The bar exam was three days of hell. HELL.
The minute it was over I went and got trashed and became a very angry drunk. Then I went to Mexico and got food poisoning, yay!
17 days until Costa Rica. Can't wait!
Monday, July 31, 2006
Thursday, July 20, 2006
spam hash brown bake
I have no idea why I love SPAM. I haven't let myself eat SPAM in years.
My brain tells me SPAM is evil, but my taste buds tell me to bake it with fried potatoes and sour cream and onions and smother it in cheese and cream of chicken soup, and sprinkle potato chips on top.
I'll never make this recipe, ever, because I feel like my arteries are going to burst just reading the recipe. At 53 grams of fat and 705 calories per serving, this would kill me. Because I'd probably sit down and eat the entire thing. By myself. And then spend the rest of the afternoon being very disgusted with myself.
Ingredients (Makes 8 servings)
1 (32-ounce) package frozen hash brown potatoes, thawed slightly
1/2 cup butter or margarine, melted
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 teaspoon garlic powder
2 cups (8 ounces) shredded Cheddar cheese
1 (12-ounce) can SPAM® Classic, cubed
1 (10-3/4-ounce) can cream of chicken soup
1-1/2 cups sour cream
1/2 cup milk
1/2 cup chopped onion
1 (4.25-ounce) can CHI-CHI'S® Diced Green Chilies, drained
2 cups crushed potato chips
Heat oven to 350°F. In large bowl, combine potatoes, melted butter, salt, pepper and garlic powder. In separate large bowl, combine cheese, SPAM®, soup, sour cream, milk, onion and green chilies. Add SPAM™ mixture to potato mixture; mix well. Pour into 2-quart baking dish. Sprinkle with potato chips. Bake 45 to 60 minutes or until thoroughly heated.
My brain tells me SPAM is evil, but my taste buds tell me to bake it with fried potatoes and sour cream and onions and smother it in cheese and cream of chicken soup, and sprinkle potato chips on top.
I'll never make this recipe, ever, because I feel like my arteries are going to burst just reading the recipe. At 53 grams of fat and 705 calories per serving, this would kill me. Because I'd probably sit down and eat the entire thing. By myself. And then spend the rest of the afternoon being very disgusted with myself.
Ingredients (Makes 8 servings)
1 (32-ounce) package frozen hash brown potatoes, thawed slightly
1/2 cup butter or margarine, melted
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 teaspoon garlic powder
2 cups (8 ounces) shredded Cheddar cheese
1 (12-ounce) can SPAM® Classic, cubed
1 (10-3/4-ounce) can cream of chicken soup
1-1/2 cups sour cream
1/2 cup milk
1/2 cup chopped onion
1 (4.25-ounce) can CHI-CHI'S® Diced Green Chilies, drained
2 cups crushed potato chips
Heat oven to 350°F. In large bowl, combine potatoes, melted butter, salt, pepper and garlic powder. In separate large bowl, combine cheese, SPAM®, soup, sour cream, milk, onion and green chilies. Add SPAM™ mixture to potato mixture; mix well. Pour into 2-quart baking dish. Sprinkle with potato chips. Bake 45 to 60 minutes or until thoroughly heated.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
i said, we live in a bubble.
whew! just finished writing a monster response to a 1-line comment that i decided belongs on the blog proper, as opposed to being allowed to linger in the comments section. Anonymous's* post was in response to my post titled "we live in a bubble."
*grammar nerd alert--I do believe it is "Anonymous's" as opposed to "Anonymous' ," as, with very few exceptions, proper nouns ending in "s" are expressed in the possessive by using an apostrophe and another "s," a notable exception being any reference to Jesus, where you would write "Jesus' " BUT only when referring to Jesus Christ. Your friend Jesus who is not the Son of God would still be be "Jesus's." Interesting eh? Grammar debate, anyone?....anyone?*
#
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous said…
You mean, “I live in a bubble”. Take some responsibility for your ignorance!
#
At 7:18 PM, K said…
Hm.
