Scoring Points: A Review of Point Made: How to Write Like the Nation's Top Advocates by Russ Guberman

The point of Point Made can be easily summarized: good legal writing differs little from good writing in general, especially in the particulars of getting to the point with pith and clarity. Guberman shows and tells us this through myriad examples. Indeed, I think that one has to read this book in small bits, otherwise it suffers from the sins that it criticizes: too much quotation! However, as a "how-to" book with a lot of models, it can prime the brain for a better effort. Most legal writing is, in the memorable words of Gerry Spence, "word gravel". Younger lawyers, especially, seem to want to hide behind nondescript words and phrases, attempting to hide their advocacy. As these models demonstrate through Guberman's helpful classifications and his own pithy descriptions, legal writing needn't prove so awful. If you do write legal briefs (or memos), this book may not be the first I'd recommend (probably one of Bryan Garner's would gain that nod), but it would make the cut for helping develop these crucial skills. 

The Manchurian Soldier-Spy: A Review of Homeland, Season 1

N.B. Spoilers follow


Iowa Guru and I have now completed Season 1 of Homeland, a gift brought to us from the homeland (would it sell in India?) by the Panda (Inscrutable or Hungry, depending on circumstances). I can sum up my response by suggesting that I feel about Homeland the way that the viewers of Frankenstein's monster must have felt upon seeing it for the first time: an ugly, patchwork, but kind of fascinating. 

Literary critic Harold Bloom has written about the "Anxiety of Influence", how poets and other writers worry about the influence and implicit lack of creativity thereby imputed to them by the work of their predecessors. We now have a test, and this theory appears not to affect the writers of Homeland (based, according to the credits, on an Israeli book).  They seem to want to borrow from two sources, at times rather openly. One source is the great film, The Manchurian Candidate (please! I'm referring to the Frank Sinatra, Angela Landsbury, Lawrence Harvey classic; not the Meryl Steep--Denzel Washington mistake). The other source is John le Carre's Smiley books and the brilliant BBC productions of them. (Again, please, don't go for the Gary Oldman--Colin Firth film, which was close, but no cigar. The New Yorker's David Denby explains quite well the brilliance of the BBC production and the implicit limits of the film.) Great precedents both--but you have to choose! 

In fact, I doubt either precedent really works in the current climate. Jihadism and World Communism both have strong religious elements to them. But the Cold War is quite different from Jihadism, whether fought through the science fiction of total brainwashing (coming as it did out of the Korean War) or through the true-to-life betrayals by British elites buying into the Communist utopia. OBL's efforts to reestablish the caliphate had no mass appeal. Who, among any developed country (Muslim or non-Muslim), has a desire to see Jihadism succeed? Exceedingly few, I wager. While a large segment of the well-educated and the intelligensia supported Communism (openly or covertly--including some in high-ranking and prestigious government and academic institutions), Jihadism holds no such allure. So we have a problem with the basic premise: Brody's motivation. 

Over the course of time, Brody is defined as a convert to Islam (it's happened millions of times before, but to U.S. Marines captured and tortured by Jihadists?), and he's defined as an avenger for the killing of the boy Issa. Alas, I don't doubt that drone strikes and the killing of innocents are generating huge resentments against the U.S. and are a recruiting tool for Jihadists, but to a Marine serving in combat, does this seem so awful when his life and that of his buddies are at stake? Against this premise, we must consider Brody's love of country, family, friends, and self: all seem overridden, but not by someone brainwashed or turned into some kind of automoton. Of course, Brody suffers from PTSD, but then the writers, while demonstrating this, choose to ignore it. (Would we really ignore and fail to treat the extreme injury that Brody or any POW in this war must suffer? If so, shame on our government for its callousness and stupidity, but I hope that this is a scriptwriter's ignoring reality.) This guy, despite the torture, despite the yawning chasm of loyalties and motives, chooses to stick with his Jihadist goal of revenge killing. So Brody's a robot who acts crazy yet remains ready to fulfill his mission to the death--until he heeds the call from his daughter. (Under these circumstances, it's so easy to forgive the just-in-time call in the plot.) One of the two main characters doesn't work. How about Carrie? 

I hope that she has no real life model. Claire Danes does crazy really well, but I pray that we have no loose canons in the CIA or State like her. (Well, perhaps we do. See this NYT Mag article, but I hope no certifiables.) Her character is wrong in some many ways (I know, I know, except the big one, off and on), but she gets hard to take. No wonder Saul turns her in. 

And the vice-president. What a dick! How realistic is he? Such a dick . . . dick . . . Dick . . . Dick Chene . . . . Okay, his character works. 

