– Welcome to those coming from Blawg Review Awards 2005.
For our reaction to winning the “Creative Law Blog” Award,
Nothing demonstrates the importance of cuteness in our
emotional lives and consumer habits quite as well as the
Christmas gift-opening ritual among an extended, multi-
generational family. “That’s so cute” and “Isn’t it-she-he
cute?” was repeated over and over last week in millions of
homes.
But that same ritual, along with the entire Holiday shop-
ping, gifting, and decorating experience, also seems to show
significant differences between the genders in reacting to the
Cuteness Factor. As I’ve opined on previous occasions,
“It’s cute” seems to be a sufficient reason for most women
to bring something home and for most men to want to smile
once and then leave it where they found it.
An article in today’s New York Times, “The Cute Factor” (by
Natalie Angier, Jan. 3, 2006), provides plenty of information
on what we deem to be cute: “practically anything remotely
resembling a human baby or a part thereof” — to wit, “bright
forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big
round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait,
among many others.”
Jessie Cohen/via Reuters
The article also discusses why cute is important:
“Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth,
vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say,
and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian
sense. As a species whose youngest members are
so pathetically helpless they can’t lift their heads to
suckle without adult supervision, human beings must
be wired to respond quickly and gamely to any and all
signs of infantile desire.”
Therefore, “The greater the number of cute cues that an animal or
object happens to possess, or the more exaggerated the signals
may be, the louder and more italicized are the squeals provoked.”
The Times article notes that “Primal and widespread though the
taste for cute may be, researchers say it varies in strength and
significance across cultures and eras.” NYT appears to be too
Politically Correct, however, to suggest that the taste for cute also
varies in strength between the genders. Happily, I am not. That’s
probably because: (1) I just finished reading Marriane J. Legato, MD’s
Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget (2005), which
details the many differences in the male and female brains, bodies,
emotions, etc. (2) I’ve never known a male who collected Hummels.
And, more importantly, (3) For over 50 years, I have noticed that
girls and women say “Isn’t that cute?” far more than boys and
men do. Indeed, it seems to me that males almost never
initiate the topic of cuteness — unless they are trying to get on
the good side of a female.
This gender difference makes sense. The evolution and history
of our race have made it far more important and natural for mothers to
react to the needs of infants than the father. (I’m not endorsing these
gender roles, just pointing out reality.) If women were not more
attentive than men to the needs of children, the race would have
died out a long time ago.
The article mentions another aspect of The Cute Factor that also
seems likely to affect males more than females:
“Denis Dutton, a philosopher of art at the University of Can-
terbury in New Zealand, the rapidity and promiscuity of the
cute response makes the impulse suspect, readily overridden
by the angry sense that one is being exploited or deceived.
” ‘Cute cuts through all layers of meaning and says, Let’s not
worry about complexities, just love me,’ said Dr. Dutton, who
is writing a book about Darwinian aesthetics. ‘That’s where the
sense of cheapness can come from, and the feeling of being
manipulated or taken for a sucker that leads many to reject
cuteness as low or shallow’.”
Although I had never thought of it in quite this way, Dutton’s notion
resonates with me. Many other males would, I think, also see
themselves as having the “rational” fear of being manipulated by
cuteness (could it be because men can never be sure just who
fathered an infant and are thus reluctant to make a quick familial
commitment?). That is surely the male reaction to the advertisers
and product designers who, according to the article, “are forever
toying with cute cues to lend their merchandise instant appeal,
mixing and monkeying with the vocabulary of cute to keep the
message fresh and fetching.”
“SnowManBroom”
That’s as far out as I’m sticking my neck tonight. Your Comments
and insights are welcome, as always. Hate mail should be directed
at Prof. Yabut.
to the cat:
“that’s complete and
utter nonsense”
New Year’s …
recycling last year’s
resolutions
second day
of the New Year:
taxes arrive
January 3, 2006
cuteness engenders gender differences
Comments Off on cuteness engenders gender differences
Judge Murtha: too kind to lawyer-felons?
Early last week, we complained that Vermont U.S. District
Judge J. Garvan Murtha gave Anthony Doria, founder of the
Vermont Law School, only one month in prison, after
Doria pleaded guilty to tax evasion (relating to his spending
$115,000 on himself that he was entrusted to invest for a
woman in her 70’s.) Doria’s lawyer had argued this his
embarrassment was sufficient punishment.
