Casino Royale

Saw Casino Royale last night on video for the first time. Was very disappointed though I enjoyed it a lot. Daniel Craig brings the physicality that was missing from past Bonds. The James Bond character in the original Ian Flemming Novel was imagined as an incredibly violent, dispassionate man who used woman with little care and killed too easily. Craig brings some of that, but the love story in the movie detracts from the feeling of the book. There is love in the original, but not the overly sentimental love that you see in the movie. It was a violent, dangerous love that will flame out quickly, and certainly won't lead Bond to want to leave his job.

Bond is a sick individual in the true sense of the character. He kills people, and enjoys pain. He drinks hard, works hard, barely sleeps, is utterly ruthless and often devoid of normal human emotion. Craig does a good job in bringing much of this back in his Bond, but the story of this Casino Royale, could have done much to enhance that reborn feeling by changing the terms of relationship between Bond and Vesper (his love interest). Their love should have been intoxicating but not real. It should have been alcoholic, i.e. dangerous but addictive. Bond finds himself drowning with no way out. Only his unbelievable luck, cunning and skill saves him at the last minute. No sentimentality. Just Bond off to another kill with a martini waiting at the end to dull the pain. But I guess that wouldn't sell. It's more interesting though, isn't it. I guess we don't like to see to much of the dark side. You have to deny a certain number of things in life just to keeping going. But I like the sicker Bond better. He seems more like someone in that line of work. Bond is only a hero because he saves all of us. But as a person, he is terrible. Maybe we like the bad guys. We want to be them because they liberate us from the rules we hate to play by. They are intoxicating. Meaningless sex, trips around the world. Killing bad guys. Flaunting regulations. Fun. Most successful movie franchise ever. It's a vacation from your life, and everybody needs a vacation.

Mind over Reason

Life is hard. Start out in one direction, end up some place else. THink you have it all figured out. Then you don't. WHat's the right decision for you. Who are you? You're going to be spared. Spared what? What is it that you're going to do? Too many questions maybe. Time to get down to brass tax. How much for the Ape? Diversion. Deception. You end far away, mixed up in some kind of cult in Arizona. The art you make today won't be appreciated for 100 years. You are of a different time, lost in world that is behind you , unable to make it to your true present. WHere are your lovers? HOw can it be that so many people hate you? All you do is make love to their minds. They hate you for having brought them this far, only to show them 10,000 more miles of desert. Pace. Keep pacing yourself. There is further to go, then they are willing to follow. You will have to strike out alone. Bravery in the face of defeat. Your only friend is your head. Don't lose it.


If I made a promise to you do you think I'd keep it.

Sure.

That's good.

Find Something Else to Criticize

I don't agree with the Bush administration on much, but on this whole question of the firing of U.S. attorney generals, I am totally on their side. U.S. attorney generals serve at the pleasure of the president. The fact that he fired them for political reasons is totally within his purview as administrator-in-chief of the federal bureaucracy. He hired them, and he can fire them. If you want to take that power away from him, and move the attorney generals into the civil service, then do that. But in the meantime, don't go after Bush for something that was totally legit. You can make a political fight out of it, and argue that the Bush administration is putting politics ahead of competence and judicial fairness (but frankly, politics trumps competence and judicial fairness all the time in Washington, and on both sides of the aisle), but to argue that it was improper for Bush to fire these guys is ridiculous. He has the statutory power to do so. Hell, Congress gave the president the power to do so, which makes their bitching about it now even more ridiculous. Also, the whole notion that Attorney Generals should be non-political offices is also absurd. At the state/local level, they are elected and partisan. Why? Because prosecution is a political process. These guys have the power to go after all sorts of people and all sorts of interests, and the decisions that narrow down the list of possible targets are rarely rational, fair or judicious. The law, far from what one might assume, is not a process of logical application of rules already set forth. It is an arena in which power, interest and influence collide. In other words, it is fundamentally political. Think of the O.J. Simpson trial. Do the words fair, judicious, or rational come to mind? No. Money, corruption, power and race are more apt descriptions. If that bothers you, and it should, then work to change the system. But don't blame Bush for playing by the rules of the present system, even if it is broken and unfair. The holier than though attitude of the Democrats leading the charge against Bush and Gonzalez is sickening in the assumptions that it makes about the purity of the Democratic party. This whole debate is itself a perversion of our system. Waste not our time on scoring political points that matter only for reelection and not for the greater calling of service to the nation. We deserve justice and fairness but such elusive goals will not be brought about by the pretentious pontificating of politicians, but only by the conscientious determination of statesmen to get the job done. Where are our leaders? Look for action over words in finding them.

Numbers......ehh.

Here is what I say. Numbers lie. They lie in that they reduce reality to an often meaningless extent. It's supposed to be 80 degrees outside tomorrow. So what. I would rather that the weatherman or woman told me that it was "sunbathing naked weather" tomorrow, or "walk your dog in the park" weather, or "no vinyl pants" weather. Those are all far more useful and descriptive than 80 degrees weather. Instead, I have to imagine what 80 degrees means, and since it hasn't been 80 degrees in quite a while, I don't know if can't wear my vinyl pants tomorrow or not.

Searching self reflection

How honest are we with ourselves? I think that I am lost so much of the time that it is hard for me to really know who I am. How do you know when you know yourself? Maybe it is easier for others to know us?

