The Belgians are well known for their surrealists (such as Magritte, see (my altered) image to the right). But today I experienced a strong moment of Belgian surreality myself.
I'm fine with most forms of culture shock. I can cope with foreign currencies and exchange rates. I've eaten any food offered to me (raw fish, offal, chicken feet). I've been understanding about political differences. I've dealt with differing national standards for personal hygiene. But today in Brussels I was floored by a common cultural reference.
In life, there are frequently "Seinfeld Moments". Moments that reflect, for better or worse, episodes in this classic TV sitcom. (I am not making this up. See here and here...)
As a result, one form of communication within my age bracket is the "Seinfeld Reference". Often, one may use a Seinfeld reference to communicate a whole bundle of sentiments relating to the (often ridiculous) situation you are in.
My Example
So, the other day I purchased a business shirt and the salesman convinced me that it would look fine. Of course, it was too blousy and large, and it made me look ridiculous. At work I commented that it was like the "Puffy shirt" from Seinfeld (a classic episode, a similar situation) only to be met by blank faces.
I thought they may have forgotten the episode, so I reminded the Belgians of the episode where Jerry was forced to wear the puffy shirt after failing to hear Kramer's "low-talking" girlfriend. He nodded politely, and only later learned that he agreed to wear the shirt on national TV.
To my horror, the response was "What is Seinfeld?"
Please, someone tell me this was just an unlucky statistical sample - surely Europeans did not miss the entire contribution to the human experience that was Seinfeld?
Even the Washington Post, a mainstream journal of record, understands my reference:
The Puffy Shirt made him all puffed out, made him look like a buccaneer, like someone who should, as Elaine put it, "swing in on a chandelier." It made Jerry wail: "But I don't want to be a pirate!"
So, is Europe a bizzaro world deceptively similar to our own, the same in most respects except that it lacks the concept of "Seinfeld"?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Belgium = Bizzaro World
Sarkozy on NATO and war with Iran
A good interview with Sarkozy here, in the International Herald Tribune this morning. I still enjoy the energy that Sarko seems to be exuding, though this interview seems to be peeling away at the glossy media veneer to suggest that things may not be so smooth in reality.
In terms of content, Sarkozy brings up, and directly contradicts, the comments of Bernard Kouchner (the French foreign minister) with regard to war with Iran:
France's position, he explained, is clear: "No nuclear weapon for Iran, an arsenal of sanctions to convince them, negotiations, discussions, firmness. And I don't want to hear anything else that would not contribute usefully to the discussion today."
This seems to be a recurring tendency with Sarkozy - he seems intent on maintaining his control over his ministers, even to the point of stepping in to correct them, or to steal their thunder (as with the culture minister).
Also, on NATO:
In the interview, Sarkozy announced for the first time two conditions that would have to be met beforehand: American acceptance of an independent European military capability and a leading French role in NATO's command structures "at the highest level."
The article seems to have a vaguely derisive tone, focusing on his restlessness and apparent physical discomfort:
Visibly restless, at times brusque, he greeted his guests with stiff handshakes and unadorned "Bonjours." Perpetually in motion, he rocked uncomfortably in a green brocade armchair and gripped the backs of the gilt chairs on either side of him. His jaw muscles twitched. His gait was awkward. He cut off his interviewers in mid-sentence.
and perhaps ridiculing his appreciation of media attention:
The brusque demeanor and nonstop movement during the interview vanished during a brief photo session afterward in his office. At one point, he posed for a photograph with his two female interviewers, gripping his arms around their shoulders. "I have a good job," he said.
and his strong affection for the US:
Accused of being too enamored of all things American, he put France and the United States on an equal footing and as somehow better than many others, because they believe that their values are universal and therefore destined to "radiate" throughout the world. The Germans, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Chinese, by contrast, do not think that way, he said.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
NY Times profiles Justice John Paul Stevens
A fantastic piece covering Justice Stevens in the Sunday Magazine. He's presented as a much more balanced character than some right/left pundits may have you think. The internal politics of the Supreme Court are always interesting. The article highlights, his important role as senior associate justice in assigning opinions (when not agreeing with the Chief).
The author notes the shift in mentality of liberal judges these days:
"Judicial liberalism... has largely become a conservative project: an effort to preserve the legal status quo in the face of efforts by a younger generation of conservatives to uproot the precedents of the past 40 years."
Interestingly, the article mentions the role of his own father's conviction for embezzlement, his own World War II experience, and his experiences clerking in forming his more expansive protections of individual liberty from government interference.
Also includes discussion of Roe v Wade, affirmative action, his role in Bill Clinton's impeachment saga, and finally a mention of his reasoning in Bush v Gore.
For fans of constitutional interpretation, here's his view:
Stevens’s final judicial theme is that the court has an obligation to protect ideals of equality and liberty in light of the nation’s entire history, rather than legalistically parsing the original understanding of the Constitution. As the court moved right during the past 20 years, Stevens increasingly saw it as his role to interpret the Constitution with fidelity to all of American history, rejecting the claim of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and Judge Robert Bork that the original understanding of the 18th-century framers is all that matters...“Originalism is perfectly sensible. I always try to figure out what the original intent was, but to say that’s the Bible and nothing else counts seems to me quite wrong.”
Finally, I like this quote:
Though no one has succeeded in reducing his vision to a simple label — “I like to have people think I’m a good lawyer, to tell you the truth,” Stevens said. “I’m not big on labels” — his legal thinking has returned repeatedly over the years to a set of identifiable ideas and themes.
The first is that the government has a duty to behave impartially, rather than favoring one group over another for partisan or sectarian reasons. “It seems to me that one of the overriding principles in running the country is the government ought to be neutral,” Stevens told me. “It has a very strong obligation to be impartial, and not use its power to advance political agendas or personal agendas.”
