f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

California already has one of the very best small claims court systems in the

nation.  Despite the veto of reform efforts by then-Governor Pete Wilson in 1997, 

the State got the second-highest grade on HALT’s 2004 Small Claims Report Card.   

A new law signed Governor Schwarzenegger, on October 6, 2005, will give the

State’s residents even better access to the civil justice system. 

Along with the legal reform group HALT, your Editor has long argued

(e.g., here and elsewhere) that reforming small claims courts — with

meaningful dollar limits and user-friendly improvements (like Plain

English forms, better hours, and both in-person and online advice) is

the single most effective way to give our justice system back to the

people (wresting it from lawyers who are jealous of their gatekeeper

perquisites and have stymied such reform).

 

“calMap2”   Thanks in large part to efforts by HALT, and hard-working California

allies like State Sen. Joe Simitian and Assembly Member Joseph Canciamilla, 

“natural persons” will be able to seek up to $7500 in damages in small claims

courts, beginning Jan. 1, 2006, and they will find improved “advisory services”

and better-trained “temporary judges.”  You can find a summary by legislative

counsel, along with the text of the Act, here, and an extensive explanation here.

 

  Click here to find out how your State did in HALT’s 2004

Small Claims Report Card, as well as state by state small

claims rules.

 

A Suggestion for Law Student Projects:  Do your share to

improve access to justice by everyday Americans — start a

project to improve the small claims laws in your state; help

design easy-to-use and to understand materials for these

People’sCourts — online and hardcopy; and volunteer to

serve as advisors at small claims courts.  Contact HALT

for ideas and assistance.

 

 

overcast morning–

ripe blackberries

out of reach

 

 

 

 

eviction notice —
a moth ricochets
in the lampshade

 

 

 

 

 

 

chill wind –
autumn leaves covering
autumn leaves

 

 

 

Alice Frampton

“overcast morning” – New Resonance 3;

“eviction notice” —  The Heron’s Nest (March 2004) 

“chill wind” – World Haiku Assn website;  Haiku Canada Newsletter XV:2

 

 

“califiaCover”  Speaking of California, I recently finished an intriguing adventure

novel called Califia’s Daughters, by Leigh Richards (a pseudonym for best-

selling and much-honored mystery writier Laurie R. King).  Set in the near

future, the story involves a world where “women warriors guard their peaceful,

self-sustaining California enclave, hunting, planting, harvesting, and keeping

watch over the men and boys essential to survival after most males perished

along with electric power and fossil-fuel-driven engines.” 

 

If you can suspend reality sufficiently to imagine a world in which men are

highly valued (and not allowed to do anything rowdy or dangerous, as only

10% survive past the age of two), you’ll enjoy this book, which was inspired

by the legend of Califia, the warrior queen for whom the State is named. There

are also marauding bands from north of old San Francisco, huge and intensely

loyal dogs, abandoned babies, mothers afraid of broken hearts whenever they 

give birth to a male child, citizens attempting to escape oppressive dictators,

and — of course — some great fight scenes with the women warriors.

 

  by dagosan                                               

leaf-peepers ooh and ah —

why didn’t I

bring my gloves?

 

 

                     [Oct. 14, 2005]                         

                                                                                                                 

– below are haiku and senryu written by “dagosan”, this weblog’s Editor, David A. Giacalone. most have been on the Home Page, some are outtakes and rewrites. each is a work in progress. i hope they show improvement over time and encourage others to try writing haiku –

 – click here for dagosan’s archive index –

 

 

alito – 

the plaintiff’s bar

shivers

 

 

 

 

 

 

alito!

puffs from the right

huffs from the left

 

 

 

   [Oct. 31, 2005]

 

 

 

 

who are you

today?