Later that week, Judge Murtha had the chance to redeem
himself in an embezzlement case which I have been closely
watching since 1997, when I attempted to have the lawyers
disciplined for conduct that eventually led to the federal
charges. (see prior post) Unfortunately, Judge Murtha
let me — and thousands of injured “debt-reduction” clients —
down. The defendant is Howard Sinnott, now a disbarred
lawyer. As a Boston Globe article explained on Dec. 29, 2005:
“A former state representative and former chairman
of the Bennington Select Board was sentenced to
three months in prison for embezzling $860,000 from
clients of a debt-reduction business he operated.”
“Howard Sinnott, 55, also will have to serve three months
of home confinement after his release from prison.
“His sentencing was part of a larger series of federal cases
involving the Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers of Albany,
N.Y., and the Law Centers of Consumer Protection, based
in Bennington. Capoccia has been convicted of 13 counts
of fraud and larceny, although he’s appealing. Capoccia in
2000 sold the Albany firm to Sinnott, who moved it to Vermont.
More than 2,700 former clients of the law firm that Capoccia
founded filed claims totaling more than $25.6 million against
the business.
“shark tiny gray”
Sinnott gets three months in jail for being one of the two major actors
in a complicated scheme to steal millions of dollars from people he
himself describes as “decent, hardworking people looking for an honest
way to resolve their debt issues.” [Bennington Banner, Dec. 30, 2005]
When the bar authorities in New York State finally woke up and stopped
the scheme (disbarring Andrew Capoccia for other activities), Sinnott,
who still had his law license, moved back to Vermont, where he attempted
to suck even more financially-troubled clients dry. [They required up-
front payment of 25% or more of the amount of savings they estimated
would be achieved by their “negotiating” for lower debt amounts with
creditors. Click here to learn more.]
Why only three months rather than thirty for forty? I certainly hope
that Judge Murtha — who was a Peace Corp volunteer in Columbia
prior to law school and served as a Public Defender as part of his
Prettyman Fellowship — was not swayed by the arguments of either
defense counsel or Sinnott himself.
Attorney Lisa B. Shelkrot came up with the usual defense gobbly-
gook, including:
“What stands out [in letters from prominent members of
the community] is his selflessness and commitment to
service.”
“It was a fear of destitution, not a high flying lifestyle … that
lead him to this.”
“emptypocketsS”
Sinnott had a “deeply and tragically” flawed personality.
“When his moral instincts told him to do one thing, he didn’t
follow through with it.” His vanity caused him to believe he
could fix a hopeless situation.
“Mr. Capoccia was a genius at exploiting those flaws … Mr.
Sinnott was a perfect mark for Mr. Capoccia.”
Even more embarrassing was Sinnott’s Opraesque mixture of self-pity
and confession. According to the Bennington Banner, he told the court:
[H]e wanted to quit many times because Capoccia was
“emotionally and mentally abusive,” but feared being unable
to find a job.
Sinnott also said an alcoholic father and stepfather, along with
the divorce of his parents when he was young, groomed him to
lack the self confidence and courage needed to stand up to
Capoccia. “My flaws with Mr. Capoccia’s personality combined to
make the perfect storm.”
Sinnott did, however, place the onus on himself, saying “Because of inse-
curity and financial desperation I went forward… I put the interests of myself
above those of the firm’s clients. I should have known better.” An article in
The Rutland Herald (Dec. 30, 2005), also states “Sinnott said his parents’
divorce when he was 6 years old may have led him to see in Capoccia a
mentor and role model he never had during his younger years.” That’s
touching, but Andrew Capoccia was already known for his questionable
practices when he (then 54) and Sinnott (then 47) started their debt-
reduction gimmick and started milking clients dry while ruining their
credit.[see our “blame bar counsel for Capoccia scandal”]
Judge Murtha had this to say to Sinnott about the lenient
sentence (per the Rutland Herald article):
“If you had not worked out an arrangement with the government
you would have faced a long time in prison,” Murtha said. “You
made the right decision to plead guilty and cooperate — it enables
me to impose a less severe sentence.”
