A lot of people have said something supportive these past few days and it is
truly appreciated more than I can say. My father has blood clots in his neck
and will have surgery next Monday and Tuesday so I will be leaving for Chicago
on Sunday afternoon. Not sure why surgery is scheduled for both days but that
is what I have been told. Thanks again everyone for their good thoughts and
words.
I will be getting ready for staying in Chicago for an undetermined length of
time so I will be getting really scarce here. It is hard to plan to be away
from work for an undetermined length of time in a law office - no court
hearings will be re-scheduled because I won't be at work to get the paperwork
ready so I am trying to work several weeks in the next few days - So:
a computer question: I am very partial to Macs, to Apple. I have the chance
to re-do the entire office with a new computer system. (Our ten year old LCIIs
are still holding up, but they are 10 years old; we certainly got our moeny's
worth out of them!) So for Apple people in offices: do you suggest the iMac or
the G4 or whatever they call it, and what specs? We will have two work
stations, and I want these computers to last another ten years because it will
be that long before I get to update again. Any advice will be appreciated
(including on printer, scanner, etc, what do we need?)!
a Beatles question: "I Want to Hold your Hand" was on the US Capitol release,
"Meet the Beatles" which was not the same as any original British release.
(Wasn't it not until "A Hard's Day Night" or even "Help" or after that that the
US and British albums were the same?) But "I Want to Hold your Hand" is not on
the cds of "With the Beatles" or "Please Please Me" or "Beatles for Sale" so
which early Bristish album that is now on cd that I can buy is "I Want to Hold
your Hand" on?
and passing political thoughts, very brief (for me) so as not to bore anyone
(more than I usually do) but since I won't be here for a while:
Linda Chavez has always been IMHO a most intellectually dishonest columnist.
There was never any consistent philosophy but always just a vitriolic anti
Clinton and anti Democratic screed. I was shocked that she was nominated for
a cabinet position -- but I was not surprised that she was so dishonest with
the FBI and the Bush people in the pre-nomination interviews. I note that I
have never seen a president or president-elect dump a nominee so quickly, far,
far faster than Clinton ever distanced himself from someone - which had I
thought was unusally fast in some cases. That would suggest that Bush can be a
colder, steelier person than we imagined, or at least has a colder or steelier
side, than we have seen. (That is neither good nor bad by the way; it is just
an observation that we haven't seen that side of W Bush yet until now.)
As far as Ashcroft goes: he made his entire Senate career based on opposing
various Clinton nominees on the basis of ideology. That was his right. He was
not concerned with competence but with ideology. Thus, Ashcroft cannot
complain if he is opposed on the basis of ideology. As Ashcroft used
Senatorial priviledge to block Clinton nominess on ideological grounds, so
shall he be opposed. To argue for or against Ashcroft on any other grounds is
hypocritical based on his own just completed Senatorial record. I suspect he
may just possibly not be confirmed... and I don't know if Bush would be that
unhappy if Ashcroft did so down, because he will have cemented his ties with
the religious right of the GOP for having nominated Ashcroft anyway. So Bush
wins with that wing of the GOP no matter how confirmation goes.
And my good friend and true Joni-lover Kakki wrote:
> I may be completely naive, but I just don't see how a handful of people can
> successfully overturn long-standing laws such as abortion, on their
> political whim. I just can't see them being able to do that and get away
> with it under our current system
>
All it takes is a 5-4 vote. If O'Connor retires as planned - or Ginzburg, who
has battled cancer, or Souter, or Breyer, who are both mortal, or Stevens, who
will retire because of age - any one of those is the 5th vote on any number of
issues, including Roe v Wade - or the presidential election. Because Roe v
Wade is not a law, but a court decision, as are so many other things we take
for granted... well, that is why we all fought so damned hard to win the last
election, because 1 vote in the right place will be that 5th vote to confirm or
over-rule many things. Anyone who lived through the Warren Court - whether one
agrees with what they did or not - knows how quickly "long-standing" things
(Plessay vs Ferguson [spelling error there], pre-Miranda times, pre
"one-person one vote" rulings) can be changed by the Supreme Court. And the
irony of a "handful of people" comment is not lost on any of us who saw a 5-4
decision elect Bush and not Gore. That is why both sides fought so hard. But
I love you, Kakki. Too many people rave about your consummate graciousness
which we have all experienced in the JMDL for anyone not to love you!
I have said enough, and will be back when I can be and probably all unpolitical
after that because these things will be fought over enough, and my best wishes
to everyone.
Thanks again to all who sent good words in which I found support; that is the
esseence of the goodness of this community.
(the Rev) Vince