By "we live in a bubble," I meant that it's oftentimes hard for me to believe, even though I hear of it on the radio or read it in the news, that the atrocities that happen outside the US are real. Because though I see it on TV, it doesn't affect my life in any tangible way, except maybe paying a few more bucks at the gas station.
When I look out my window, I see palm trees and ocean. When people like BEYFlyer (mentioned in the post below) look out their window, they see the shit being bombed out of Beiruit airport.
It was not until I visited the minefields of Cambodia that I saw beggars with their limbs hanging off them in stumps, and Pol-Pot's regime became something a little more real than a lead pencil smudge on a history test. It wasn't until I spent thousands of hours volunteering for immigrant farmers in Mexico, generations of whom live their entire lives in cardboard shacks, that I realized the true cost of my salad veggies.
The "bubble" is the very sad fact that if I stopped reading certain news websites, and stopped listening to certain radio stations, and stopped travelling...I simply wouldn't find out about the atrocities that happen each and every single day to the majority of the population of this world.
Do you disagree?
As an American, I have the ability to choose between seeking information about the "outside," or simply ignoring it--and it makes me so concerned that some people choose to ignore.
I've had more than a few people ask me why I care about what happens outside this country...and why I bother to ever leave the US. I think it's a tragedy that it's not uncommon for people in this country to think this way.
One law student whom a lot of us at school know famously quoted: "why would I ever need to subscribe to and read TIME, or The Economist, or Newsweek? I'm not ugly! Only ugly people need to read those things." Sigh.
Maybe you do live in a war-torn area, in which case, you have every right to say I, as opposed to "we," live in a bubble. Because I, and a lot of other people in this country, do. But if you live in the US--wouldn't you agree that this place sometimes resembles Truman's world?
Hey, not that I'm complaining about living in a safe place. Just that--the more I read, the more I'm convinced America is this little island of ignorance in a sea of suffering people who for the most part hate our guts. Wouldn't a synonym for that be...bubble? Just travel anywhere else in the world--anywhere!--and ask the locals what they think about our government.
I should add that my comment about not reading the news or listening to NPR anymore was totally in jest. As all who know me can attest, I'm quite the international affairs junkie. Law school puts that on the back burner sometimes, but it's certainly one of my loves in life.
Ignorance is something that happens when you close yourself to the world, and to the opinions of others. I try my best not to do that.
Glad you stopped by to read, but surprised you'd come to such a hasty judgment.
-K
*grammar nerd alert--I do believe it is "Anonymous's" as opposed to "Anonymous' ," as, with very few exceptions, proper nouns ending in "s" are expressed in the possessive by using an apostrophe and another "s," a notable exception being any reference to Jesus, where you would write "Jesus' " BUT only when referring to Jesus Christ. Your friend Jesus who is not the Son of God would still be be "Jesus's." Interesting eh? Grammar debate, anyone?....anyone?*
#
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous said…
You mean, “I live in a bubble”. Take some responsibility for your ignorance!
#
At 7:18 PM, K said…
Hm.
By "we live in a bubble," I meant that it's oftentimes hard for me to believe, even though I hear of it on the radio or read it in the news, that the atrocities that happen outside the US are real. Because though I see it on TV, it doesn't affect my life in any tangible way, except maybe paying a few more bucks at the gas station.
When I look out my window, I see palm trees and ocean. When people like BEYFlyer (mentioned in the post below) look out their window, they see the shit being bombed out of Beiruit airport.
It was not until I visited the minefields of Cambodia that I saw beggars with their limbs hanging off them in stumps, and Pol-Pot's regime became something a little more real than a lead pencil smudge on a history test. It wasn't until I spent thousands of hours volunteering for immigrant farmers in Mexico, generations of whom live their entire lives in cardboard shacks, that I realized the true cost of my salad veggies.
The "bubble" is the very sad fact that if I stopped reading certain news websites, and stopped listening to certain radio stations, and stopped travelling...I simply wouldn't find out about the atrocities that happen each and every single day to the majority of the population of this world.
Do you disagree?