Goth kids trick-or-treating

                     [Oct. 31, 2005]

 

 

 

 

two pirates smooch

on the overpass — 

the Pumpkin Patrol rousts them

 

[Oct. 30, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 30:

two wilted pumpkins

and all the candy gone

 

  [October 29, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

her marriage?

she says

it’s fine

 

 [Oct. 27, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first date —

her eyes linger

on the rusted fender

 

 [Oct. 27, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

out-patient exit —

taking home

a new sore throat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first snow this year —

strangers in hospital gowns

talk weather

 

 

 

   [Oct. 25, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rearview mirror–

the baby face

is gone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

still blocking 

my river view —

a few red, stubborn leaves

 

 

[Oct. 23, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

late for dinner

pasta

way past al dente

 

[Oct. 22, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first cold morning —

river mist mixes

with car exhaust

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first cold day –

the same torn finger

on last year’s glove

 

[Oct. 21, 2005]

 

 

 

 

too cold for fireflies — 

campfire sparks

float over the rocks

 

 

 

 

 

Kashmir’s children

atop the rubble

under the rubble

[Oct. 20, 2005]  

 

 

 

 

my “funeral suit”

too snug —

someday, it’ll be baggy

                           [Oct. 19, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

running for judge —

she practices

her braille

 

                           [Oct. 18, 2005]

 

 

 

 

autumn cycle

one red and one brown

sock in the tub

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

two rainbows

in one day —

no one to tell

 

[Oct. 18, 2005]  

 

 

 

 

 

her beer breath —

tonight,

we both have headaches 

 

 

 [Oct. 17, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

class reunion –

he leaves

his toupee home 

 

 

                  [Oct. 15, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the middle

of the distraction —

an interruption

 

 

 

leaf-peepers ooh and ah —

why didn’t I

bring my gloves?

 

 

 [Oct. 14, 2005]      

 

 

 

 

 

 

half a tank —

above the gas pump

Old Glory in tatters

 

        [Oct. 13, 2005, hat tip

            to elizabeth macfarland]

 

 

 

 

cold autumn rain

spotting three yellow slickers

she smiles

 

[Oct. 12, 2005]  

 

 

 

you can’t carve that!

daddy snatches

the orange bocce ball

 

[Oct. 11, 2005]  

 

 

 

 

today

 

– at Tiny Words:

 

nude beach
  a man and a woman
    collect shells

 

       ed markowski 

            originally in The Heron’s Nest.

 

 

 

 

 

– at Morden Haiku:

 

 

budget cut meeting

the sound of a strimmer 

revving up

 

    matt morden

 

 

 

 

 added to the f/k/a pumpkin collection:

 

 

 

a frown
of concentration
pumpkin carving

 

 

carved
into a green pumpkin
queasy face

 

John Stevenson

“a frown” – Modern Haiku, XXX:2, 1999

“carved” – South by Southeast, 7:3, 2001

 

 

  eked out by dagosan:

 

 

half a tank —

Old Glory in tatters

above the gas pump

 

         dagosan 

              (hat tip to elizabeth macfarland)

 

                                                                                                                    

 

As he touts at his website, Steve Bainbridge was quoted at

length in a Knight Ridder article yesterday, on the importance

of an American Bar Association rating to Harriet Miers’ quest

to become an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. 

(“ABA’s probe of Miers’ record, rating may be key for confirma-

tion,” Oct. 12, 2005)

 

Here’s how the article presents the core of Prof. Bainbridge’s

remarks (emphasis added):

“The problem here is that the people who most need 

convincing are the people who are least likely to trust the

ABA,” Bainbridge said, noting that many conservatives

view the ABA as part of a liberal legal establishment. “A

lot of us resigned from ABA after getting fed up with its

establishment-left liberalism. If she were one of us, she’d

have quit, too.”  . . .

 

“She has the kind of qualifications that are sort of classic

ABA qualifications,” said UCLA professor Bainbridge.

“President of a bar, active in the ABA, managing partner

of a big firm. The bulk of the committee that will decide her

rating is composed of people who look like her.”

 

  That’s right, Harriet didn’t follow the harrumphing herd of

Heffalumps out of the ABA, so she is suspect.  In a leadership position,

she stayed to fight.  Meanwhile, the whiny guys who keep telling us

they deserve a seat on the Supreme Court because they have hung in

at institutions where they are a persecuted and mocked minority —

yes, those heroic figures — think Harriet should have capitulated,

leaving the nation’s most important general bar association fully

under the sway of the evil, hated Liberals.  Pathetic grasping at

straws.  Or, is it pathetic group-think by a bunch of self-proclaimed

rugged individualists?

