe and sound.

So I’m going through one of my tapes, since I taped way much PBS documentaries and stuff that need to be checked out before I decide to erase. “Broadway: The American Musical” – hosted by Julie Andrews, covering the history of Broadway, back to its roots in minstrelsy, operattas, and so forth to the pop stuff of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The documentary has its interesting moments, with the stories of the bigger-than-life people and the ties to American history; but, it also has it’s boring moments (I guess I’m just not into Broadway). Pretty nifty looking website, although I guess that they can’t do audio-video clips without violating copyright law or something. The documentary did have really great footage of some musicals – Jerry Orbach in “42nd Street” back in the day – a fantastic voice and such exuberance! – and his amusing stories of working the stage. So sad that he’s no longer with us.

The weird part was watching this clip of Stephen Sondheim’s “Sunday in the Park with George” – starring Mandy Patankin, and then… hit pause on the VCR, isn’t that Data from “Star Trek: The Next Generation”?! Lo and behold, Imdb confirmed that Brent Spiner did “Sunday in the Park with George.” Who hasn’t done Broadway/Off-Broadway? I think it’s great though – it takes a lot of skill to go back and forth on the stage and screen (the tv and big one).

Great, now that I’m watching the last episode of the documentary, I feel like I can’t get myself to erase this. Huh – it’s really interesting to consider the New Broadway stuff – can they match the Old Broadway; are we consistent with the roots and reaching for the future?

So, is echinacea good for preventing colds or not? Hmm.

So it goes.

Not as humid as it has been the past couple of days. Ah, a NYC summer indeed.

“Are subway searches legal?” Slate’s “Explainer” gave the best possible answer under the circumstances: Depends.

Slate’s “Explainer” also explains how those bomb-sniffing dogs learn to sniff bombs. I confess – the real reason I’ve linked to this article is because the dog in the picture looks so cute! It looks like he’s enjoying his job a little much. And, Slate’s caption for the picture – “I love the smell of C-4 in the morning …” – as if the dog’s really that enthusiastic. Um, ok…

Slate has an interesting conversation on U.S. Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts.

Ok, now I can’t find the article (maybe it was Daily News or MSNBC or NY Post) – CBS News’ John Roberts is apparently amused that he got to announce on tv that the White House nominated John Roberts as Supreme Court justice. Hehehe. It is much too common a name. And, there’s the strangeness that Judge Roberts’ family all have “J” names.

Watched “The Apartment.” Great movie. Would you compromise your principles to get ahead with your career? Would you give up the love of your life, since she’s really the (married) boss’ girlfriend? And, geez, Jack Lemmon got a little creepy there when it turned out he knew a little too much about life of the elevator girl (just because he’s in the insurance company and had access to her insurance info — um, geez). But, it had heart, since in the end, Jack Lemmon as C.C. Baxter – well, turns out that C.C. had a heart after all. A real softy all right. A vibrant young Shirley MacLaine. A villanous Fred MacMurray (not the same nice guy from those Disney movies). And a taste of NYC in 1960. Highly recommended.

The passing of James Doohan – the ex-Montgomery “Scotty” Scott, the chief engineer of the Enterprise of “Star Trek,” of pneumonia and Alzheimer’s.

Bush Nominates Roberts for Supreme Court. Let’s see what the commentators will say; will be interesting. Not entirely a surprise – a man who’s an Ivy Leaguer. But, surprise – maybe he’s not Right Wing, so much as well, merely conservative (little “c”)? Who’s to say for certain?

Pari Chang observes the difficulties of being a short woman who wears a size 5 shoe (something I sympathize all very much):

In New York, the city of everything, even a consumer’s most obscure desires can be satisfied. A litchi-nut martini from a former speakeasy. Gucci loafers for a newborn. A shearling bomber jacket for a potbellied dog. But Heaven help a girl like me who wears a size 5 shoe.

Each time I canvass Manhattan, every store seems to be out of my size. The designers send only one pair, the clerks always tell me, and someone has beaten me to it. [….]

To compensate for such episodes, I’ve often resorted to homemade fixes. Before 9/11, I practiced as a litigation attorney in a large Manhattan firm. One afternoon when I was sitting cross-legged in a boardroom with a group of partners, I swiveled to reach for a document. As the plush chair whipped around, my navy pump flew off, and the tissues I’d used to stuff the toe were strewn about the floor of the conference room. I felt as though I’d been caught with socks in my bra.

