|
|
Among the issues on the North Dakota Supreme Court’s docket is whether breast implants are considered “marital assets” in a divorce. For what it’s worth, the trial judge said the claim was “absolutely nonsense.” (Via.)
And I wonder if male reporters are fighting over covering this trademark infringement trial. It tain’t often those types of cases are expected to be “filled with many images of ample-chested women” and have testimony about “focusing on the boob element, so to speak” or “bringing elegance back to erotica.” (Via.)
Remember last week’s “couch of restitution”? Well, turns out the particular lawyer is 83 and, according to the Detroit News, he “cited his age and lack of sexual vigor as evidence the allegations are absurd.” I wouldn’t think either of those precludes the old college try. (Via.)
The “benefits” of alcohol: “Daniel L. Shilts Jr., 36, of Waldo, Wisconsin was arrested after his fifth DWI and then urinated on the back of the head of the officer taking him to jail.”
“Lawyers apparently love to capitalize words. Pleadings … are commonly full of words that are capitalized, not quite randomly, but certainly with great abandon.” That is just one of the actually very useful suggestions made by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel in his Order Preparation Guidelines.
About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists of telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.
Elihu Root, quoted in Elihu Root by Phillip Jessup
Social media is making its presence felt in many aspects of life. In Florida, that includes the state judiciary.
The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee last month issued an opinion on the use of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, in the context of the judiciary and judicial elections. Among other things, a judge may not add lawyers who may appear before the judge as “friends” on a social networking site or permit such lawyers to add the judge as their “friend.”
It centers around a common phrase in the world of ethics: the appearance of impropriety. The concern is the impression “friending” might create. The ethics committee felt that if a judge lists a lawyer who might appear before them as social media “friend,” it may create the impression “that these lawyer ‘friends’ are in a special position to influence the judge.” Although the committee realized there likely is no correlation between being a “friend” and having special influence, it said the issue wasn’t whether the lawyer actually could influence the judge. Rather, the key was whether such an identification “conveys the impression” the lawyer has such influence. It concluded that “such identification in a public forum of a lawyer who may appear before the judge does convey this impression and therefore is not permitted.”
The Committee pointed out that its opinion does not apply to listing non-lawyers as “friends” or to listing lawyers who don’t appear before the judge, “either because they do not practice in the judge’s area or court or because the judge has listed them on the judge’s recusal list so that their cases are not assigned to the judge.” Yet even with that distinction, being a judge can be a lonely job — even in cyberspace.
While judges cannot isolate themselves entirely from the real world and cannot be expected to avoid all friendships outside of their judicial responsibilities, some restrictions upon a judge’s conduct are inherent in the office.
Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2009-20
There’s a bit of a lull in my book review schedule as the ones I am slated to review don’t start hitting bookstores until January and I don’t like reading a book too many weeks before it gets published. As a result, I’ve been pretty much reading whatever strikes my fancy lately and it’s brought to mind something I’ve noticed over the last couple years: I think read differently if I’m going to review a book than if I’m “just reading.”
Don’t get me wrong. The books I review are ones I have an interest in so it isn’t like I’m being “forced” to read them. In fact, I receive a number of unsolicited books that I don’t even open simply because they don’t interest me. (And I figure I have no obligation to read and review a book that arrives unsolicited.) But I still think I approach review books from a different perspective.
Character development, plot, writing style and the like factor in to the enjoyment of any book. Yet we aren’t normally expected to explain or provide examples of why we like or dislike various things in a book we’re “just reading.” Even though our emotional and analytical reactions are (hopefully) the same, our thoughts about a book read for pleasure are likely entirely internal. With a review, however, we need to be able to translate those thoughts and reactions into words.
Knowing I am going to be writing a review probably makes me a bit more conscientious or attentive when it comes to themes, point of view or dialogue. I also think I take a bit broader view, not limiting things to my personal reaction but also items such as how a book fits in or departs from genre elements might impact someone else’s decision to read the book.