 

p.s. Don’t even get me started about the phrase

“people who look just like her.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stepping on

sidewalk ants     the boy

everyone bullies

 

 

 

 

 

 

the anger from work

in my son’s birthday balloons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the son

who argues everything

I study his face

in a puddle

 

 

 

George Swede from Almost Unseen

(Brooks Books, 2000) 

 

 

One bath

after another–

how stupid

        — ISSA 

 

                                                   

 

Two days ago, we opined “it’s hard to discover Columbus.”  This evening,

I started reading a rollicking piece of nonfiction that might help me understand

old Cristoforo better.  It’s Martin Dugard’s new book The Last Voyage of Columbus:

Being the Epic Tale of the Great Captain’s Fourth Expedition, Including Accounts

of Swordfight, Mutiny, Shipwreck, Gold, War, Hurricane, and Discovery (2005). 

 

Dugard ends the book with these words:

                                                                                                    

“No matter their merits, arguments will follow Columbus forever. 

History does not know what to make of the Admiral of the Ocean

Sea or how to categorize the ramifications of his discoveries

without passions of one kind or another intruding. The explorer will

always remain something of an enigma. He was Italian, yet claimed

the New World for Spain. He was a compassionate Christian, yet

considered slavery a viable form of commerce. He was a man of

great charisma whose passion sometimes turned others against

him.  He was an explorer – a wanderer, really – who fancied himself

capable of great bureaucratic skills. His advocates marveled at his

daring and tenaciousness, persevering so long in his quest for funding

and then defying conventional wisdom to sail across an uncharted sea.

His detractors thought him brutal and weak. The only certainty about

Columbus is that, for better or worse, he chose to live a bold life rather

than settle for mediocrity.”

Sounds about right to me.  Choosing to “live a bold life rather than settle for

mediocrity” is not a bad epitaph.  I wish we could also say Columbus sought

to live the Golden Rule, rather than seeking gold for rulers — and himself.

 

 

 

As we leave Columbus’ day behind, here is a sneak preview of

our newest Honored Guest poet, Andrew Riutta.  You will see

that there was no affirmative action or cronyism involved when I

asked this “rising star” Italo-American haiku poet to join us at

f/k/a.   More about Andrew tomorrow. 

 

north star…
as if I could find
my way

 

 

 

mayfly
a shattered world
through its wing

 

 

 

 

half moon—
between two crickets
a year has passed

 

 

 

 

starlit mountain…
the sound of water
returning to itself

 

Andrew Riutta from Pipeline, Simply Haiku (Summer 2005, vol. 3:2)

                                                                                                                         

Here’s a job far too big for the Haiku Sheriff, or his deputies:

 

YourCongress.com proudly states:

HAIKUS [sic]

 

Nothing says the U.S. Congress like Japanese poetry.

You can read our hilarious Congressional Haikus for free by  visiting the YourCongress.com Congressional Directory, selecting the Member of Congress whose haiku you want to read, and then scrolling down to the “Haiku” section of their profile. There’s a haiku for every Member of Congress and delegate (DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and U.S. Virgin Islands).

Can we be frank, here?  Not only are the selections not haiku or senryu,

they are not funny.  We found the page “thanks” to a Google referral that we

traced back to the YourCongress page on Senator Sarbanes.  Here’s the proffered

haiku:

 

 

Once a Rhodes Scholar
Senator for a long time
which sport did he do?

 

          [f/k/a Ed. Disclaimer: this is not haiku!] 

 

Here are the so-called “haiku” for my State’s Senators:

 

Charles Schumer  “schumerMug”

 

Issue of the day
Chuck will have something to say
not camera shy

 

 

 

Sen. Clinton

 

Black pants uniform
You’re in the Senate, not jail
That was the White House  

 [f/k/a Ed. Disclaimer: this is not haiku!]

 

The f/k/a Gang would gladly pay higher taxes to increase the budget

of the Haiku Sheriff, who could probably operate successfully worldwide

from right here in the Empire State.