Mandy Patinkin as Saul is very good. Indeed, the acting is excellent pretty much throughout the cast. 

Okay, will I watch Season 2? Would I look away from Frankenstein's monster? And also, we have reason to believe that there really is a mole in the C.I.A. Somebody is spilling beans that isn't Brody and never was Walker. The scriptwriters have withheld information, and  I expect that I'll have to tune in to see where it goes, this monster. 

 

Chuck Grassley Explains His "No" Vote on Chuck Hagel

Apparently in no hurry (who would be at his age & position in life), Sen. Grassley explains (sorta) his opposition to former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense (confirmed anyway). Reasons he gives for opposing Hagel, as I read them, are reasons that I supported him: reluctance to go to war with Iran (we just shouldn't. Stop.) and his refusal to give a carte blanche to Israel (support for Israelis and the nation of Israel should not be confused with supporting Israeli government policies that conflict with U.S. interests and values--the same goes for the U.S. government policies for that matter). Well, enough from me. Now, here's Chuck!:

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1501

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important for me to hear from you.

I appreciate your expressing your support for the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to the post of Secretary of Defense. Please know that I take the Senate’s responsibility of advice and consent regarding presidential nominations very seriously. President Obama nominated Senator Chuck Hagel for the post of Secretary of Defense in early January. He was subsequently confirmed by a vote of 58 to 41 on February 26, 2013. I opposed Senator Hagel’s nomination based on doubts about Senator Hagel’s views on America’s relationship with Israel, his position against U.S. sanctions against Iran, and his underestimation of the security threat posed by the dangerous regime in Iran.  In addition, Senator Hagel wasn’t transparent and forthcoming, as he said he would be, in that he didn’t allow access to speeches and other records that might have provided a clearer picture of his positions on these major national security issues.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing your views and urge you to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Chuck

And We've Gotta' Get Ourselves Back to the Garden. A Review of The Gardens of Democracy: A New American Story of Citizenship, the Economy, and the Role of Government by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer

"And we've gotta get ourselves back to the garden . . . "
Joanie Mitchell's "Woodstock Song" most famously performed by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young

From the book of Genesis to Woodstock, perhaps no metaphor has proven more durable or alluring than that of the garden. The Gardens of Democracy draws upon this venerable heritage to create a manifesto for a contemporary progressive agenda. This book provides readers with a new way of looking at the economy, citizenship, capitalism, and government that breaks some of the old molds. For instance, they draw upon the work of Eric Beinhocker (Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics) to show that our old models of the economy are insufficiently dynamic to account for how we really operate. In addition, many economic theories rely on extremely truncated and impoverished notions of human rationality, irrationality, and behavior. Likewise, they appreciate that how we define ourselves politically will define our polity and the quality of political discourse and action that we experience. As for government, they look beyond the usual dichotomy of "big" vs. "small" to consider what proves effective and useful, a much truer and more inventive way to consider issues about government and its responsibilities. Let me give you a sense of the dichotomies and new ways of addressing economic relations that they argue for:

Simple → Complex
Atomistic → Networked
Equilibrium → Disequilibrium
Linear → Non-linear
Mechanistic → Behavioral
Efficient → Effective
Predictive → Adaptive
Independent → Interdependent
Individual ability → Group diversity
Rational calculator → Irrational approximators
Selfish → Strongly reciprocal
Win-lose → Win-win or lose-lose
Competition → Cooperation

Liu, Eric; Hanauer, Nick (2011-12-06). The Gardens of Democracy: A New American Story of Citizenship, the Economy, and the Role of Government (Kindle Locations 321-329). Sasquatch Books. Kindle Edition.

Is this the dawning of the Age of Aquarius? No, but it does make a lot of sense to adjust our perspectives along these lines.  

These two guys out of Seattle have published a book that everyone ought to read, at least if you think that there's a better way to think about politics and the economy. Their idea of a "gardenbrain" (organic, evolutionary)  far exceeds the usefulness of the reigning "machinebrain". The idea of gardens and how we conduct ourselves, as gardeners fostering what gifts we have received, acting with a spirit of reverence for nature, but not without our active participation in the outcome, provides us with a metaphor that we need. 

Read it and pass it on! 


P.S. I’m not much of a gardener, but I have watched and helped a master gardener.

