Trying to read more this semester, and not just for school, but also for the soul (partially in order to cope with the reading for school). Sometimes there's a little overlap. Here are some quotes from the non-assigned reading I've been doing lately, mostly about identity in some form:
"Even after all this, one hardly knows what Sam Spade looked like. But everyone knows what Humphrey Bogart looked like. A reader of unillustrated fiction completes the work in his mind; the reader of a comic book or the viewer of a movie is passive. That is why kids lose a lot when they don't read fiction, even when the movies and television that they watch are aesthetically superior."
- Gaiman v McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004)
"Eloise shook Mary Jane's arm. 'I was a nice girl,' she pleaded, 'wasn't I?'"
- J.D. Salinger, "Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut", Nine Stories
"From the situation where I now am, I see a scene of ambition beyond all my former suspicions or imagination… Jealousies and rivalries… never stared me in the face in such horrid forms as in the present."
- John Adams, as quoted in David McCullough's John Adams
"Rather, the point is that most people have experienced what might be referred to as compromising moments of identity performance – moments in which a person's performance of identity contradicts some political or social image that person has of herself."
- Devon Carbado & Mitu Gulati, Working Identity, 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1259
A common thread: the disconcerting confrontations of the present.
Dear readers, enjoy a triple shot of "ugh" regarding Texas Representative Betty Brown's desire for easier names from The Asians (Welsh, Russians, etc. excluded):
3. And a nice mix of commentary and a link to a "Betty Brown" easier name generator from Sepia Mutiny.
ETA: Because Americans are apparently incompetent when it comes to pronouncing anything that isn't in Eeeeeeeeeeeeenglish. Or by "Americans," she perhaps just means "Rep. Brown," who apparently forgets about other different, difficult-to-pronounce names. Us Asians, causing trouble for everybody.
I can live with people who are apathetic about anything outside their bubble, but what makes this extra agonizing is that the classy Rep. Brown can't just live in the bubble – she wants to make people outside her bubble conform! She would rather impose her ignorance on others than actually take a few seconds to learn a few new sounds. Certainly, there's no questioning that "Hsieh" or "Jawaharlal" might require a pause or two or an embarrassed "Sorry, could you repeat that or possibly write it down phonetically?", but come on! Give your poll workers a little credit, ma'am. Give America some credit, even. It'll do us Yankees good to get used to the idea that there are, indeed, different people out there.
Starbucks is another matter, though. My friends with "difficult names" are completely fine with giving a "Starbucks name" (e.g. """"Steve"""") for caffeine expediency.
P.S. Tangentially-related to the conformity theme, here's an excellent Japanese cover of "I Wanna Be Like You":
I've never read so much about milk before taking Constitutional Law. We're currently covering the dormant commerce clause (though it's better dubbed the "negative implications of the commerce clause"). A lot of the cases deal with milk – its production, its transportation, and its purity. My observations are only based on the limited sample of edited cases included in our casebook, but it seems like the sanctity/integrity of milk is a matter of great consequence in interstate commerce.
The phrase "pure and wholesome" comes up a lot when the Justices refer to milk. Perhaps it's because of milk as a sign full of potential signifieds – innocence, childhood, nutrition, whiteness (blank, empty, clean), comfort, warmth. Or maybe it's just because so many people drink milk (including the Justices) that, by emphasizing milk as pure and wholesome, they can convince themselves that what they imbibe into their bodies isn't contaminated or tainted in any way. A performative utterance.
The following isn't related to the commerce clause, but it does involve milk:
I saw the following xkcd comic on Sophia's bulletin board today:
Later, as we were walking down the street and talking about the hefty reading unique to law school, I realized that studying was akin to the delicious cycle. You study more so you have more free time later. But when you do have that free time, you think, "Hmm… I should probably use this time to study."
This week has been ultrahazardous to my productivity. Monday was all about getting ready to vote. Tuesday was all about voting and reading about how other people voted, and I certainly didn't accomplish much after my friends' election party that evening. Yesterday wasn't very productive for me either, due to getting all angry like a cantankerous old man at Proposition 8's passing. Today, I thought, would be a return to my usual routine of briefing and outlining… but then I saw this link to the transcript for FCC vs. Fox Television Stations from SCOTUSblog, and now all I want to do is read about the Justices discussing the contextual usage of the F-word in broadcast television. As you do:
GENERAL GARRE: Well, certainly, the FCC's action in this case focuses on the use of the F-Word and the S-Word, and I think everyone acknowledges that a word like the F-Word is one of the most graphic, explicit, and vulgar words in the English language for sexual activity. And I think even the networks here concede that it was — its use was gratuitous and inappropriate here. And that would control –
JUSTICE STEVENS: Isn't it true that –isn't it true that that is a word that often is used with — with no reference whatsoever to the — the sexual connotation?
GENERAL GARRE: It can be — it certainly can be used in a non-literal way. It can be used in a metaphorical way, as Cher used it here, to say "F them" to her critics. But the — the non-literal/literal distinction is not unique to the isolated expletives versus the repeated effort — expletives.
JUSTICE STEVENS: You think it's equally –it's equally subject to being treated as indecent within the meaning of the statute regardless of which meaning was actually apparent to everybody who listened to it?
GENERAL GARRE: I wouldn't say equally, Justice Stevens, but what we would say is that it can qualify as indecent under the — under the Commission's definition, because even the non-literal use of a word like the F-Word, because of the core meaning of that word as one of the most vulgar, graphic, and explicit words for sexual activity in the English language, it inevitably conjures up a core sexual image.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Which is, indeed, why it's used.
GENERAL GARRE: Which is, indeed, why it's used as an intensifier or as an insult, and it's why the networks themselves — and this is reprinted, I believe, at 86 of the petition appendix — have a 24-hour rule that the F-Word generally should not be use on TV.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But that is an entirely voluntary — I mean, the Commission would have no objection if the F-Word were used on a regular basis after 10:00 o'clock?
GENERAL GARRE: Outside of the safe harbor under this Court's decision, the — the Commission recognizes that networks can use indecent language.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Although they don't, I gather.
GENERAL GARRE: Although they don't. Their policies are not to use indecent language.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Because they find it offensive, I gather.
Hilarity!
P.S. I found this great interview with John Paul Stevens this morning. You want a true maverick, check out this bowtie-wielding wild card. I used to think he made it through these past eight years purely out of vim and vigor and a little dash of spite, but it turns out that longevity runs in the family.