As an American, I have the ability to choose between seeking information about the "outside," or simply ignoring it--and it makes me so concerned that some people choose to ignore.
I've had more than a few people ask me why I care about what happens outside this country...and why I bother to ever leave the US. I think it's a tragedy that it's not uncommon for people in this country to think this way.
One law student whom a lot of us at school know famously quoted: "why would I ever need to subscribe to and read TIME, or The Economist, or Newsweek? I'm not ugly! Only ugly people need to read those things." Sigh.
Maybe you do live in a war-torn area, in which case, you have every right to say I, as opposed to "we," live in a bubble. Because I, and a lot of other people in this country, do. But if you live in the US--wouldn't you agree that this place sometimes resembles Truman's world?
Hey, not that I'm complaining about living in a safe place. Just that--the more I read, the more I'm convinced America is this little island of ignorance in a sea of suffering people who for the most part hate our guts. Wouldn't a synonym for that be...bubble? Just travel anywhere else in the world--anywhere!--and ask the locals what they think about our government.
I should add that my comment about not reading the news or listening to NPR anymore was totally in jest. As all who know me can attest, I'm quite the international affairs junkie. Law school puts that on the back burner sometimes, but it's certainly one of my loves in life.
Ignorance is something that happens when you close yourself to the world, and to the opinions of others. I try my best not to do that.
Glad you stopped by to read, but surprised you'd come to such a hasty judgment.
-K
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
johns hopkins gives a bunch of shrooms to a group of smart people...enlightenment ensues
Wall Street Journal article:
In a study that could revive interest in researching the effects of psychedelic drugs, scientists said a substance in certain mushrooms induced powerful, mind-altering experiences among a group of well-educated, middle-age men and women.
really??? who knew!
multicolored undulating hat tip to tony for the link.
In a study that could revive interest in researching the effects of psychedelic drugs, scientists said a substance in certain mushrooms induced powerful, mind-altering experiences among a group of well-educated, middle-age men and women.
really??? who knew!
multicolored undulating hat tip to tony for the link.
we live in a bubble
i should stop listening to NPR or reading the news. It's too depressing.
did i mention that the summer after my first year in law school, one of my assignments for my summer internship was to write an executive memo on the then-recent International Court of Justice's ruling on the Israeli-Palestinian separation barrier? I remember reading the news then, and thinking...things are so bad, they have to get better soon. No such luck.
Here are some interesting facts:
-Hizbollah and Israel have been playing the "kidnap each other's soldiers" game for years. This latest incident, however, was the first time Hizbollah had crossed into Israeli territory to kidnap the soldiers. Source: NPR this morning
-Since Palestinans elected Hamas to lead them several months ago, Israel has been bombing Palestinan-controlled areas regularly. See here, here and here.... et cetera.
-People are still being massacred in Iraq. Baghdad Burning writes all about it.
did i mention that the summer after my first year in law school, one of my assignments for my summer internship was to write an executive memo on the then-recent International Court of Justice's ruling on the Israeli-Palestinian separation barrier? I remember reading the news then, and thinking...things are so bad, they have to get better soon. No such luck.
Here are some interesting facts:
-Hizbollah and Israel have been playing the "kidnap each other's soldiers" game for years. This latest incident, however, was the first time Hizbollah had crossed into Israeli territory to kidnap the soldiers. Source: NPR this morning
-Since Palestinans elected Hamas to lead them several months ago, Israel has been bombing Palestinan-controlled areas regularly. See here, here and here.... et cetera.
-People are still being massacred in Iraq. Baghdad Burning writes all about it.
two sides of the coin
Captivating forum thread on the current hostilities between Israel and Lebanon. Truly a must-read.
The two main posters on this thread, BEYFlyer and Dovster, live in Beiruit and Northern Israel.
The fact that their discussion remains friendly is so inspiring.
If there is to be peace in the Middle East, we're going to need more people like these two.