 

  Perhaps Chuck Schumer or AG Eliot Spitzer will take up

this crusade.  There are a lot of haiku poets in New York State — and

we vote!  (update: As pointed out at Point of Law, on Oct. 13, 2005, Mr.

Spitzer and his staff should have some extra time on their hands — freeing

up resources to police against deceptive and fraudulent haiku claims.)

 

 

• 
  
  by dagosan:   

cold autumn rain —

spotting three yellow slickers

she smiles

 

[Oct. 12, 2005]  

                                                                                                                     

If the rowdy citizens of the blogisphere were in charge of the

Nation, we’d have only lynch mobs and kangaroo courts.  For

proof, see Prof. Bainbridge‘s new Harriet Miers Poll.  So far,

almost no one is willing to “Wait and See.”

 

  This plays into the hands of observers who believe

that many Conservatives who talk about “strict constructionism”

and “originalism” are mostly into “resultism”  Of course, it

could also be that webloggers and their public would rather

have an opinion than a considered judgment about the important

issues of the day. (see blawggers mug Old Gray Lady)  And, it

surely seems, that those Federalistales are very big on woe-is-we

martyrdom, mixed with a dash of narcissism. 

 

As for this poll, perhaps a better set of choices would have been:

Leaning For

 

Leaning Against

 

Wait-and-See

Then, we could at least have a semblance of open minds.

 

 

 

 

the baby
sucking her thumb
moongazes

 

 

 

 

as the spider

goes down the drain

a second thought

 

 

Tom Clausen

“as the spider” – Upstate Dim Sum (2003/I)

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

 

Professor Bainbridge is trying very hard to convince us that George

W. Bush is breaking a promise to appoint a “strict constructionist”

to the Supreme Court.  Steve’s post comes in response to the argument

from Hugh Hewitt (which Powerline‘s Paul Mirengoff found persuasive)

that:

“When Bush said “like Scalia or Thomas” many

people  heard many things. I think it is very safe to say that

the vast majority of American voters did not hear “justices

committed to a particular theory…of textualism or originalism.”

Putting aside the naive faith it takes to believe in the strict performance

of any “promise” made in a campaign on any topic with wiggle room,

there are a number of problems with Steve’s assertions.  He states:

“Whether or not Bush broke his promise doesn’t depend

on what the American people heard; it depends on what

Bush said.”

“Bush said he would appoint strict constructionists. That

is the promise he made and the fire to which his feet should

be held.”

 

“In other words, a justice ‘committed to a particular theory’

of strict construction would be an originalist or textualist.

  In support of his conclusion that promises have been broken,

Prof. B. tells us:

1) When asked by Tim Russert in Nov. 1999 what he would

want to know about a potential justice before making an

appoint to the Supreme Court, Pres. Bush responded: “The 

most primary issue — the most primary issue is will they 

strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.” 

(emphasis added)

 

2) Pres. Bush said a couple times during the second 2004

Presidential Debate, “I would pick somebody who would

strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.”

I don’t think President Bush’s mouthing of the term “strictly interpret”

can be interpreted as strictly as Prof. Bainbridge insists.  Here are

some of my reasons:

  What people “heard” is clearly important to what was

promised, as is what the President meant when he

“said” the words.  As a former divorce mediator (and

settler of many visitation disputes), I can assure you

that an important promise needs to be clarified, so that

all parties know the meaning of the words being used,

and the intentions of the person making the promise.

Steve sounds a bit like a jilted spouse, who has a

verbatim litany of all the things “that jerk” promised

her before he done her wrong.  The jiltee’s friends can

only shake their heads and wonder how she could

have read so much into so little.

 

to the cat:
“that’s complete and
utter nonsense”

 

 Tom Clausen

           from Homework (2000)

 

Prof. B. also wants us to believe that a President,

who uses the phrase “the most primary issue” three

times in explaining what he wants to know about

a potential justice, is a stickler for precise language

and commands a broad and deep understanding of

constitutional law and the meaning of “strict construc-

tion.”

 

  This same President, when giving two examples of

strict construction, mentions having “under God”

in the Pledge of Allegiance, and then — surely

well-prepped for the Presidential Debate — gives this

explanation of the Dread Scott case:

” . . which is where judges, years ago, said that

the Constitution allowed slavery because of

personal property rights. That’s a personal opinion.