The partners lost interest in the deposition testimony they’d been all fired up about and pummeled me with questions: What’s your shoe size? What size are the shoes you’re wearing? How long have you been relying on this tissue trick? I took the fifth.

So, when a flier in my mailbox recently announced the midsummer sale at the hipster shoe destination Otto Tootsie Plohound, I was determined to get there before my small-footed nemesis snagged all the good shoes. Opening-day purchases are 20 percent off with the flier, so the minute the doors opened at the 57th Street store, I blazed down the aisles clutching the discount coupon and checking the underside of every shoe.

A salesman asked if he could help.

“Show me whatever you have in a 35,” I said, which is the rough European equivalent for a women’s 5. He told me that the smallest sizes were on display, which, of course, I already knew.

Then he disappeared into the bowels of Tootsie Plohound and returned with a wobbly stack of boxes. “These run narrow,” he said, fingering a kitten heel.

“What size are they?” I asked skeptically.

“36,” he replied.

“Forget it.”

Next up, a cowboy boot, size 35½. “Let’s try a padded insert, see if that helps,” he said.

“Whoa, Otto,” I said, because I didn’t know his name. “I’m not about to pony up 400 bucks for boots that don’t fit.” [….]

As I entered Giordano’s, the clerk greeted me with a bear hug. I bought Anne Klein wedges and Stuart Weitzman slingbacks. They’re both O.K., nothing exciting, but I don’t have the luxury of being picky. If the shoe fits, I just wear it.

The clerk sensed that I was less than thrilled. While ringing me up, she said: “Have a baby. Your feet will grow half a size.”

As I walked back to my apartment carrying my Giordano’s bag, I reminisced about a business trip I took years ago to Vancouver. The shoe stores there catered to Hong Kong-bound tourists, and I netted six pairs of sexy summer sandals.

Of the six, I liked the silver ones best. The metallic straps looked fierce against a hot-pink pedicure. And the summer I wore those silver sandals, I fell in love with the man I would marry. At a small, round table at a sidewalk cafe on Cornelia Street, my future husband waxed romantic.

“You have pretty eyes,” he said, “and beautiful feet.”

He’s Chinese. Yes, his ancestors put so high a premium on small, feminine feet that they went so far as to bind them. But by marrying him, I gained a spring in my step, and my little Jewish feet found redemption.

A lovely story indeed. But, at least Pari Chang didn’t have to deal with being a Chinese female with the little Chinese feet (but marrying a Chinese guy and taking his name got her a lot closer to it). Darn hard to find size 5 shoes (well, I prefer 5 1/2, which ain’t easy to find either).

Dr. Sandeep Jauhar explains why he enjoys watching “House, M.D.” (while acknowledging that it’s hardly the most realistic show):

My wife, a general internist, finds the show absurdly “unrealistic.” “Doctors don’t do that,” she cries whenever a House physician blithely ignores the boundaries of medical subspecialties. (The same doctors, for example, might perform cardiac catheterization, gastrointestinal endoscopy, bone-marrow biopsy and liver ultrasound.) I agree the show is unrealistic, but for a different reason. It portrays a world where doctors have time to solve problems.

I have worked in teaching hospitals in New York for seven years, first as a resident and now as an attending physician, mentoring residents and fellows. Over this period, I have discerned a gradual decline in the intellectual climate of these institutions. It has been dispiriting to watch. Of all the places one might expect doctors to be curious about medicine, teaching hospitals should be first.

Young doctors I work with today seem disengaged and mentally fatigued. With patient rosters of 15 or more, they are preoccupied with getting their work done. Interesting cases tend to generate anxiety, not excitement. Mysteries are, by and large, abhorred. [….]

In his 1999 book “Time to Heal: American Medical Education From the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care,” Dr. Kenneth Ludmerer, a Washington University physician and historian, bemoaned the deteriorating intellectual environment in teaching hospitals.

He wrote: “Most pernicious of all from the standpoint of education, house officers to a considerable extent were reduced to work-up machines and disposition-arrangers: admitting patients and planning their discharge, one after another, with much less time than before to examine them, confer with attending physicians, teach medical students, attend conferences, read the literature and reflect and wonder.”