Yes, pleading and cooperation normally lead to a “less severe” sentence,
but some would argue that 3 months is not the least bit severe. Sinnott
will be expected to pay $500,000 in restitution. The Bennington Banner
notes:
“When asked by the judge how he planned to pay the restitution,
Sinnott said he did not have a plan, but said he has considered
writing a book about his experience and designating the proceeds
to the victims. Sinnott said his last job was selling shoes at Sears.”
Howard Sinnott helped Andrew Capoccia hide money that could have
partially reimbursed their defrauded clients; he was also instrumental
in prolonging their debt-reduction scheme. Three months is scandalously
lenient. It also makes me very concerned that Judge Murtha may be
planning to give Andrew Capoccia a light sentence. The public already
believes that courts unfairly give lawyers who have fallen into felony far too
much sympathy. Judge Murtha seems to be proving them right.
through the open door . . .
her smile doesn’t forgive
all my sins
riding down
the metro escalator
snowflakes
Randy Brooks, from School’s Out (Press Here, 1999)
another argument unfolds the futon
pet store
nose prints
both sides
W.F. Owen from A New Resonance 2: Emerging Voices (2001)
credits – “pet store” – Frogpond XXIII:2 (2000)
“NoyabutsSN”
Comments Off on Judge Murtha: too kind to lawyer-felons?
January 2, 2006
LSSU’s banished words list get a D grade
– Welcome to those coming from Blawg Review Awards 2005.
For our reaction to winning he “Creative Law Blog” Award
lawyer choosing caselaw to cite, we cherry-picked banned words from
annually, without critiquing the overall quality of the list. [e.g., we touted
the censoring of “blog” in 2005 and “bling-bling” in 2004]
So caught up in ends rather than means, f/k/a even urged readers to
make particular suggestions to LSSU for this year’s list. Now, how-
ever, under our newly adopted motto of “carpe diem” — Sicilian for
“complain daily” or maybe “wrap the fish with this weblog” — we’ve
got to come clean: the LSSU list is far too banal and amateurish to
deserve all the attention it garners, even considering that the New Year’s
holiday is usually a slow period for news.
In fact, given how little there is to do at LSSU, there
is no excuse for a list that appears to have been drawn out
of a hat, from unfiltered sources, and then embellished by
the remedial English class with explanations that mostly
came from the original complainant, unedited for proper logic,
grammar or syntax.
Why is f/k/a turning its mighty weblog cannon on this tiny educational
outpost? First, because we can; and second, because the college’s
Public Relations Department began the Banishment List in 1975 “as
a publicity ploy for little-known LSSU.” If the List is meant to attract
attention to LSSU, it is surely fair to ask what it tells us about this seat
of higher learning.
The history page for the List tells us:
“OLD&NEWyearS”
“The first list was dreamed up by [Public Relations Director
W. T. “Bill”] Rabe and a group of friends at a New Year’s
Eve party in 1975. The following day, he released the list
and the rest, as they say, is history. Since then, nominations
for words and expressions to be banished have been invited
and accepted throughout the year. . . .
“After Rabe retired in 1987, the University copyrighted the
concept and continued the tradition. The popularity of the
effort shows no signs of dwindling. Hundreds of nominations
are received each year.”
Thus, the first List was done overnight (probably while imbibing spiked
eggnog), while LSSUers now toil for an entire year on each Banned List,
with input from around the world. Judge for yourself whether the 2006
List is an improvement on the 1976 version (or the ones in between).
We don’t think so.
Here’s Lake Superior State University’s 2006 list of words and
phrases banished “for mis-use, over-use and general uselessness”
(check out the accompanying “explanations” for the full effect):
– Surreal
– Hunker down
– Person of interest
– Community of learners
– Up-or-down vote
– Breaking news
– Designer breed
– FEMA
– First-time caller
– Pass the savings on to you!
– 97 percent fat-free
– An accident that didn’t have to happen
– Junk science
– Git-er-done
– Dawg
– Talking points
– Holiday tree
Right off, notice that there are 17 items. As George Carlin ably
demonstrated in his When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?
(at 14), when you have a list, “Ten sounds important,” and other
numbers just don’t seem serious. Seventeen suggests there
simply were no clear criteria for making the cut.
More persuasive on the lack of a standard is the fact that so
many of the items have nothing to do with the year 2005. As the
AP reports notes, “Many of the phrases banned this year are not
new.” To which I add, “and were not used in a noticeably different
or increased manner last year.” Examples are:
“first-time caller” — should have been banned
at least of decade ago by Rush Limbaugh himself.