Rep. Loebsak on Gun Control & Violence

The following is the reply I received from Rep. Dave Loebsak. Like Senator Harkin's reply, it's much more tepid that I'd like, but Dave has to run again. I'd love one reply to say something like "the gun culture, not normal people who enjoy guns for sporting, but those who have a fixation or idolatry toward firearms, need to be told "no", we don't want that kind of country. We need some rational limits on firearms and access to them. The 2nd Amendment isn't an excuse for society drowning itself in the blood of innocents." Well, my fantasy. Now, here's Dave!

Rep. Dave Loebsack	Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:32 AM
To: "Mr. Steve Greenleaf"
David Loebsack 2nd District, Iowa Committees: Armed Services Subcommittees: Military Personnel Readiness Education and the Workforce Subcommittees: Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Higher Education and Workforce Training Washington Office: 1527 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-6576 District Offices: 125 South Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 351-0789 209 West 4th Street, #104 Davenport, IA 52801 (563) 323-5988 April 5, 2013 April 5, 2013 Mr. Steve Greenleaf 345 Magowan Avenue Iowa City, IA 52246-3515 Dear Mr. Greenleaf, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.  I'm honored to represent you.  Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa's Second District with the best representation possible. Like you, I was shocked, troubled, and saddened when I heard the news of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the lives that were needlessly cut short by this horrific and senseless act of violence.  As a father and grandfather, it is truly heart wrenching to think of what their parents have been going through.  My wife Terry and I continue to send our thoughts and prayers to the families and friends of the defenseless victims, and to the entire Newtown community.  Our thoughts, and the thoughts of our entire nation, also go out to the first responders and teachers who acted so heroically to protect the children.   While there are no quick fixes, it is time for our country to have a national conversation about how to address the troubling frequency with which lives have been cut short by senseless violence.  I've worked to support our police, firefighters, and first responders, and I believe they, as well as all community leaders from all points of view need to be part of this dialogue.  Part of that conversation needs to address mental health care and children's ever increasing exposure to violence in our society without being taught the difference between fiction and reality.   We must also look at ways to deal with military-style assault weapons and extended clips that were designed for the battlefield.  While it is only one piece of a complex puzzle, I believe we must also do more to keep these weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.  That is also why, in the 112th Congress, I was a cosponsor of H.R. 308, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act.  This legislation would restore the prohibition on the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices in the United States.   When faced with such heartbreak and loss it is important that we put aside politics and partisan bickering and come together as Americans to ensure the safety of our children and our communities.  That is why I am meeting with and gathering input from Iowans, including law enforcement, mental health care professionals, teachers and administrators, and parents to discuss how to keep our kids safe.  I strongly believe that there is no higher priority protecting our citizens and I am committed to working each and every day to ensure that America never sees another tragedy like the one in Newtown and that our families and loved ones are kept safe from harm.   Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue.  My office is here to assist you with any and all concerns you have, so please do not hesitate to contact me whenever you feel that I can be of assistance.  I encourage you to visit my website at www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I'm doing for you.  I am proud to serve the Second District, and I am committed to working hard for Iowans. Sincerely, Dave Loebsack Iowa's Second District DL/AK

Harkin Replies re Gun Control & Mental Health

Below is a letter that I received from Senator Harkin. Not as bold and forthcoming as I'd like, but not bad. With his announced retirement, I'd hoped that he'd have blown the trumpet more forcefully. Old habits do die hard!

Stephen Greenleaf

---

Reply from Senator Harkin

---

 