Some recent posts:
BEYFlyer, from Beiruit, 2:34 am today:
The terror continues even here in the mountains. Last night was really rough on all of us. About 30 minutes after my last post, IAF raided a Lebabese army base not far from where we are. In total, there were about 8 raids spread over a period of 45 minutes. We headed down and into the lowest lying room in the house hoping for some protection. The kids were a mess and so were we to be honest. Throughout all of this alex0683de was sending me SMS messages trying to keep me "occupied". I appreciate you staying up with me and allowing me to breathe a breath of fresh air every now and then.
Again, I must ask the question, if Israel wants Lebanon to deploy its army in the South, why oh why oh why are they constantly bombing Lebanese army bases and killing hundreds of
Lebanese soldiers??? Does this make any sense to anyone? Please if there are any ex-military folks out there who can shed some light on the matter and explain the startegy behind such attacks, please feel free to add your comments.
One has no choice but to start wondering what is Israel's motive behind all of this. This has gone too far and is now clearly in the "absurd" category... There is no safe place left in Lebanon and it seems we are all now legitimate targets.
Dovster for both of our sakes, I hope this insanity ends soon. Take care and stay safe.
Dovster, from Israel:
BEYFlyer, I can only give you a partial answer -- and that is in regards to the IDF strikes on the Lebanese Army radar stations along the coast.
It was reported on Israeli television that the Lebanese Army radar had given Hizbollah tracking information which allowed it to shoot the missiles at the Israeli naval ships.
As for the rest of what you asked, I have two points/questions:
1. Are you certain about that number -- "hundreds of Lebanese soldiers"? I have not heard any estimates anywhere near that high.
2. Israelis, too, are asking why the Lebanese Army is being attacked. I have heard several television commentators wondering about that.
I remember that during the 1982 war (which others here might not know was fought in Lebanon but against the PLO, not the Lebanese Army) one Lebanese tank fired a single, symbolic, shot at the IDF and the Israelis were ordered not to return fire.
That was the only shooting between Israel and Lebanon in 1982. You are right -- Israel is demanding that the Lebanese Army take up positions in South Lebanon, guarding the border, and a war against that Army can only make this more difficult.
There may be military reasons (such as what I discussed about the radar stations) but if there are, they have not been made public here and it is causing quite a few Israelis to be unhappy with this development.
Meanwhile, on the Northern Front (for me) and the Southern Front (for you), all is not quiet.
As you undoubtedly have heard, Hizbollah has been firing 70 to 100 missiles daily at Israeli cities, towns, and villages. In return, there are literally thousands of artillery rounds being sent northward by Israel daily.
Sometimes I feel that I can hear every single one of these from my house. Logically, I know that is impossible but the shooting seems almost relentless.
at 2:39pm today:
The shooting started up again a few minutes ago, this time on a big enough scale that my house started shaking.
Seeing as we are on top of a mountain, I wonder if this means that I have moved to Ohio and am now in Shaker Heights.
Anyhow, whatever else it means, it definitely is telling me I should go to bed in my bomb shelter, so good night to all.
The two main posters on this thread, BEYFlyer and Dovster, live in Beiruit and Northern Israel.
The fact that their discussion remains friendly is so inspiring.
If there is to be peace in the Middle East, we're going to need more people like these two.
Some recent posts:
BEYFlyer, from Beiruit, 2:34 am today:
The terror continues even here in the mountains. Last night was really rough on all of us. About 30 minutes after my last post, IAF raided a Lebabese army base not far from where we are. In total, there were about 8 raids spread over a period of 45 minutes. We headed down and into the lowest lying room in the house hoping for some protection. The kids were a mess and so were we to be honest. Throughout all of this alex0683de was sending me SMS messages trying to keep me "occupied". I appreciate you staying up with me and allowing me to breathe a breath of fresh air every now and then.
Again, I must ask the question, if Israel wants Lebanon to deploy its army in the South, why oh why oh why are they constantly bombing Lebanese army bases and killing hundreds of
Lebanese soldiers??? Does this make any sense to anyone? Please if there are any ex-military folks out there who can shed some light on the matter and explain the startegy behind such attacks, please feel free to add your comments.
