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

Got haiku?

 

loud wind–

the bed unmade

all day

 

 

 

my move

their move

morning clouds

 

 

 

 

 

 

a pile of orange peelings–

the night watchman

away from his desk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

green light

from a green bottle

winter morning

 

Gary Hotham –

breathmarks: haiku to read in the dark  (Canon Press, 1999)

 

                                                                                                                                                                    

Our punditry won’t be ready until after sunset and dinner,

today.  [update (9 PM): too much food, perhaps laced

with too much MSG, has left me in no condition for compo-

sition.  If the creek don’t rise, I’ll be opining here tomorrow,

so please come back.]

 

Happily, Carolyn Hall did her homework:

 

 

last of the sunlight
cows bounding
downhill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

icicles drip on the sill

   a pile of bills waiting

        to be paid

 

 

 

 

 

leaning back

in their chairs

old friends reunited

 

 

“snowflakeS”

 

 

into

the

rain-

filled

bucket

so

softly

hailstones

 

 

Carolyn Hall  from .

“last of the sunlight” – The Heron’s Nest (Vo. VI, 2004)

“icicles drip” – Acorn 3; A New Resonance 2 

“leaning back” – Frogpond XXII:3; A New Resonance 2 

“into” – Acorn 5 (2000); Haiku: A Poet’s Guide, by Lee Guruga   

                                                                                                                                                     “snowflakeS”

 

  Don’t forget: You can get your daily dose of

dagosan at both simply senryu and dagosan’s haiku diary.

 

 

old folks’ home

     the square of light

          crosses the room

 

 

 

“welch old gray”

photo with haiku

 

 

 

 

morning sun–
  a patch of frost
     in the holstein’s shadow

 

 

 

 

 

 

reading in bed
my pulse flickering
the lightly held bookmark

 
 

haiku & photo

 

 

 

 

first date

    letting her

put snow down my neck

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

accumulating snow–

oven mitts

praying on the counter

 

 

 

 

Michael Dylan Welch  

“first date” –  edge of light: RMA 2003

“morning sun” – pegging the wind: RMA 2002

“reading in bed” – Open Window –  haiku and photographs

“old folks’ home” – Open Window – haiku and photographs 

“accumulating snow–”  frogpond XXVIII: 1 (Winter 2005)

 

 

 

from the shower,

a sad love song —

bathtub cricket

 

  dagosan

 

  Carolyn Elefant muses over why so many lawyers in BigLaw firms 

seem to want to escape.   She points to Orin Kerr, who is also wondering

whether the trend of blogging anonymously and snagging a book deal might

provide a new career path for unhappy lawyers.   Prof. Yabut is hoping that

“creative” pseudononymous weblogging will snag him a min-series by year’s

end.

 

                                                                                                                         

 

PSST!  In reaction to our post “we should make the word “blawg” obsolete“, the

Editor of Blawg Review sought expert assistance from linguist Mark Liberman at

Language Log.  I don’t think Ed got much solace.  Check it out. The touchstone 

for acceptance of a neologism into the general language is its use and acceptance 

by the public.  I do wish that Liberman had read the article behind the headline that

was misleadingly cited by Ed. (See ‘Blawg’ use in law firms is on the rise.) The head-

line suggests that law firms use the word “blawg” more than ever, but the article never

broaches that topic; it merely says law firms have more weblogs now. 

 

I just posted a lengthy essay on the above

topic.  It’s in the form of an Open Letter to

the Editor of Blawg Review.     Go here.

 

This is the opening: 

 

“Whether or not a neologism continues

as part of the language depends on many

factors, probably the most important of which

is acceptance by the public.”

                                     WikiWhat / Answers.com

 

“Words become obsolete or archaic for any

number of Reasons.”

                        Christopher Orlet –

                          Existential Journalist

 

Dear Blawg Review Editor [“Ed“]:

 

I’ve come to know you as an articulate lover of the English language. 

As far as I know, you don’t say “lawgic” or “lawnguage,” drink “lawtte,” 

bill clawents, or use Blawk‘s Dictionary. You don’t call lazy associates

 “slawkers,”  and have yet to dub Jack Abramoff a “lawbbyist.”

 

You’re usually a skeptic and no fan of “cute.”  If linguists called their

weblogs “blings” (or argonauts called theirs “blargs”), you’d probably 

smirk.  But, note: no one else uses such verbal oddities in naming their

weblogs.  So, Ed, why do you, and other otherwise-serious members of

the legal community, refer to law-oriented weblogs as “blawgs?”  Why

take an insider pun by a popular lawyer-webdiva (which should have been

passed around and admired briefly as a witty one-off) and help perpet-

uate it?