Senator@harkin.senate.gov	Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:48 AM
To: greenleaf.stephen@gmail.com
April 3, 2013 Mr. Stephen Greenleaf 345 Magowan Ave Iowa City, IA  52246-3515 Dear Stephen: Thank you for contacting me regarding proposed gun safety measures and mental health reform. I appreciate hearing from you about these important topics. Like all Americans, I was deeply saddened by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  What added to our grief as a nation was that it also came on the heels of mass gun shootings in Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, and the senseless acts of violence that occur every day throughout our country.  In light of all of these events, it is apparent that far too many Americans, including children, are needlessly losing their lives.  We must come together as a country to prevent future tragedies and the senseless loss of life, and to ensure that no American lives in fear. On January 17, 2013, the President put forward a specific plan to protect our children and communities by reducing gun violence. The plan includes legislative and executive action that combined would close background check loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, equip schools with safety resources and equipment, and increase access to mental health services. As a hunter, I know that the recreational use and collection of guns is important to many Iowans and I will continue to work to protect the rights of law-abiding American gun owners.  But we need to ask whether people need unlimited access to any arms, including those capable of shooting hundreds of bullets in a very short time.  We can support gun rights while continuing to support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our schools and communities safer.  Each of these goals is important and I believe that they can be accomplished simultaneously. That is why, over the years, I have consistently supported common-sense measures to protect our communities. For example, in the past, I have voted in favor of legislation to close the loopholes on criminal background checks on gun purchases at gun shows, and to require gun manufacturers to include child safety locks on guns. I have also voted against a blanket liability exception for gun manufacturers and sellers. The tragedy at Newtown also shined a light on the state of our country's mental health care system.  Over the past several months, I have heard from many Iowans about this issue, and their voices have been joined with people across the nation, including President Obama, calling for us to take a hard look at improving access to mental health services.  In so doing, it is important to combat a common, insidious misconception that people with mental illness are inherently violent.  In fact, individuals with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.  We must remember that this unfounded stereotype is an impediment to reform, not a window into it. With this in mind, on January 24, 2013, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I convened a hearing to assess the state of America's mental health.  We heard from expert government witnesses, as well as health care providers, mental health agencies, and patients.  To view a webcast of this hearing, please visit http://www.help.senate.gov. The hearing highlighted some of the shortcomings of the mental health care system.  To begin with, mental health illnesses are chronic diseases that disproportionately affect young people under the age of 24.  Yet the system appears to be failing some of these people.  Less than half of children with an identified mental illness receive treatment, and the average gap between the onset of symptoms and the receiving of treatment is nearly a decade.  Failing to diagnose and treat mental illness early in life seriously - and needlessly - aggravates adult mental health illnesses. Shortcomings in diagnosis and treatment also spill over into other areas of society.  For instance, a student struggling with a mental illness, like depression or anxiety, faces additional difficulties maintaining good grades and graduating on time.  Our prisons are also overburdened by people who should be receiving treatment and substance abuse counseling as part of their rehabilitation. We know that when individuals with mental illnesses receive appropriate treatment and support, they can recover and lead productive, healthy lives.  I am currently examining proposals to strengthen access to mental health services in our communities, in schools, and in the clinical setting.  In addition, as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds federal health initiatives, I plan to take a close look at opportunities to strengthen funding measures.  I am also heartened at the reforms we have already made.  The landmark health insurance reform law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provides nearly 30 million previously-uninsured Americans with access to health insurance plans that will be required to include coverage for mental health and substance abuse services.  Integrating primary care and mental health services will reduce barriers to care and lessen the stigma of mental illness. Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you. Sincerely, Tom Harkin United States Senator

Les Miserables: Movie Review

Did they think of the children? Did they consider what this might do to them? 

I think not. 

We adults can handle this type of disaster, but I'm glad my kids didn't have to see this, at least not for the their first experience. It could have scared and jaded them for life. 

What I'm I talking about? The extremely disappointing film production of Les Miserables that C and I viewed last night.  We doubted Anne Hathaway and Russell Crowe as vocalists, and so their mediocre performances did not stun us. You can't make up for vocal power with emoting close-ups. And Hugh Jackman, did they put a choke collar on him in the first half of the film? The man must have some pipes, but we only hear them in the second half of the film. Or, perhaps as C suggested, they had the initial characters do a kind of sprechstimme to avoid having to sing. Forget this this is supposed to be a musical! Really, how many tunes did you leave humming in your head in the first half? (It's a good thing that they didn't have an intermission, or I'm afraid the theater would have drained or the computer closed, in our case.) The second half redeemed the process a little, as the young men were allowed full voice, and sang with some gusto that the first half utterly lacked. It still wasn't great, Eponine was alright, and Amanda Seyfried as Cosette had a warbly, almost creepy quality to her voice.

And do we need to cover Hugh Jackman completely in filth, completely? Couldn't we have suggested a storm sewer? (Did Paris have sanitary sewers back then?) And do we need computer generated colossal graphics in every film? Can't we enjoy some human scale. Can does not imply should!

Well, all in all, a great disappointment, like those damned French Revolutions. Lots of show but little result. Hardly worth the effort. This film brings out the Edmund Burke in me for shows--keep in on stage, I guess. Bring me that ol' time Hancher magic!

This & That for 30 March 2013

1. I sent the following to Grassley, Harkin, Loebsak, and Braley: 

Dear Senator/Congressman:

I reviewed this clip by Pres. Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/28/president-obama-now-time-turn-heartbreak-action-prevent-gun-violence?utm_source=email205&utm_medium=text2&utm_campaign=nowisthetime. I have not forgotten, and I will not forget how gun violence takes too many innocent American lives. I will watch your actions hoping that you will show the leadership and courage that this issue requires.