One has no choice but to start wondering what is Israel's motive behind all of this. This has gone too far and is now clearly in the "absurd" category... There is no safe place left in Lebanon and it seems we are all now legitimate targets.
Dovster for both of our sakes, I hope this insanity ends soon. Take care and stay safe.
Dovster, from Israel:
BEYFlyer, I can only give you a partial answer -- and that is in regards to the IDF strikes on the Lebanese Army radar stations along the coast.
It was reported on Israeli television that the Lebanese Army radar had given Hizbollah tracking information which allowed it to shoot the missiles at the Israeli naval ships.
As for the rest of what you asked, I have two points/questions:
1. Are you certain about that number -- "hundreds of Lebanese soldiers"? I have not heard any estimates anywhere near that high.
2. Israelis, too, are asking why the Lebanese Army is being attacked. I have heard several television commentators wondering about that.
I remember that during the 1982 war (which others here might not know was fought in Lebanon but against the PLO, not the Lebanese Army) one Lebanese tank fired a single, symbolic, shot at the IDF and the Israelis were ordered not to return fire.
That was the only shooting between Israel and Lebanon in 1982. You are right -- Israel is demanding that the Lebanese Army take up positions in South Lebanon, guarding the border, and a war against that Army can only make this more difficult.
There may be military reasons (such as what I discussed about the radar stations) but if there are, they have not been made public here and it is causing quite a few Israelis to be unhappy with this development.
Meanwhile, on the Northern Front (for me) and the Southern Front (for you), all is not quiet.
As you undoubtedly have heard, Hizbollah has been firing 70 to 100 missiles daily at Israeli cities, towns, and villages. In return, there are literally thousands of artillery rounds being sent northward by Israel daily.
Sometimes I feel that I can hear every single one of these from my house. Logically, I know that is impossible but the shooting seems almost relentless.
at 2:39pm today:
The shooting started up again a few minutes ago, this time on a big enough scale that my house started shaking.
Seeing as we are on top of a mountain, I wonder if this means that I have moved to Ohio and am now in Shaker Heights.
Anyhow, whatever else it means, it definitely is telling me I should go to bed in my bomb shelter, so good night to all.
Friday, July 14, 2006
jus sanguinis
I can't believe this case was decided by the Supreme Court. In 2001.
Nguyen v. INS
Petitioner is a convicted child sex offenderand aggravated felon. I know, he's slime. But how does this make ANY sense:
-Petitioner's father is a US citizen. Petitioner's mother is a Vietnamese citizen. Petitioner was born out of wedlock, out of the US. Father took Petitioner to the US when Petitioner was 5,and Petitioner became a legal permanent resident of the US when he was 6. So, he spent pretty much his entire life here. His father raised him in the US.
-The USSC ruled that Petitiner is deportable.
That's not what makes me mad. What gets me is the USSC confirms that if it were his MOTHER who was the US citizen, and it was the FATHER who was the Vietnamese citizen--THEN, he wouldn't be deportable! USSC says this doesn't violate Equal Protection.
So let me get this straight: American men can run around and knock up girls abroad, out of wedlock. As long as they don't bring the pregnant girlfriend home with them to the US, the resultant children have less rights than if a woman does the exact same thing.
Oversimplification? Of course. I don't have time for an in-depth analysis of their opinion--I'm studying for the bar. Rights of children born out of wedlock out of the country are not tested on the bar. But here's a lovely quote:
"One concern in this context has always been with young people, men for the most part, who are on duty with the Armed Forces in foreign countries. See Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 48, 74 (1999) (reporting that in 1969, the year in which Nguyen was born, there were 3,458,072 active duty military personnel, 39,506 of whom were female); Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 29 (1970) (noting that 1,041,094 military personnel were stationed in foreign countries in 1969); Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 49, 76 (1999) (reporting that in 1999 there were 1,385,703 active duty military personnel, 200,287 of whom were female); id., at 33 (noting that 252,763 military personnel were stationed in foreign countries in 1999)."
