Not a Potted Plant

This makes me want to root for the San Francisco 49ers. Except if they play Green Bay, because, come on. But word up for Braylon Edwards, shelling out at least $800,000 of a $1,000,000 salary in scholarships for Cleveland-area children when he doesn’t even live in Cleveland anymore.

For the practicing litigator, there’s nothing quite like a jury trial. Immense amounts of intense preparation, lots of paperwork to screw up, lots of evidence to handle. In my practice, some of my trials wind up getting sprung on me with very little notice and very little opportunity to prepare; I had the experience of sorting through a client’s files last night after he had used the “Cuisinart” method of filing. Those who practice criminal law will have little sympathy for me, I know. The chaos, the dread, the confusion, and ultimately, the tension are among the least pleasant things about the work. And then there’s the uncertainty — after keeping one eye on the forest and one eye on every vein on every leaf on every tree for a week, driving the people around you crazy, then you have to wait for twelve people to decide that they liked the other lawyer’s animal print tie better than yours so that’s why they voted for them. I’d say there has to be a better way, and I suppose there is, but as stressed out as this sort of thing makes me, it still looks like the least bad method of ensuring fairness available.

I had a kindergarten class last Friday. It was a relatively light day, as far as academics go. The afternoon was spent with a Christmas “play” (more like a recital, but they called it a play). The rest of the day was spent with Christmas books and a couple short movies. Almost none of them involved Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.

This was a problem.

Because over and over again, in any picture book or movie that showed the reindeer without Rudolph, the same response occurred: “WHERE’S RUDOLPH?!?!?!?!?!” My options of explaining this were four:

(1) Rudolph is a registered property of some media rights company and so any story where Rudolph appears must therefore pay this company money. In an effort to make their product less expensive and therefore enjoyed by a larger number of people, writers and producers of Christmas material where Rudolph does not play an integral part will leave Rudolph out of it. This, of course, diminished the enjoyment of the story for kindergarteners everywhere. So tell your parents to write your congressman in opposition to future copyright extensions so that eventually Rudolph can be more widely enjoyed by children such as yourself.

Pros: Accurate and potentially motivating young people for political involvement.

Cons: None of them will understand what the heck I am talking about.

(2) Think of it as though there are multiple parallel dimensions. What takes place in one universe does not necessarily take place in others. For instance, in this story, there are talking bears and wolves. As we know, in our dimension, bears and wolves don’t talk (and are more likely to attack one another than be best buddies). So, while Rudolph may exist in the world of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, he does not necessarily exist in this world of talking bears or wolves or this other world where dogs talk to one another in various accents.

Pros: Concedes the possible existence of Rudolph and places the context of the story within the storybook worlds where they are being told.

Cons: None of them will understand what the heck I am talking about. Except the words “Rudolph doesn’t exist.” They will understand that part.

(3) Rudolph is dead.

Pros: Short and to the point.

Cons: Will make kindergarteners cry.

(4) This story takes place before Rudolph was the lead reindeer. Remember how, at the beginning of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer how Rudolph wasn’t a part of the sled team? This story is like that.

Pros: Does not foreclose existence of Rudolph (and therefore Santa), comparatively short and to the point with an example they may be able to understand.

Cons: Kids have an incomplete understanding of “before” and “after.” Plus, if for instance there are only two reindeer, they will wonder why only two were necessary at the time of the story but Rudolph was one of several. Coming up with an explanation of how union regulations requires the hiring of more reindeer, or how animal rights advocates insisted on it, would require a greater understanding of the real world than kindergarteners are likely to have.

I went with #4, though left out the part about union regulations and instead opted for an explanation that the story took place when there were less people (errr, bear-people) and therefore less presents required carrying and therefore fewer reindeer were required.

To get to a more serious point, this actually is indicative to me of the problem of indefinite copyrights. Rudolph has extended beyond something that some guy made up for Montgomery Ward and into a cultural icon. Not even a pop culture icon, but a through-and-through cultural one. I suppose we should count ourselves fortunate that Santa Claus himself wasn’t invented under the current copyright regime.

(To any kindergarteners reading this blog, that last part is a joke. Because, of course, nobody invented Santa Claus!)

PostScript: This was originally posted on Hit Coffee. There is some lack of clarity as to whether the offending IP domain is trademark or copyright. My understanding of trademark is that it primarily centers on names, logos, and images used for advertising and product identification. Thus, trademark could be a problem if you were putting Rudolph in the title or on the cover. My understanding is that copyright pertains to actual works and by extension derivative works (ie Rudolph making an appearance in a story), and so it’s copyright that prevents Rudolph from making appearances, though trademark might prevent him from appearing on the cover and would prevent him from being in the title. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here.