That’s not what the Constitution says. The

Constitution of the United States says we’re all —

you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to

the equality of America.”

  Steve is, of course, absolutely sure he’s right, and even

added an update pointing to “looking for a strict constructionist” by

Ann Althouse, claiming it shows he has the better argument.  But,

as Althouse said:

“So, in a sense, Bush didn’t know what he was talking

about when he pointed as Scalia as his model for a judge.

‘Strict constructionist’ is more of a politician’s term.

Are we really supposed to believe that G.W. Bush understood Justice Scalia’s distinction between textualism and strict construction, as he 

explained in his1998 book A Matter of Interpretation? Scalia said (at 23):

“Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict 

constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings

the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict

constructionist, and no one ought to be— though better

that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not

be construed strictly, and it should not be construed

leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain

all that it fairly means.”

                                                                                      

 

In a Comment to the Bainbridge post, Beldar points out that Steve

is really straining: In parsing old transcripts, Prof. B, you’re projecting

onto non-lawyer Bush a detailed, dictionary-like knowledge of competing

metaphysical terms of legal art like “strict constructionist,” “textualist,”

and “originalist” — in order to divine his own subjective understanding

of the words you’ve quoted?   The Professor replies that “If he said he was

going to appoint strict constructionists, I think we’re entitled to hold him

to the ordinary meaning of those words.”  The “ordinary meaning” that

Steve has supplied us with is the definition given in Law.com’s Legal

Dictionary — a document that I think we can all agree has never been

perused by G. W. Bush. 

 

all through
his temper tantrum
her calm

 

 

 

after speaking importantly
  she quickly resumes
  sucking her thumb

 

      Tom Clausen

           from Homework (2000)

 

A Presidential debate, or a conversation on Meet the Press, is  

aimed at the general public — not constitutional scholars.  It is plain

that the public (or the actual voting electorate) does not have a consensus

on the meaning of “strict constructionist.”   Instead, I believe that the

public — like President Bush — uses the term (if at all) as a catch-

phrase or code for either “the kind of decisions I want the Court to

make” or “the kinds of decisions I do not want the Court to make or

overrule.”   The President couldn’t actually say that (although he does

give examples of results he’d like to see), so he uses a phrase that

he thinks will win him support.

 

Google “strict constructionist means” or

define: “strict constructionist”>, and it

becomes clear that those words have no

“ordinary meaning” for ordinary Americans,

nor for policy or political wonks.

Finally, Steve says: “Arguably, Bush didn’t explicitly promise to

appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mold, although I think that he

certainly intended people like me (and Hugh and Paul, for that

matter) to draw that inference.”  But, look what then -Gov. Bush

told Tim Russert, when asked in 1999 if he’d make appointments

“similar to Scalia in their temperament and judicial outlook”:

“Well, I don’t think you’re going to find many people to

be  actually similar to him. He’s an unusual man. He’s an

intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know

him here in Austin when he came down. He’s witty, he’s

interesting, he’s firm. There’s a lot of reasons why I like

Judge Scalia.”

That is the George Bush elected by his partisans — a man who 

truly believes he can schmooze with someone, and get to be

friends, and see inside his or her heart, and conclude whether 

that person will make decisions agreeable to George W. Bush.

A man who lets the head of his Vice Presidential search committee

select himself.  That sounds an awful lot more like a President who

would appoint Harriet Miers, than one who would turn to a Federalist

Society wonkEsq after coming to share a deep agreement over complex

constitutional legal theories. 

 

   There are a number of ways in which Pres. Bush is quite smart,

but he likes his legal theory to fit on a bumper sticker.   Steve Bainbridge

knows this. There may be many reasons for Prof. B to fight the Miers’

confirmation, but they need to be more persuasive than “But, you promised!”

she’s waited up …
to have some last words
with me

 

done –
the repairman tells me
any fool can do it

 

 

 

home from work …
the little one brings me
an empty wine bottle

 

 Tom Clausen

           from Homework (2000)