Um, all these statistics are supposed to make me think what? Oh yeah, that there are probably a very large number of children who were left behind in that war and who have no rights because it was the father, not the mother, who was a US citizen.
The dissent (O'Connor, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer) brings up some very interesting points. Points I don't have time to think about anymore because I need to memorize bar exam law, and iron out this wrinkle I just put in my brain about Equal Protection.
Nguyen v. INS
Petitioner is a convicted child sex offenderand aggravated felon. I know, he's slime. But how does this make ANY sense:
-Petitioner's father is a US citizen. Petitioner's mother is a Vietnamese citizen. Petitioner was born out of wedlock, out of the US. Father took Petitioner to the US when Petitioner was 5,and Petitioner became a legal permanent resident of the US when he was 6. So, he spent pretty much his entire life here. His father raised him in the US.
-The USSC ruled that Petitiner is deportable.
That's not what makes me mad. What gets me is the USSC confirms that if it were his MOTHER who was the US citizen, and it was the FATHER who was the Vietnamese citizen--THEN, he wouldn't be deportable! USSC says this doesn't violate Equal Protection.
So let me get this straight: American men can run around and knock up girls abroad, out of wedlock. As long as they don't bring the pregnant girlfriend home with them to the US, the resultant children have less rights than if a woman does the exact same thing.
Oversimplification? Of course. I don't have time for an in-depth analysis of their opinion--I'm studying for the bar. Rights of children born out of wedlock out of the country are not tested on the bar. But here's a lovely quote:
"One concern in this context has always been with young people, men for the most part, who are on duty with the Armed Forces in foreign countries. See Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 48, 74 (1999) (reporting that in 1969, the year in which Nguyen was born, there were 3,458,072 active duty military personnel, 39,506 of whom were female); Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 29 (1970) (noting that 1,041,094 military personnel were stationed in foreign countries in 1969); Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 49, 76 (1999) (reporting that in 1999 there were 1,385,703 active duty military personnel, 200,287 of whom were female); id., at 33 (noting that 252,763 military personnel were stationed in foreign countries in 1999)."
Um, all these statistics are supposed to make me think what? Oh yeah, that there are probably a very large number of children who were left behind in that war and who have no rights because it was the father, not the mother, who was a US citizen.
The dissent (O'Connor, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer) brings up some very interesting points. Points I don't have time to think about anymore because I need to memorize bar exam law, and iron out this wrinkle I just put in my brain about Equal Protection.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
listening to: sierra maestra
I know the lyrics may be sappy, but this song is incredibly beautiful...amazing guitar and trumpet work. Too bad I'm studying for the bar instead of hanging around in some cuban cafe.
Son para ti, by Sierra Maestra
Pues que empiezo a comprender
que te lleva volvir
Desde que supe distinguir
entre amor y mujer
Desde que pude valorar
entre mis bolas de jugar y un beso
Y al cabo de tanto besar
Atrás me encuentro yo
Un parto el centro de mi juventud
con el final de tu ninez
Son dos etapas que a lasar
se unieron para derrotar al tiempo
Ensena me,
mujer del hechizero navegar
La senda que me lleva
hasta tu cuerpo (amor)
y haz me sentir
con el contacto suave de tu piel
que nuestro amor
supo vencer al tiempo
Y busca me
cuando la tarde pierda su esplendor
cuando tenga la noche entre mis brazos
y en el lugar
que allá en la oscuridad nos ocultó
suspirarás desde el primer abrazo
Son para ti, by Sierra Maestra
Pues que empiezo a comprender
que te lleva volvir
Desde que supe distinguir
entre amor y mujer
Desde que pude valorar
entre mis bolas de jugar y un beso
Y al cabo de tanto besar
Atrás me encuentro yo
Un parto el centro de mi juventud
con el final de tu ninez
Son dos etapas que a lasar
se unieron para derrotar al tiempo
Ensena me,
mujer del hechizero navegar
La senda que me lleva
hasta tu cuerpo (amor)
y haz me sentir
con el contacto suave de tu piel
que nuestro amor
supo vencer al tiempo
Y busca me
cuando la tarde pierda su esplendor
cuando tenga la noche entre mis brazos
y en el lugar
que allá en la oscuridad nos ocultó
suspirarás desde el primer abrazo
Sunday, July 09, 2006
i used to like the idea of law...