Electoral college changes: reforms yes, but not this way.
I'm all in favor of a review of the way that the Electoral college operates. It's an opaque system, one that most voters don't understand and doesn't match a lot of democratic ideals. It appears to some to be a hang over from a less democratic age where the voters couldn't be trusted to vote 'correctly' and had to be watched over (mind you, it also acts as part of a system of checks and balances). Just witness the confusion and frustration felt when President Bush won the election in 2000 based on a majority of the 538 electoral college votes, even though Gore won the popular vote - assuming the underlying count was correct (the actual point of contention), this outcome was never at question. Wikipedia does a good run-down, including pros and cons, here.
But what about this Republican led proposal [CNN] to change the system - for one state! This smacks of bad faith...
Essentially, whover wins the majority in that state gets the entire block of electroal college votes. California represents such a large block of votes that this can easily mean the difference between winning or losing an election. The proposal here is to 'free' California from the system
This is what upsets me about lawyers getting too involved in the political process.
If there is one thing that you learn in practice, it is the importance of advising your client - especially in the larger cases - that even though you can do something, often you should not. The point is to show some restraint and think of the future repercussions.
Quite often effective efforts to lobby and argue to overturn a law will benefit your client immediately, but in the long run will be tremendously damaging. Whether this is by way of reaction - either legal, legislative (political) or consumer based - or whether this is because your client finds the loophole used directly against them in future.
Regardless of the pros and cons of this reform, this should have been handled better...
US military dominance to give way to the 'Asian Century'?
Robert D. Kaplan, in this opinion piece with the New York Times brings to light the declining military influence of the United States in the Pacific - once considered "an American lake". Kaplan notes that "Asian dynamism is now military as well as economic".
I feel that this is presented as a bad thing for America, and a bad thing globally. Kaplan certainly hints at the growing danger of Asian nationalism, in contrast with 'post-national West' (e.g. my earlier post on Belgium). "Asia is marked by rivalries that encourage traditional arms races", Kaplan notes "...the Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese have great pride in possessing nuclear weapons." On the other hand, Europe has moved away from military power (see Robert Kagan's slogan "America is from Mars, Europe is from Venus"). Japan's navy is now apaprently greater than the United Kingdom's.
Kaplan writes that:
"People in countries like Germany, Italy and Spain see their own militaries not so much as soldiers but as civil servants in uniform: there for soft peacekeeping and humanitarian missions."
The above is a fair point. I am always a little dismayed by the shock people express when their soldiers are called into actual combat. War is always a terrible business. To go to war is to kill, and be killed. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by closing our eyes to these truths - it turns war into a game and will only cloud our decision to commit to war, one way or another.
There are two questions that I feel come from this article.
The first, is there a point at which this disavowal of military power becomes more than peacefully idealistic, and becomes instead dangerously irresponsibile?
The second, are we witnessing an era of permanant decline in American influence?
On a personal level, I think that the answer to the first question must be that yes, there is a point of irresponsible disengagement. I think that, despite the disaster of Iraq, there must be scope for, at the very least, humanitarian military intervention - look to Bosnia, and look at Sudan.
The answer to the second question, US influence, is more difficult. Looking at military and economic influence, it would be a stretch to characterize either as in a weak position. By any measure the US is the world leader in both. However, the weakening of the US dollar, the decline in the underlying economic stability and growth could present major problems. I feel the greatest problem will be a lack in confidence - a lack of international confidence in the US economy will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I would submit that this decline does not have to be permanent, and both measures of power can be reclaimed (if the US wants it). The percentage of GDP used for military spending is at record lows - this can easily be raised. The US economy can be strengthened with better domestic policy.
It comes down to a question of political will.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
AIDS vaccine failed to prevent test subjects from becoming infected with HIV, in a major setback.
Does anyone else worry about how, exactly, they tested this? [WSJ]
Click Here to Continue Reading Post..Who is Loyola 2L? The true value of a law degree
Just an observation of something quirky in the law blogosphere. After having spent a bit of time wading through the blawgs out there, I've started to notice that the poster "Loyola 2L" seems to be omnipresent. While I'm not certain about it's origin, it seems to be a running gag. The gist of it is that they are law students who are not from a top tier college who can't find work.
They complain that they feel deceived by the perception that there are plenty of well paying opportunities available for lawyers.
"University of Iowa sociologist Michael Sauder, who has interviewed more than 120 law professors and administrators for his rankings research, heard examples of alumni taxi drivers who are “employed” for the purposes of U.S. News rankings." American Lawyer (June 1, 07)
Basically, these guys are ticked off about the huge investment of time and money in a legal education that they don't think will pay off, and the way that they feel the law school misled them with false hope.
A little sad. But some posts are funny, and they do raise a legitimate question: are the rewards of a legal degree overstated by grad schools?
In this great post on Empirical Legal Studies, we see a chart showing the distribution of legal salaries.
It is described as a classic example of a 'bimodal distribution'. You see two peaks, representing the fact that, of the full-time salaries for all members of the Class of 2006:
" Over a quarter (27.5%) make between $40k-$55k per year, and another quarter (27.8%) have an annual salary of $100K plus. "
ELS note that making $40-55k won't be enough to pay down the $85 in student debt, making getting a JD "a very risky financial proposition".
But, "[o]n the other hand, if you are
You can't help but feel a little sympathy for those who have made it through law school, bar exams etc. and are still unsure whether the investment will pay off... perhaps there needs to be greater 'consumer protection' or at least more transparent accountability when it comes to student recruitment at these law schools?
To see more examples of Loyola 2L posts, check the comments section of WSJ Law Blog posts or the comments in this example from the NY Observer.
Also, on a similar theme http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/