This was going to be a response on a previous post by Burt, but I decided instead to make it into its own post because it ended up taking a wider view than I had initially intended (and, as comments of mine are wont to do, ran long).

Burt asks:

what harm to man-woman marriages to SSM opponents perceive? I’m unlikely to find such a showing persuasive, and all I’ve seen out there in the sociology is a correlation, without causation, of declining marriage rates when SSM is adopted.

The answer to this, I think, is the continuation of the path that marriage has been down. We can argue “Well, if it’s already headed down that path anyway…” but that’s not really a compelling argument in favor of something that is perceived to be a potential contributor.

While anti-gay sentiment is certainly a driving factor, the SSM debate does extend to marriage itself. The reality that proponents of SSM also tend to favor more lenient divorce laws, laws that are supportive of children out of wedlock, premarital cohabitation as an acceptable social norm, and in some cases the dissolution of legal marriage recognition itself, the vague notion that marriage itself is under assault is not exactly far-fetched. That the people saying “trust us” on gay marriage are the ones de-emphasizing marriage on other fronts does not inspire confidence. The perception that marriage as an institution is only taken seriously when it means expanding it to people that are more likely, over the long term, to divorce with greater frequency, enter into open marriages, and so on, can be considered suspect. Not to mention the degree to which it opens the door for marriage to become further watered down by Shore-Crane marriages… which would itself distance marriage further from what they perceive to be its purpose (and would most likely be defended by proponents of SSM).

I am, as most of you know, a proponent of same-sex marriage. And I hope that, when it’s granted, that the concerns about what kind of marriages homosexuals enter will be disproven. That no ill-effects occur. That the weddings will be as tasteful and lovestruck as the last gay wedding I attended. I think that these concerns are overblown and that the effects will be positive, non-existent, or so minimal that I will remain proud of my stance on this issue. If I start to see articles in the New York Times gushing that homosexual marriages are more likely to be open and yay for progress and tolerance and open minds and that this is a good thing that we can learn from, or if Shore-Crane weddings start to become a norm, my response to it will probably make me look like a right-wing loon (though not in the form of anti-gay animus – they themselves have no control over Shore-Crane marriages, for instance).

At the end of the day, though, I am not going to assume bad things and then deny the right of gays on the basis of these assumptions (and besides, I am not assuming them to be true anyway). And, in addition to that, I believe that denying the right of gays to marry ends up with more should-be-married couples cohabitating because they have no other legal option. Though no doubt influenced by the fact that I do not see homosexual love or sex as sinful or even morally problematic, my essential argument in favor gay marriage is a conservative one: Marriage is a wonderful and powerful institution, and should be made available to loving and committed couples who are willing to make a promise to one another and to society (and to God, where applicable) spend their life together.

This is, ultimately, where I fear I part company with many of my allies in the SSM fight. And why, once same sex marriage is instituted, I will be considered a conservative on the issue of marriage. And probably a religious nut, my latent membership in a socially liberal church notwithstanding.

The list (of the top 28 states plus DC) goes:

California, New Jersey, Florida, New York, Texas, Washington, Nevada, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Virginia, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Georgia, DC, New Mexico, North Carolina, Vermont, Michigan, Nebraska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and then Utah.

No* Only one judge I have ever appeared before has ever done me this courtesy: stating in writing the questions, he’s going to ask days before the oral arguments. In this case, though, I suspect it’s because there are no good answers to several of those questions.

* I forgot. One judge once sent opposing counsel and I a short note asking us to be prepared to discuss one case that neither side had mentioned in any of our respective briefs. Not surprisingly, that particular case was the basis for the judge’s ultimate decision. Nothing as elaborate as this, though.

What’s important in life? Good Scotch, friends, laughter, and speaking your mind forcefully and gracefully.

Requiescat in pace, Christopher Hitchens.

Up until about the eighth grade, the first semester ended about two weeks after we returned from Christmas vacation. Then, some law was passed that allowed school to begin earlier in the year. A few days off and inservice days were shifted to the Spring, and the semesters were separated by winter break. Shortly after I graduated high school, there were grumblings that the school year was starting too soon. The local theme parks and other summer-fun places were complaining that they were left with only a little more than a couple months of business. So they tried to pass another law forcing districts to wait until September to start school. Education experts, in turn, argued that starting the semester earlier in the year was problematic because it would require splitting up the first semester again, which was problematic because of the brain drain that occurs over those two or so weeks.