Today, everyone in medicine wants a number, a lab test, a simple objective measurement to make a diagnosis. Unlike Dr. House, few have the time or patience to cope with uncertainty. We want to make medicine easier than it deserves to be, easier than it actually is.

Which is why I like to watch “House.” The show reminds me of the wonders of medicine. It allows me an hour each week to relish the magic and mysteries of my profession, even if it’s only on TV.

That’s either very poignant, or a point – doesn’t it feel like our learned professions fall into the trap of cynicism (“do the job”; “be productive”; yadayadayada); do we run the risk of losing why we were fascinated with our learned professions in the first place? (I’m not just talking about the medical folks either; we lawyers aren’t that much better). I think that’s why we’re such suckers for watching the doctor shows and the lawyer shows – those guys on tv look like they love their jobs and the craziness of those jobs – that’s really what those shows are – shows about The Job.

Ah well. Got to enjoy watching Dr. House – he doesn’t give a crap about much except the buzz he gets from his Vicodin and his work.

Oh, and the Harry Potter bandwagon. Well, I’ve just started Book 5, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” so I’ll withhold comments. My summer reading so far consists of “Dante in Love,” by Harriet Rubin (a tome on the writing of The Divine Comedy) and Peter David’s “After the Fall” (wherein Star Trek Capt. Picard’s protoge, Captain Mackenzie Calhoun – the superhero-ish man from Planet Xenex – finds out that his adult son isn’t dead after all and that said son has been causing interplanetary problems. Gee, Mac, sounds like your son got his troublemaking genes from you).

Stay in air conditioning; hope that won’t cause more global warming (umm, wishful thinking there on my part, obviously).

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” – pretty good movie. Weird. The movie critics are correct though – Johnny Depp as Willie Wonka felt like he was channeling Michael Jackson. But, interesting movie. That British kid playing “Charlie”- he’s very talented. I could see him in a Harry Potter movie, or other Brit thing.

I’m convinced that the Academy should consider a “Dramedy” category, since some tv shows are just not convincing straight comedies. I mean, yeah, “Desperate Housewives” has funny moments, and so it probably deserves the best comedy Emmy nomination. But, it has a lot of angsty and serious moments – ex., Rex passes away and Bree, the grieving wife, weeps in her immaculate dining room. That was NOT a comedic scene in any way (and Marcia Cross, playing Bree, deserves the Emmy). “Desperate Housewives” is also not comparable to either “Will & Grace” or “Everybody Loves Raymond” (which says something about the state of modern sitcoms). I felt that way back when the Emmy people nominated “Ally McBeal” – I never quite felt comfortable calling it a comedy, because its very first episode and overall themes were about the dilemmas of Ally (which weren’t always funny). Dramedies cover both dramatic and comedic elements – shows that are too light to be dramas, but too angsty to be comedies. Not that I’m expecting the “Best Dramedy” category anytime soon, but I’d like to propose it.

Seeing Lee Iacocca doing the car commercials again – very odd. Like the 1980’s are back.

Enjoy the humidity…

Got to give Rehnquist credit – he won’t give up (or says he won’t, anyway). Well, on a more serious note, I feel as if all this talk of when-is-Rehnquist-going-to-go just a little unseemly – as if we’re waiting for either his retirement or his funeral. I’m thinking, “Let’s just leave Rehnquist alone so he can relax and recover and decide on his career plans independently.” These are certainly interesting times we’re living in.

And, meanwhile, “O’Connor Urged to Reconsider Retirement,” as a bunch of senators would like to see if she would like to be chief justice for a short period of time. Umm. Hmm. I have been fond of the idea of a Ch. J. O’Connor, but we ought to respect that O’Connor had real life reasons for stepping down, never mind that she probably thought this was the time for her. And, reversing her retirement notice – well, I’m not sure how impressed the public would be (be a flip-flopper, why don’t you; it wasn’t what made people be impressed about presidential candidate Kerry). That’s just me, I guess.

Emmy nominations are out — yahoo — Hugh Laurie “Dr. House” of FOX’s “House, M.D.” – nominated for best actor in a drama! He’s “reeling” from this surprise. And, gosh, Zach Braff of “Scrubs” and Jason Bateman of “Arrested Development” for best actor in the best comedy category! Sandra Oh of “Grey’s Anatomy”! Supporting nominations to Terry O’Quinn and Naveen Andrews of “Lost.” All these first timers! Could it be, the Academy people watch the tv shows that the rest of us watch?