An essay I wrote on WH Auden's poem:
W. H. Auden
Law Like Love
Law, say the gardeners, is the sun,
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
To-morrow, yesterday, to-day.
Law is the wisdom of the old,
The impotent grandfathers feebly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.
Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.
Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I've told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more,
Law is The Law.
Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good morning and Good night.
Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.
And always the loud angry crowd,
Very angry and very loud,
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.
If we, dear, know we know no more
Than they about the Law,
If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the Law is
And that all know this
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again,
No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition.
Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyvay:
Like love I say.
Like love we don't know where or why,
Like love we can't compel or fly,
Like love we often weep,
Like love we seldom keep.
Dichotomy and Poetic Mechanisms in Auden’s Law Like Love
By: K
W.H. Auden’s poem Law Like Love presents an age-old quandary: how does one define the indefinable? Is the definition of law reached through an evaluation of what law means in one’s life, or is it a definition existing in and of itself—a universal constant? Auden illustrates diverging ideas of, and approaches toward, the law by presenting a series of multi-layered conflicts. The juxtapositions in Law Like Love are at once extremely apparent, as in the substantive argument of the definition of law; and astonishingly subtle, as evidenced in the poem’s more nuanced philosophical, structural and metamorphic dichotomies. While the major thrust of argument is immediately apparent, the more subtle cues layer upon each other, coming together in a crescendo at the end of the poem, when the reader is revealed the outcome of the poem’s journey—a passage from the concept of law as metaphor to law as simile. In defining law as a relational concept, Auden provides a valuable insight into the process of semantics, and the evolution of concepts and ideas from dichotomies into cohesive principles.
Auden introduces a menagerie of characters, consisting of normal members of society that most people deal with at some point in their lives—the gardener, grandfather, grandchildren, judge, scholar, and unidentified “others.” It is interesting that each group’s concept of law centers on the important things in that person’s life. For the gardener, law is the sun—for the old it is their wisdom for the priest, his pulpit. What the reader ultimately comes away with after reading the first seven stanzas is that each group has its own conception of what the law is. These statements are made assertively—they leave little if no room for argument. The definitions each of the groups attribute to the law are categorical, and often, as is the case with the grandfathers and grandchildren, in conflict with one another. “Others” even claim, just as assertively as the rest, that “law is no more, law has gone away.” The personification of the law as something possessed and internalized on a personal level is further emphasized in the seventh stanza: the crowd always says “law is we,” while the idiot always says, “Me.” The characters in the first seven stanzas consistently take on views of the law that are inconsistent with others’ views.
On a philosophical level, the conflict in the first seven stanzas accentuate the poem’s theme of legal positivism versus natural law. Positivist philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Austin argued that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not on its merits. Legal positivism is often contrasted with legal naturalism, which centers on the idea that the existence and content of law derives from moral concerns. While positivists focus on the relationship of ideas to one another, naturalists focus on the underlying purpose or meaning of ideas. Austen seems to assert through the structure of the poem that legal naturalism gives way to positivism. The Gardeners’, Grandfathers’, grandchildren’s, and priest’s arguments set forth the naturalistic view of law as innate, something that bears no relation to extrinsic facts. However, in the end Law Like Love is decidedly positivist—the poem is an exercise in of contrasts and conflicting viewpoints. Every character in the poem has their own view of what the law is. The undercurrent of legal positivism serves as a base for the substantive and structural conflicts of the poem.
The multiple dichotomies of the poem are reflected in the interchangeability of words and the antonymic nature of word-pairs. First, it is readily apparent that the words “law and “love” are interchangeable throughout the poem. This supports the conclusion that law and love are indeed similar, and analogous in their indefinable nature. The synonymous positioning of the words “law” and “love,” viewed alongside the glaringly antagonistic word choice, further accentuates the poem’s pervasive sense of conflict. Words are positioned against each other in pairs of antonyms throughout the poem: old and young, priestly and unpriestly, wrong and right, loud and soft, gladly and miserably. These words create a tension that pulls at the reader and causes a sense of uncertainty—which is the correct view? As it turns out, the characters in the first seven stanzas seem to have it all wrong about law.