I’m not saying one approach is good and the other bad. I’m just again recognizing there is a difference.
A critic is a reader who ruminates. Thus, he should have more than one stomach.
Friedrich Schlegel
For the regular library patrons among us: do you have your own idea of what constitutes proper library etiquette? Is there anything you always try to do? Anything you hate when others do?
Because I use the reserve list a lot, one of my minor irritations is those who keep books others are waiting for past their due date. If I know other people are waiting for a book, it moves to the top of my reading stack and I try to return it when I’m done rather than wait for the due date. There’s no sense in a book sitting on someone’s end table if others are waiting for it.
But my major complaint is one that drives me nuts in a lot of other places. In the library context, it is a variation on those who talk loudly in the library. It’s those friggin’ cell phones, which I find a bane in most of public life.
First, if you refuse to turn it off, at least put it on vibrate. Second, if you insist on answering it, I don’t want to hear your conversation. I could give a rat’s ass about why you’re at the library, what you did or are doing over the weekend or other aspects of your life. Go outside with your damn phone! Finally, if you insist on being totally oblivious to everyone else in the library, if your cell phone requires you to use your “outside voice” so whomever you’re talking to can hear you, buy a new one.
As you can tell, this question hits a sore spot, one more about cell phone etiquette than library etiquette. Whenever I see someone walking through a store or sitting in a restaurant talking loudly on their cell phone, I want to rip it out of their hand and stomp on it. But if you really want to see my head explode, don’t piss me off with one of those things in one of my favorite places in the world.
To those with ears to hear, libraries are really very noisy places. On their shelves we hear the captured voices of the centuries-old conversation that makes up our civilization, or any civilization.
Timothy S. Healy, “Libraries and Learning,” The Bookmark (Spring 1990)
I do 99 percent of my Xmas shopping online. In fact, once Thanksgiving arrives, I make a concerted effort to steer clear of any shopping area unless absolutely unavoidable. And, of course, given my tendencies and my family’s interests, I tend to do that online shopping at places that also happen to sell books.
My book addiction, however, results in certain consequences. Since there’s a package on its way to my home or office anyway, what can it hurt to throw in a book I also happen to be interested in? Other than the monetary cost, the only impact is on the size of the TBR list. And there was an impact last week. Including one in-store purchase, here’s what’s arrived in my home (or is on the way) in the last week:
- Leo Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Other Stories. This translation by the same couple who did the wonderful translation of War and Peace ended up in my hands when I had a great discount coupon and saw it at the local B&N.
- It Shined: The Saga of The Ozark Mountain Daredevils by Michael Supe Granda. For various reasons, the Daredevils remain one of my favorite bands from the ’70s (at least their first four albums or so). I’ve been eying this book by Granda, a bass player with the band since its inception, for quite a while and it just happened to find its way into an online shopping cart when I was buying a Xmas gift for someone else.
- Little Man, What Now?, Hans Fallada. I’ve become a big fan of Fallada. Since I only discovered him this year thanks to Melville House, it seemed entirely appropriate that I added this to another online purchase before yearend.
- Wave of Terror, Theodore Odrach. As this work of translated fiction dealing with the Stalist occupation of Belarus appeared on my August Bibiliolust list, I figured it was time to satiate that lust.
- Prescription for a Superior Existence, Josh Emmons. If being on the Bibliolust list for four months justifies a purchase, then execellent reason exists for a book that was on my November 2008 list. That’s especially so since I had yet to find the book in stock in any of the bookstores I’ve visited over the last 13 months.
Now none of these should really come as a surprise to anyone who knows me. Three of the five are translated fiction, one deals with music and the other was described as resembling “something Philip K. Dick might have written.” So, any guesses what I’ll be doing with my free time between now and the end of the year?
Whoever therefore claims to be zealous of truth, of happiness, of wisdom or knowledge, … must needs become a lover of books.
Richard de Bury, The Love of Books
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