 

   For much more Go here.

update (Jan. 20, 2006): The Editor of Blawg Review has responded

to this posting by acting as if the issue were whether one has a

right to make new words.   Our point is, of course, that all words

are not created equal and that “blawg” fails virtually all of the tests 

for a useful word that is worth keeping and, more important, worth 

using (especially by a profession accused so often of using words

that confuse and that set it apart).  [more inside]

 

what my words can’t explain —
the autumn sun
on your back

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

a coyote call

goes unanswered

evening star

 

 

back again—

the driftwood thrown

with all my strength

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

explaining it,

my life sounds frivolous—

holly berries

 

 

 

 

 

paul m 

“what my words can’t explain” – The Heron’s Nest

“a coyote call” – Acron No. 6 (Spring 2001)

“explaining it” – acorn haiku magazine

“back again” – pegging the wind, 2002; acorn

 

                                                                                                              

 

As SCOTUSBlog noted yesterday, Gonzales v. Oregon was the first time

Chief Justice John Roberts has dissented to a Court decision. The Chief

joined the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia, and did not write separately.

The case upheld an Oregon law that permits doctors to prescribe medica-

tions in certain assisted suicide situations. [See NYT, “Fraught Issue, but

Narrow Ruling in Oregon Suicide Case,” Jan. 18, 2006]

 

We can’t know what was on Justice Roberts’ mind, other than the issues

discussed by Justice Scalia. Nonetheless, it’s impossible not to wonder

whether the following 2004 statement by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,

who is now Pope Benedict XVI, played an important role:

 

The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin.
The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial
decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia,
states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by
conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law,
such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never
licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of
such a law or vote for it’”. Christians have a “grave obligation
of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if
permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from
the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […]
This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for
the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits
it or requires it.”

We have opined at this website that John Roberts appears to be a “serious

Catholic” who would feel a moral obligation to act on the above statement,

which is directed at Catholics in public life. [see our prior post here]

 

The Chief Justice joined the dissent of Justice Scalia (with concludes that the

term “legitimate medical purpose . . . surely excludes the prescription of drugs

to produce death”), rather than Justice Thomas’ dissent (with its focus on the

inconsistency with the Raich v. Gonzales precedent, which struck down

California’s medical marijuana laws). That at least suggests that John Roberts

had moral issues on his mind more than statutory construction and stare

decisis. (Those same priorities might also be on Steve Bainbridge’s mind,

as well as the gang at Mirror of Justice.)

update (Jan. 19, 2006): Robert Tsai offers his take on the Roberts’

DIssentat Concurring Opinions (Jan. 18, 2006), including that

“He, like Scalia, is willing to read Congress’ enumerated

powers broadly (and the core of state’s rights narrowly in

advance of national interests)–even when the strongest

interest appears to be in cultivating moral standards. This

is bad news forproponents of interstitial federalism.” [“Hail

to the (New) Chief: Death With Dignity — Part III”]

Reid Report suggests we “Recall that during his hearings, Roberts

demurred on the ‘right to die’ issue.” Also, TalkLeft gathers editorial

responses from the press (“Pro-Life Groups to Urge ‘John Ashcroft,

MD Law’,” Jan. 18, 2006). And, Prof. Bainbridge frets that “Scalia

Scuttles Federalism” — and it “no longer seems possible, however,

to believe that he is developing a coherent conservative jurisprudence.”

That suggests that (a) Steve may not be particularly in sync with

Scalia’s “public morality” position, and (b) Steve has the untenable

notion that there can be a monolithic “conservative jurisprudence”

and that it will hold all the anwers to every judicial decision.

processional

cold wind lifts one corner

of the pall

 

cathedral garden

cardinals in the birdbath

scatter drops of light

into the night 
we talk of human cloning
snowflakes

witnessing his will

the frost-hatched

pane

Peggy Lyles from To Hear the Rain (Brooks Books, 2002)

Full moon by her bed

my daughter asks

the meaning of death

The stone church quiet

after the funeral bell —

deepening snowfall

autumn evening–

yellow leaves cover

the plot reserved for m

Rebecca Lilly – Shadwell Hills (Birch Brook Press, 2002)

“Autumn evening” — A New Resonance 2; Modern Haiku XXX:2

Walter Olson has been all over the Tobacco Lawsuit Industry at his

Overlawyered.com website for years.  So, I was surprised today —

while listening to Kurt Vonnegut‘s latest book, A Man Without a Country 

(Seven Stories Press, Sept. 2005) — to hear a new legal theory for suing

big tobacco that has not been exposed yet at Overlawyered.  Vonnegut

explains (at pp 39–40):

 

                                                                                    

“I’m going to tell you some news.  …  Here?s the news: I am

going to sue the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company,

manufacturers of  cigarettes, for a billion bucks!  Starting when

I was only twelve years old, I have never chain-smoked anything

but unfiltered Pall Malls. And for many years now, right on the

package, Brown and Williamson have promised to kill me.  But

I am now eighty-two. Thanks a lot, you dirty rats. The last thing

I ever wanted was to be alive when the three most powerful people

on the whole planet would be named Bush, Dick and Colon.”

[update: An anonymously curious reader wonders whether Kurt

borrowed the “three most powerful men” line from Chris Rock,

or vice versa.]

Of course, after today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Oregon,

B&W might force Vonnegut to mitigate damages, by moving to Oregon

and finding a willing doctor.   [And see Vonnegut’s novel from 2001,

God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian.] Still, I count on Walter to keep me up

to date on issues like this, so I’m a little disappointed.