As I read about this debate, I scratched my head. First, if they forget it over two weeks, then they never really learned it. Second, though, if we’re worried about what happens over two weeks, what about the two to three months of summer?! One of the frustrations for K-12 for me was that how it seemed that half of each year was spent reminding us of what we had learned over the previous year and forgotten over the summer (except that I didn’t forget, which made it even more frustrating). I was reminded of this when I read the following snipit from Reihan Salam’s piece on education:

Alan Krueger, the Princeton economist President Obama tapped to serve as his chief economic adviser, co-authored an important paper with Molly Fifer in 2006 on summer learning loss. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are at a big skills disadvantage in early grades, but that gap grows with each passing year. One reason is that while middle-class kids take part in enriching activities during the summer, ranging from camp to stimulating conversations with educated parents, poor kids are far less likely to do so. With that in mind, Krueger and Fifer called for a program of summer opportunity scholarships paying for enrichment programs during long vacations. It’s an excellent idea that should be pursued.

But what we really need is a cultural shift in which all of us take more responsibility for our education. We are not empty vessels into which credentialed professionals ladle knowledge. Rather, we are a special kind of animal uniquely good at learning through imitation and practice. Somehow we need to find better ways to capitalize on this fact — inside school walls and outside as well.

Or, of course, we could eliminate and/or divide out the “long vacations.”

There are a few arguments against this one. The theme park lobby being one of them. They like having things condensed in a way that allows them to concentrate all of their business over a short period of time (though, apparently, there is such a thing as “too short”). And a lot of leisure activities are season-specific (beaches, for instance). The fall and spring, where at least a few weeks of vacation would be harbored, can be too cold for outdoor swimming (where applicable) but too warm for playing in the snow (where applicable).

The second argument is that a lot of schools up north are not cut out for summers. They have non-existent or insufficient air conditioning. Which strikes me as insane no matter where you live. I hear this in particular about the northeast and that just strikes me as bizarre. They brag about how much money they spend on schools, but don’t shell out for adequate air conditioning systems?

The last argument is that summer school is necessary for some kids to get caught up.

In any event, I am unmoved by these arguments when you consider the degree of brain-drain that does occur over the summer. The third is the only really problematic one, to me. For the students that fall behind, I think the solution to that is with a quarter system where some classes over some quarters are repeated. While useful for shorthand, I think that overall the tendency to delineate too much by “grade level” is problematic. I would prefer more of an assessment/promotion approach on a class-by-class basis. So if we did go to a year-around system, I would support other changes occurring at the same time. Up to and including allowing families to pull their kids out of school for family trips, in the event that the months-off are staggered between the school. Staggering months-off could also go a ways towards alleviating the Disneyland problem.

As for the air conditioner problem, buck up and pay for it.

[Cross-posted on Hit Coffee]

The People’s Republic of China is sea-testing an aircraft carrier, apparently sucessfully. She is believed to have originated as the Soviet carrier Varyag, which was originally designed to support missile-carrying subs and surface ships, and is diesel-powered rather than nuclear. What mission she will fulfill on behalf of the PRC, however, is an open question. She is not yet operational for flight of either fixed-wing or rotary aircraft. But one thing is clear — modern aircraft carriers are the centerpiece units of the projection of naval power beyond a nation’s own geographic territory.

Presumably, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) will rename her by the time she becomes operational as the reference to the Byzantine Emperor’s Varangian Guard isn’t of any particular interest to either the Chinese public or its military. Most of PLAN’s existent ships are named for cities or regions in China like the Guangzhou or the Zhuhai. This really isn’t any different than, say, the USS Jacksonville or the HMS Essex.

Zheng He seems appropriate to me, but while Zheng He was obviously historically very significant, the PLAN has already named another ship, a converted liner used for training, after the author of China’s historically greatest naval achievements.

So do they go with something more poetic like “Mighty Source Of Firey Chrysanthemums Showered Upon The Running-Dog Imperialists”?* Or they could go with something boring like Chairman Mao. What do you think — what name would be most appropriate for the PRC’s first aircraft carrier?

* A phrase which I am told is reducable to three simple, beautiful, and elegant Traditional Beijing Mandarin ideograms. No, not really.