“pass the savings on to you!” — I bet a Michigan
fisherman was using this sales pitch before the
State got into the Union.
“97 percent fat-free” — not this well-padded List
“Talking points” — was all talked-out years ago
“An accident that didn’t have to happen” — not
exactly a cliche. Was it used a lot in 2005?
Larry the Cable Guy t-shirt
Frankly, I saw no uptick in the use of “surreal” and I had
never even heard of “Git-Er-Done” until I saw it on this List
(perhaps a side benefit of my avoiding sports channels).
Are the students and professors (and PR folk) at LSSU
watching too much television, or am I watching too little?
As for “breaking news,” all urgency was sucked out of
that phrase with the birth of 24-hour news cycles (not to
mention Entertainment Tonight).
The List-makers also seem to be willing to throw out both
the baby and the frozen bath water. “Dawg” (which was
the online Rap Dictionary), for example, comes in handy
when a guy wants to show a degree of amiability toward
another male, without showing too much affection. Also,
we simply can’t go around banning all terms of endearment
that refer to animals.
law enforcement to use when it does not have sufficient
information (or strategically is not ready) to classify some-
one as a suspect, subject, target. Before banning it, we
suggest the fire science and criminal justice faculty and
students at LSSU come up with a more appropriate term.
What does the Banished Word List tell us about LSSU?
We don’t know whether the List was actually drafted by
teachers, students or public relations staff, but we can say
that whoever is responsible can’t stay on task, anticipate
consequences, or write persuasively. All in all, not the
kind of image that would seem to help the School’s
admissions mission.
Just as George Carlin whittled the Commendments down
from Ten to Two, we’d like to suggest that the LSSU List
would be better if stripped down to Four timely phrases
this year:
• Up-or-down vote
• Designer breed
• Junk science
• Git-er-done
We’re giving “Git-er-Done” the benefit of the doubt,
(mostly so we can use this nifty image again by Cable Guy).
But, we (a) will all need FEMA at some point and should not
throw out the acronym; (b) should retain the right to “hunker
down” as necessary; and (c) need to be reminded about the
faux War on Christmas that was sparked this year by Holiday
Trees.
Skeptics might think that this critique stems from LSSU’s failure
to include our choice for the most odious phrase of the year —
“nuclear option.” Skeptics aren’t always wrong, but we believe
our motives are pure. Of course, if you happen to be making
your own List of Banned or Closely-Regulated Words and Phrases,
please do check out our argument regarding “nuclear option,”
which we (like columnist Ellen Goodman) believe should be
limited to “the real thing” — nuclear war or nuclear power plants.
Once “nuclear option” was used by Senators and the press to
refer to the filibuster rules of the U.S. Senate, its use spread
to other political and social actions and decisions that various
actors or reports thought might have serious consequences.
The f/k/a Gang believes this misused, overused and confusing
metaphor is representative of a sorry trend of verbal abuse that
amounts to neglect of our language legacy. As we said last
May:
“The lazy linguistic practice (often perpetrated
and perpetuated by the popular media) of using familiar,
analogous situations not merely to explain a new concept,
but also to name it, is making a mess of our language, with
more and more phrases simply making no sense on their face.”
(We used “black box” and “DNA finger-prints” as examples)
But, taking the term “nuclear option” out of the realm of war
strategy, and using it in the context of U.S. Senate filibuster
rules is several steps farther down the road toward language
lunacy. I don’t care that a politican used the phrase. The
media are in the communications business, they need to use
words that express meaning. Did anyone think of calling it the
Filibuster-Buster Option?