  Speaking of disappointment and broken promises, this

thin little volume (declared by its publisher to be “The first

major book to appear from Kurt Vonnegut in nearly a decade.”)

did not have enough new or unique wit or wisdom to be worth

my 2.5 hours of listening time, and does not deserve to be called

a “major book,” by an author who has indeed written many such

books.   The best one-liners could have filled a couple pages.  My

main theory of liability, however, would not be against the publisher

for over-touting, but would be against Kurt Vonnegut for breaking his

“promise to write no more.”   Hey, you never know.

 

afterthought (10 AM):  Maybe I’m being a little too tough on old Kurt.

Part of my problem with the book is that he says so many things

that are simply common sense to me — opinions I’ve held for a long

time.  Two good examples:

(1) “There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t

know what can be done to fix it.  This is  Only nut cases want

to be president. This was true even in high school. Only clearly

disturbed people ran for class president.”  (at 101 to 102)

 

                                                                             

 

(2) ” . . . vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes.

But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten

Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course

that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand

that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted

anywhere. “Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed

are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break.” (at 98)

[see our treatment of the Sermon on the Mount here, here, there,

and here]

 

   

 

  On the other hand, I must admit that I smiled broadly at

Vonnegut’s mention of Schenectady, my adopted hometown: 

“I got classified as a science fiction writer simply because I

wrote about Schenectady, New York. My first book, Player Piano 

[1952], was about Schenectady. There are huge factories in

Schenectady and nothing else. I and my associates were engineers,

physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. And when I wrote about

the General Electric Company and Schenectady, it seemed a

fantasy of the future to critics who had never seen the place.”

[emphasis added]

Of course, GE is no longer headquartered in Schenectady, and has about

5% of its peak number of employees stationed here.  I wonder what Kurt

would think about that.  Talk about nothing here.  Talk about futuristic.

Now that Walter has a heads-up on the “still living after all these years” cause of

action, I’m counting on him to keep us posted. 

 

news of his death

the cigarette smoke rises

straight up

 

    DeVar Dahl from New Resonance 3

 

 

 

 

“noSmokingR”

 

goblins at the door

in the darkness behind them

a cigarette flares

 

       John Stevenson from Some of the Silence 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the slow wobble

of a smoke ring

   

     ed markowski 

 

 

                                                                                               

 

Over at simply senryu, we’ve been having a discussion

today about the advice:

“if you’re walkin’ on thin ice, then you might 

as well dance”

“SkaterSignNF”

 

I’ve been trying to locate the source of the maxim. Last

January, I posted the words to the 1972 song “Do It” by

Jesse Winchester, from the LP “Third Down, 110 to Go,”

which was my introduction to the notion:

          Do It

If the wheel is fixed
I would still take a chance
If we’re treading on thin ice
Then we might as well dance
So I play the fool
But I can’t sit still
Help me get this rock
To the top of this hill

Do it
‘Til we’re sick of it
Do it ’till you can’t do it no more

     

Erick Houck Jr. had seen it recently and first brought

up the quote, in reaction to this dagosan senryu:

new ice
on the river –
still can’t walk on water

 

Matt Morden pointed to this article by a hypnotherapist,

who saw the slogan on a button.  About.com says the

author is unknown.  About did, however, quote this

Japanese proverb: “We’re fools whether we dance or

not, so we might as well dance.”

 

The Layabouts used the line repeatedly in the chorus

of their 1989 song “Thin Ice” (lyrics by Ralph Franklin),

from their “Workers of the World Relax” album. 

 

Walkin’ on Thin Ice

 

Key West (via NH) singer-guitarist Scott Kirby named

his 1999 album “Walkin’ on Thin Ice“, and the title

song incorporates the lyric in question.

One webchat site has an entry that seems

to suggest that “Fiddler on the Roof” used

the line, but I can’t find the reference, and

am not familiar enough with the play to have

an opinion. (maybe polymath George Wallace

knows) 

How about you?  Do know of any use of this line

prior to Jesse Winchester’s 1972 song “Do It”?  Please

email or leave a Comment, if you can help run down the

original source.

 

 

 

original by Arthur J. Giacalone, Esq., in full color

Central Park, NYC, ice rink, “The Gates (March, 2005)

 

 

coldest day of the year

the lone skater laps

his breath

 

George Swede from Almost Unseen

 

 

figure skaters on lac la belle pirouetting into snow squalls

 

 

 

 

cold wind
      the sweep of the speed skater’s arms

 

ed markowski 

 

 

 

dancin’ on thin ice?

the old guy’s

doin’ The Slide

 

 

                                                                           dagosan

p.s. All day, while chasing the source of the “might

as well dance” quote, I’ve had this nagging thought:

Thirty-four years ago, at 21, I thought this was a

wonderful quote. Now, in my mid-50s, it seems a

bit rash — which is why I would recommend, if you

must dance, that you do The Slide and avoid jumping

up and down. Of course, getting down and rolling is

probably the safest way to go.