Umm, I still can’t be sure about that – for some reason, “Will and Grace” took a chunk of the nominations, apparently for its guest stars’ work – even in a season where the ratings and critical approval were down? While the guest stars on “Will and Grace” are top notch stuff, I personally stopped watching “Will and Grace” years ago, because it got tiresome seeing how neither Will nor Grace were making progress in their lives. Heck, the reruns of the 1st season is still their best stuff (I feel that way about “Dharma and Greg,” come to think of it). Methinks the Academy just nominated “Will and Grace” out of habit (well, there’s always going to be one show that falls into the “habit” category).

Oh, yeah, there were nominations for “Desperate Housewives” and “Everybody Loves Raymond.” No surprise.

“Amazing Race” is up against “American Idol,” “The Apprentice,” “Project Runway” (apparently a Bravo show on competing models); and “Survivor.” Umm, if they’re really basing it on the 2004-2005 season, I’d have to say that “Amazing Race” cannot be compared to “American Idol” or “The Apprentice” (“The Apprentice” went downhill this year in terms of the camp factor, and “American Idol” doesn’t fit neatly into “reality” – it’s just a basic competition show). I’d say it’s really between “Amazing Race” and “Survivor” – and “Amazing Race” might win the nod.

Heat in July. Hurricane/Tropical Storm Dennis. The tragedy of London. The launching of Discovery and hopes reborn. Major League Baseball All-Star Game Break time.

Consider: this Law.com article (link via the Yahoo’s posting of it) – “Who do Conservatives Want for the High Court?”. They don’t want Alberto Gonzalez because: (a) abortion is the end-all, be-all issue for them and they can’t trust him to be with them on that issue; (b) they can’t trust him to be the strict constructionist of their waking dreams; and (c) they seem to want Christian hegemony to reign (or, at least, they want an end their perceived anti-Christian bias in America – and I do wonder what they mean by “anti-Christian”? Anti-Protestantism, anti-Catholicism, anti-religiosity (which oughtn’t preclude all other religions and maybe the world is too secular – who am I to say?)). And, as noted by the above-noted article’s reporters Bethany Broida and Lily Henning of “Legal Times”:

Social conservatives “need to be careful what they wish for,” says Auburn University political science professor Steven Brown, who studies social conservatives. “They’re going to have to run the gamut from taxes to property rights issues, and someone who is reliable on abortion might be less so on the nitty-gritty of religion in the public square.”

So, imagine: you have a justice who may try to knock out Roe v. Wade; might knock out the death penalty (to be consistent with the life-is-precious concept, assuming he/she doesn’t buy the eye-for-an-eye theory); might even be so humane as to want to kick cruel and unusual punishment in Guantanamo Bay (because life-is-precious and to forgive-is-divine). Thus, so-called social conservatives might still view this justice as too extreme or not extreme enough for them (it’ll just take a couple of years to see that, much as it happened with Souter or Kennedy). To satisfy the so-called social conservatives, it’ll feel like sticking a finger in the wind – but it’s just really, really complicated. Why are we catering to them? I thought judges exist to be independent (the judiary is its own branch of government until the legislature comes up with something to check and balance it, according to the system this country has); the judiciary is not to swear allegiance to a “faction” (to borrow a term from the old Federalist papers).

Ok, so maybe I’m being a little facetious here and maybe my political biases are becoming a little obvious – I just can’t agree with the Right Wingers/Deep Red State folks (even as I try as I may to be open minded about their arguments). But, heck, I found myself agreeing with George F. Will today (having read the NY Post’s printing of the column – I’m linking to the Washington Post’s website for the column, in case anyone registered for that newspaper). As part of his argument for selecting Federal Appellate Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, Will observes:

Constitutional law is rife with clashing certitudes generated by too-clever theories purporting to illuminate the one valid approach to construing the Constitution. These theories obscure uncertainties inherent in all legal reasoning. This is especially true in construing a written Constitution in light of precedents produced by applying it in political contexts and to controversies unforeseen by its framers. [emphasis added]

Many conservatives are rightly dismayed by exercises of judicial discretion so broad they resemble legislative willfulness not tethered to analyses of the discernible intentions of the Constitution’s framers, or of its text, structure and yield of precedents. Undismayed liberals eagerly blur the distinction between legislative and judicial functions: Having lost much of their power to persuade electoral majorities, liberals seek success through litigation rather than legislation.