“toiletpaperf” Does LSSU give “gentleman’s C’s”? Maybe next year’s List
will deserve such a grade. For now, we’re going to hand out a “D”
and hope the sting will motivate all those involved in creating the
Banished Word List to try harder and do better. The List might be
done “tongue-in cheek,” but there is no reason that cheeky tongues
can’t be eloquent, subtle, and insightful.
p.s. We would also like to nominate “heh” as a word that should
be banned from the Blogiverse — or at least self-censored by any
self-respecting weblogger other the Big Guy himself. Merely alluding
to Prof. Reynolds is not a good enough excuse for using this incredibly
overused, surreally stale exclamation, whether to show mild-ironic
“Old&NewYearS” After all this discussion of unwanted words, a new year
is a good time to reprise some of my favorite John Stevenson
haiku and senryu:
First, the title poems from three of his published
volumes of poetry Some of the Silence (1999),
quiet enough (2004), Something Unerasable (1995):
a deep gorge . . .
some of the silence
is me
snowy night
sometimes you can’t be
quiet enough
under the
blackest doodle
something unerasable
“snowflakeS” And, a miscellany of poems I wish I had
written:
wind-beaten marquee
saying only
“Coming Soon”
proud host
his orchard bursting
with fireflies
– from Some of the Silence (Red Moon Press, 1999)
the tethered dog
watches the guide dog
enter a deli
one last look
through the old apartment
a dry sponge
the mirror
wiped clean
for a guest
“stevensonQuietN” – quiet enough (Red Moon Press, 2004)
city lights —
the brightest are all
selling something
dawn
before there is any
tune in my head
– from Upstate Dim Sum (2005/I)
“AnnouncerS”
Comments Off on LSSU’s banished words list get a D grade
January 1, 2006
2006: make it a year you’re proud of
– Welcome to those coming from
our reaction to the “Creative Law Blog”
award see thanks a lot (for all this pressure)
New Year’s Dawn
light first gathers
in the icicles
first page
of the new journal
untrammeled snow
Jim Kacian – Presents of Mind (1996) “snowflakeS”
the ball drops . . .
same moon
as last year
potluck
No Limbo? As a Catholic apostate, who nonetheless tries to
lead a life that’s congruent with the Golden Rule and other basic
moral values, I have always liked the thought that there might be
an alternative other than Hell for me, if I guessed wrong, and there
actually is an afterlife ruled over by a judgmental God. Therefore,
Limbo and analogous concepts (like house arrest instead of doing
time in the Big House) was always an attractive one for me. [I mean,
wasn’t it the Lord who gave me this questioning, contrarian brain.
I refuse to believe in a “Gotcha God.”]
It’s a little worrisome, therefore, to learn — during this time of joy and
hope — that the Catholic Church, whose theologians originated the
idea of a place other than Heaven or Hell for certain unbaptized but
unsullied souls, may be about to consign Limbo to the theological
round file. See New York Times article, Dec. 28, 2005, that puts the
discussion into historical context, along with the modern issues of
aborted fetuses and African infant mortality; and today’s NYT op/ed
by Howard Bloom, who has more practical personal concerns; also.
see Seattle Catholic (Dec. 7, 2005) for one theologian’s “serious con-
cern” over the implications of the Church saying that unbaptized infants
would be allowed to enjoy the beatific vision in heaven (rather than merely
avoid hellfires and pain). Beyond feeling the heat on behalf of my own
immortal soul, this changing of the rules in mid-game (or activist revision
of longstanding doctrine and beliefs) makes me 1) worry — as with the
gay priest issue that we raised here — just what the Church is modeling
for “Catholic legal theory” in the realm of personal rights and due process;
and 2) why so many bright Catholic brains spend time on this stuff when
the world has so many real moral problems.
the great lord’s wood fire
rises
first
how annoying!
among chrysanthemums too
the nobles win
Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
Luckily, I don’t believe in New Year’s Resolutions.
So, I can nix the notion that I stop picking on Prof. Bainbridge
in 2006. Steve is a great proponent of fine wine, cigars and cars
(chastizing Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney’s abstention from such vices),
and I would be the last person to wonder how they are connected
to his other passion — his religious Faith. I do nonetheless wonder
why a man with such impeccable taste allows one of his advertising
“Supporters” — The National Center for Public Policy Research — to
constantly place the photo of a roll of toilet paper at or near the top of
the Bainbridge websites. (It couldn’t be the money!). Prof. B wants
to be seen as a leading Public Intellectual. Toilet paper — no matter
how fluffy, absorbent or insightful — does not add to that image.
Prof. B. has not eschewed Resolutions. Check
his out here and consider a) which are inconsistent
or work at cross-purposes and b) which are likely to
make Steve a better person. Test to follow.
– click for New Year haiku & senryu “OLD&NEWYearS”
Comments Off on 2006: make it a year you’re proud of