I always thought I wanted to be a lawyer. I liked the idea of arguing on someone else's behalf, of representing someone, of being the voice for the voiceless. I thought that while many derided lawyers as scoundrels only interested in personal gain at the expense of the ordinary individual, the lawyer was also a person who represented people no matter what. They upheld one of the basic foundations of our system, that everyone is entitled to be heard in their own defense. I thought that if I were good enough, I could bring justice to a lot of people who the system had already cast aside. There seemed to me to be no shortage of great lawyers in history. Abraham Lincoln, M.K. Gandhi, Oliver Wendel Holmes, my personal favorite Clarence Darrow, and many others. These men were able to advance the cause of justice both inside and outside the courtroom, but they did so always through argument. Their complaint, in the paraphrased words of Job, was louder than their groaning. Words and ideas spelled out through argument have the power to change perception, to force action, to lead. This is what I thought I would do, maybe not on as grand a stage as those statesmen, but I wanted to make a necessary argument in the cause of justice.

However, lately I don't know what I want to do. I am of 2 minds about things, and there seems to be no mending of these minds of mine. Besides a career in the law, I have also thought of being a professor. I have many academic interests that go beyond what the law spells out. The narrowness of the law is often an annoyance to me. The whole process is full of so many hypotheticals and logical constructs that it can almost make your head spin. Nuts and bolts law is obviously less theoretical, but it is even more constrained. You can make every argument that you want, but at the end of the day the law is the law. Being a professor is far less limiting. You can study whatever you want. You are surrounded by all of these knowledgeable, interesting people that are as dorky as you are. You get to debate issues and ideas, but in a far less formal and consequential way. I don't know, it's hard. I love the myth of the law, but is that myth real? I think being a professor would be interesting and a lot of fun, but could I really work towards the cause of justice while a professor?

I guess it all comes down to what matters to you and what makes you happy. Follow your heart.

New Orleans Questions

It would be a terrible thing if New Orleans died. It is a true American original. One of the few cultural centers in America. An oasis of decadence inside the desert of puritan America. Nothing could replace it. But building back is very hard. In some ways, New Orleans has been dying a slow death since the last great flood the city saw in the 1920s. So much of the city was poor when Katrina hit. Besides tourism, the city had little other industry. So, even apart from the failings of FEMA, Nagan, Blanco, Bush, and Congress to help the people rebuild, New Orleans has to turn back a very long and deep tide of decline in order to continue to survive. Is it realistic to expect that New Orleans can come back?

Because of it's unsurpassed significance as a center of culinary and musical development, New Orleans has always been important. Will that talent go elsewhere now? If they do, what will be left of the culture of New Orleans? How can it live on apart from its home? Here's hoping we don't have to answer that question.

Ron Lewis is a Stone Cold Killer

Ron Lewis, guard of Ohio State, hit one of the most cold-blooded shots I have ever seen yesterday. The Buckeyes were down 3 with nine seconds to play in a second round NCAA Tournament game. Their opponent, Xavier, had a man at the line who had one free throw left to ice the game. But he missed, and Ohio State grabbed the rebound, advanced the ball up the floor quickly, got it to Lewis who pulled up at about 25ft and buried a three to tie the game. The buckeyes, inspired by this amazing turn of events, charged to victory in overtime.

It's one of those moments of pure excitement and joy that only sports can give you. You just never know what's going to happen, especially this time of the year when with the season done after one loss, teams play with every ounce of energy and passion they have left.

Lewis is a senior, and he didn't want to end his career at Ohio State just yet.

What does man see when he looks into the abyss? What does the hard inevitable reality of the end do to a man ? In Lewis' case it made his focus absolute, his will insurmountable. If given the chance he wasn't going to miss, he wasn't going to give in to the end, he was going to make sure that the end came on his terms.

Not everyone reacts this way. Some people give in to the end much more easily. They don't fight back. This seems to matter a lot in how people judge your character. With all the pressure on you, how would you perform? Would you hit the shot? Would you do the right thing? A lot of people miss. A lot of people take the easy way out. Ron Lewis hit the shot like it was nothing. The end did not frighten him. Perhaps it even made him stronger.

Spring in DC

Haven't written anything here in a while. My life has kind of been a mess lately, but spring has finally come to our nation's Capitol. This is the most European of American cities. The buildings aren't too tall, the boulevards are broad and impressive, and the streets are lined with cafes (at least in the wealthier part of town). It rejuvenates the soul to stroll along through the streets of DC and gaze upon the masses as they move through the languid pleasure of a soft spring day.

Louis J. Halle in his book Spring in Washington captures the feeling far better than I.

"The discovery of spring each year, after the winter's hibernation, is like a rediscovery of the universe. In my bleak winter quarters, preoccupied with the problems of the moment, I had forgotten the immeasurable richness and continuance of life. This recollected smell of fresh loam in my nostrils is the smell of eternity itself." (loam, in case you were wondering, means soil or earth. Had to look that one up on dictionary.com)

There is a world outside of me.

Thank God!!!

for I am hurt...in pain. But the earth, she is anew, reborn, reformed. At least, that's how spring makes you feel. It gives you hope that in the rebirth of nature, you might find your own rebirth, your own chance to start again. I have great hope for myself, and not just because it is spring. Spring simply makes it easier to hope. My hope for myself comes from within. This past winter has forced me to look inside myself and find myself again. I like what I see. There is an inner happiness there that is waiting to jump out. Spring gave it an excuse.

Thank God!!! for spring!