Liberals and conservatives, Wilkinson has written, differ about “the place of compassion in the democratic process.” The human condition is prey to myriad misfortunes. “Victims of social circumstances, however, are altogether distinct from victims of another’s violation of a specific legal duty. It is the job of the democratic process to ameliorate the effects of the former. It is the judiciary’s charge to rectify the latter.”

Dismay about abuses of judicial discretion drives some conservatives into a misguided quest for a jurisprudential holy grail — a theory of constitutional reasoning that will virtually expunge discretion from judging. This goal is chimeric.

Construing the Constitution should begin with what the document’s pertinent language meant to those who wrote and ratified it. But construing can rarely end there. Historians continue to deepen our understanding of how varied and occasionally contradictory were the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. History always informs constitutional deliberations; it rarely is dispositive. [….]

Some judges profess a single explanatory theory for construing the Constitution, a doctrine that makes one value — majority rule, or limiting government, or minimizing judges’ discretion — trump all others. Most such judges will flinch from following that doctrine to conclusions inconsistent with either a long line of precedents or the nation’s current sense of justice. But flinching will not save such judges from being portrayed as willing to let severe logic lead the law to conclusions that the nation has decided are unacceptable.

Wilkinson’s conservative sensibility makes him averse to what G.K. Chesterton called “the clean and well-lit prison of one idea.” And Wilkinson’s conservative temperament makes him comfortable with the subtle task of balancing judicial modesty with the judicial responsibility for refereeing, by constitutional principles, the government’s behavior.

And the public’s behavior, too. Majority rule, to which the political branches are subservient, does not trump constitutional law. This provides a central drama of America’s polity — judicial review. It is in tension with democracy, yet is indispensable if the Constitution is to limit government.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton said that courts have a duty “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” So one of the Constitution’s most distinguished framers thought judges’ discretion must extend to measuring governmental acts against their sense of the document’s “manifest tenor.” The inexpugnable role of judicial discretion demands of judges the virtue Wilkinson calls “modesty.” That is a modest man’s synonym for judiciousness.

[H]e clerked for a family friend, Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., the embodiment of mainstream conservative jurisprudence. Wilkinson was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Concerning the most important and vexing subject of constitutional law — racial equality — Wilkinson wrote a justly praised book, “From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration, 1954-1978.” In 1987, in a case concerning a “minority set-aside” program for Richmond contractors, he wrote the 4th Circuit’s opinion demonstrating how carefully circumscribed “race-conscience remedies” must be in order to be compatible with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. In 1989 the Supreme Court endorsed the 4th Circuit’s ruling. The opinion affirming Wilkinson’s reasoning was written by Sandra Day O’Connor.

The nomination of Wilkinson to fill her seat would be a splendidly clarifying act. Any senator’s claim that Wilkinson is an “extremist” would be risible, and itself evidence of extremism.

Will makes a well-crafted argument. I don’t mind if we could get a Powell/O’Connor-like Supreme Court justice. Problem is, I doubt the Right Wingers will accept that (and I can’t be certain about the Left Wing view either, frankly). As I said before, this will make our world that much more complicated.

“Fantastic Four” – the critics panned the movie. But, if you asked me, having seen it yesterday, the best advice is – just go watch it without your brain turned on and you’ll enjoy it just fine. I’d give it a two star out of four star rating, rather than the single star reviews I’ve seen. Mainly, the dialogue isn’t nearly as interesting as it could be, and the plot’s kind of plotless. It’s mainly an origin story – how the Fantastic Four became the Fantastic Four. It’s not too dark and angsty; mostly campy (not Adam West Batman campy, with the “pow” and “bash” in bold letters, but campy nonetheless).

Julian McMahon, playing Victor von Doom/Dr. Doom, is a hot actor – good looking and all that – deserving better material (which I hear he does get on FX on “Nip/Tuck”; but, actually, even in “Charmed” on WB, he was the intruiging one).

Ioan Gruffudd – as Richard Reed/Mr. Fantastic – a little bland, but that’s how the leader of the group usually does end up being. But, I’ll credit Gruffudd for sounding most American this time (he’s Welsh, and I’ve seen him in his previous American work, and he still sounded like a Brit trying to be American, whereas McMahon, an Australian, has gotten his American accent nailed correctly years ago, since he’s been in America longer).