Thank you for your consideration,
Steve Greenleaf

 I invite you to join me. (Does this sound to harsh, too threatening? I think that we have to get serious, even taking away some of the slack that I normally give to liberals who have to placate gun-crazy voters.)

2. Paul Krugman on how we're really "cheating our children".

3.Courtesy of Abba, a report on Millennium Goals and malaria by Ray Chambers. (Hey, I wonder if this guy could use some help?)

4. Dave Brooks says it's more than about guns--reducing homicides-- and of course he's right, but also wrong. Has Dave never watched any cop shows? You gotta have "means". By all means attack this problem on all fronts, but let's not continue to deceive ourselves about our national gun fetish, our "Moloch" (Garry Wills). We have to have a moment of truth, the NRA & gun nuts notwithstanding.

 

Good Niall, Bad Niall. A Review of The Great Degneration: How Institutions Decay & Economies Die by Niall Ferguson

There seem to be two-- or perhaps more--Niall Fergusons out there. One is a very accomplished historian, who, starting with work on German inflation and a biography of the House of Rothschild and going on into The Cash Nexus, established his bona fides as a historian, especially in the financial realm. His The Pity of War and  The War of the World move into thoughtful considerations of the great upheavals of the 20th century. In addition to the books, he parlayed his work into television programs. More recently, his work has tended toward more popular, synthesizing works, such as The Ascent of Money and Civilization: The West and the Rest, neither of which break new ground but each addresses a wide scope of history that merits consideration. And finally, especially since his emigration to Harvard, he has become a commentator on the American political and economic scene. His endorsements of McCain and Romney (especially the later in a derided Newsweek cover story) were poorly received (and rightfully so). His forecasts of the economy that cried for austerity have missed the mark (and to his credit, he's admitted as much, even granting some grudging credit to Paul Krugman for getting it right). So here we have the (at least two) Fergusons: one an insightful and energetic historian, and the other, a rather predictable and off-putting conservative hack. (Perhaps a bit harsh, but he can be so predictable.) So which Niall Ferguson wrote this book?

Both. The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die is written on the basis of the Reith Lectures that Ferguson gave on BBC 4, a long running and venerable forum. Ferguson's book based on the lectures is at once topical and historically broad. Ferguson discusses four characteristics that distinguished the rise of the the modern industrial states and made them--especially the U.S. and U.K.--so successful. The list is neither unique nor controversial: democracy, capitalism, the rule of law, and civil society. But as Ferguson's title suggests, he perceives a decline in each attribute. The success or failure (or decline) of any of the institutions and cultures that support and promote the four characteristics will determine the well-being of a nation. Starting with democratic institutions, Ferguson argues, quoting Burke, that the social contract isn't between individuals, but between generations ,and that the current generation (we Baby Boomers) have saddled a burden of debt on posterity. Underlying the capitalism that has fostered our economic growth, we have placed too many restrictions in response to the "Little Depression" , thereby choking our institutions. The rule of law has become, he claims, the "rule of lawyers". And finally, civil society has been largely replaced by the state. Each of these arguments merits serious consideration.  When Ferguson takes a long view uses insights from a variety of fields, such as evolution, statistical thinking a la Nicholas Taleb, and the cliodynamics of Peter Turchin to buttress his insights he can prove quite engaging. On the other hand,his arguments about lawyers cites statistics that I suspect come from Chamber of Commerce types, such as the cost of "litigation" on manufacturing. Know this: when it comes to regulation or litigation, no one, but no one, outspends corporate America on whatever it takes to protect their interests.And so it  goes, for each insight it seems, we have a pat conservative analysis.

And so it is that Ferguson seems to cite problems and remedies that are all too "conservative", as in pro big business. (Ferguson is not a no-nothing on social issues.) Ferguson can't quite pull back from what seem to be quite pugilistic instincts in politics, a Thatcherite through and through, although Maggie and Ronnie are now long gone. And so Ferguson ends the book by quoting President Obama's "you didn't build that" remarks in the same light as other conservative hacks: Obama is promoting the State (always in caps for this crowd) against "civil society". The great irony here, of course, is that Obama cut his teeth in civil society as a community organizer, and his instincts are amazingly centrist and conciliatory even though the center has moved far right and the Republicans lack anyone with whom he can conciliate. Also, in the context of what Obama said, there is no glorification of the State, only the recognition that the government does provide a crucial avenue for collective action.

In the end, I'd have to say this is more "bad Niall" than "good Niall" but still with flashes of insight that you wish more of. We can only hope that the good Niall comes back.

NB: Niall Ferguson was a #JLF participant.