Jessica Alba – as the Sue Storm/Invisible Woman – she was okay. Nothing too taxing on her. (I think these action roles just hasn’t been the same for her since season 1 of “Dark Angel” on FOX, where she kicked butt and had tons of angst).

Chris Evans – as Johnny Storm/Human Torch (“‘Torch’ to the ladies!”) – hot cutie (pun sort of intended – he’s quite good looking). He had the funny lines. “Torch” generally behaved like an irresponsible brat who has potential to do better with himself (as in, if he wasn’t such a twerp, maybe he wouldn’t be a NASA dropout). He and Michael Chiklis – as Ben Grimm/The Thing – stole the movie with their chemistry (no offense to Alba and Gruffudd – but they didn’t quite have chemistry, even as they pretty much portrayed the trials and tribulations of the romantic lives of their characters in a serviceable manner).

If you have to have the angst in your superhero movie, be rest assured that The Thing carried the most angst. Plus, Chiklis played a character with a heart, loyal to his friends – someone more like his old ABC’s “Commish” character (he was the “Commish” of a local upstate NY police dept) from the 1990’s, as opposed to, say, his corrupt/morally problematic character on FX’s “The Shield”).

Sort of funny to see the NYC buses with ads for FX series, and thus see McMahon and Chiklis more or less next to each other on the posters (promoting their respective FX shows).

At any rate, the movie critics apparently wanted more angst and plot and all that (considering how they got that from “Spiderman” and “Batman Begins”). But, “Fantastic Four” is just campy, which isn’t a bad thing by itself. Heck, if you’ve got kids, bring them with you; you’ll all be entertained enough. (is it worth 10 bucks? No. Go matinee.).

Facing yet another work week…

Last night, a bunch of us went to Kelley and Ping in Soho – good food – pad thai and appetizers – yummy. Good teas. I had the chrysanthemum tea – I’m ignorant, such that I didn’t think that you could order chrysanthemum tea outside of the restaurants of Chinatown or my own kitchen. And, the menu had “Iron Goddess of Mercy” tea. I know this is a translation, but it’s a funny name for a tea (I’m such a silly ABC; it didn’t occur to me to try that tea since the name was funny).

Dessert was at Vesuvio Bakery. Apparently, it’s a NYC fixture – nice brick facade inside, homey coziness. Tiramisu was excellent – not too heavy and pleasantly comfortable.

Coca-Cola revises its old “I’d like to teach the world to sing…” jingle to teach the world to “chill.” I liked the old jingle (click the link and then click to play the ad “Hilltop” to watch the original commercial), and the new one called “Chill” just reminds you that it’s a pretty good song. I’m not certain I’ll try the new Coke Zero (no calories, same taste; but to teach me to “chill” doesn’t exactly motivate me to drink your stuff), but the ads are solid stuff (not tasteless, even if not overly creative).

And, in other media-related news — can’t believe MSNBC had this, but apparently Slim Goodbody is still out there, educating kids on physiology. (He’s the guy who for years was on PBS dressed in a bodysuit to demonstrate the human anatomy; I had no idea that he was once on Capt. Kangeroo’s show – which is before my time).

Slate’s shortlists for the US Supreme Court’s possible nominee – their best guess versus their guess that the choice could be less conservative (sort of). Hmm. The parlor games we’re playing are interesting things, but this’ll get weary. It’s like it was when we were playing the same game in pondering who’d be the next Pope – stick our fingers in the wind and prognosticate.

And then there’s Slate’s William Saletan, commenting on the terrorists’ intention of undermining democracy:

Now comes the message to “the British people” that “the British government” has brought more death on them. It’s Blair’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. Turn against them, and the pain will stop. But it won’t. As yesterday’s message made clear, the bombers want us out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Bin Laden’s whole game plan is to turn the people of the democratic world against their governments. He thinks democracies are weak because their people, who are more easily frightened than their governments, can bring those governments down. He doesn’t understand that this flexibility—and this trust—are why democracies will live, while he will die. Many of us didn’t vote for Bush’s government or Blair’s. But we’re loyal to them, in part because we were given a voice in choosing them. And if we don’t like our governments, we can vote them out. We can’t vote out terrorists. We can only kill them.

Saletan’s blunt. Quite a read.

Enjoy the rest of Saturday, despite the strange weather.