The futility of the characters’ effort to understand is illuminated by the fiercely dissonant views each group takes, and the fact that they don’t seem to be listening to one another. The grandfathers “shrilly scold,” but the grandchildren don’t seem to listen. The judge offers a mundane explanation that the law is “the law,” a severe admonition likely to serve no use whatsoever. The scholars write that “law is neither wrong nor right,” yet they themselves obey the law.
The aspect that most elucidates Auden’s view of the law is the poem’s mechanics, which are incredibly nuanced. Auden constructs in Law Like Love a poem that denotes disequilibrium and resolution through its rhythm and structure alone, without ever needing to examine or interpret substance. The difference in the cadence of the first seven stanzas, and the last two, is glaringly obvious, but a closer analysis reveals an even greater contrast. Out of thirty-four lines in the first seven stanzas, only seven lines begin with unstressed syllables, and out of the twelve lines in the eighth stanza, all but one (or arguably two) lines begin with unstressed syllables. In the final stanza, each line begins with an unstressed syllable. Further, while the reader can comfortably pause at the end of each line in the first seven stanzas, the eighth stanza begins a pattern of enjambed lines--a clear shift in rhythm. Additionally, the eighth stanza is the point at which the narration shifts from third person to first person. The final stanza is the most tidy, consisting of twin couplets in perfect iambic meter, taking on a formality and cohesiveness absent from all prior stanzas. The shifts in rhyme, structure and meter alone, not even taking into account the meaning of the words, indicate a discord and final accord. Auden’s poem is a journey from rhythm that breaks into an unsteady cant, to an even more steady rhythm. The final stanza is constructed of iambs that have the cadence of a heartbeat, indicating steadiness, conclusion, equilibrium.
The structure of the poem serves beautifully to complement its substantive transition. Auden takes the reader from the concept of law as metaphor to simile. This change is explained in the eighth stanza: “No more than they can we suppress/ The universal wish to guess/ Or slip out of our own position/ Into an unconcerned condition.” The assertion is that the speaker can either guess or slip—If he does not guess, then he concedes that the law is and thus, arriving at a conclusion similar to the characters in the first seven stanzas, ceases to become concerned. The ultimate crux of conflict in the poem is the quandary of what to do when he perceives he must take a point, yield to the “universal wish to guess,” that is not suppressible, yet somehow in so doing avoid losing concern over the matter. The speaker’s solution is to change the concept of assertion from “Law is” to “Law like” – a movement from metaphor to simile. The law cannot be defined by a metaphor, as the law is all things to all people. The speaker seeks instead to define what the law is like. He recognizes that he needs to guess because he can’t suppress the urge to do so, yet he is wary of the danger that guessing could lead him to slip into unconcern over the matter. He realizes that the danger of becoming unconcerned doesn’t mean that he needs to try to label something that cannot be labeled. He does take a stand, and it is that law, like love, is indefinable as a metaphor—the law can never be consistent, it is always changing. It is a living thing, different with each judicial decision and each new statute. The concept of law in the poem is ever-changing, and evolves as the poem evolves.
By asserting that law is defined more as a similarity or likeness of something, rather than a personification or embodiment of its perceiver, Auden recognizes that the law is all things to all people—and that law can never be consistent. By taking a step backwards and looking at the law from a wider angle, Auden reveals the astonishing point that a change in perspective can shed light on a previously incomprehensible problem. Just as the speaker takes a step back to review the concept of law, a step back from the substantive barrage of conflicts in the poem reveals a structure that indicates a clear resolution. Auden’s portrait of law as a likeness, a simile, is both astute and appropriate, as like love, law can never fully be explained.
Who would give a law to lovers? Love is unto itself a higher law.
~Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, A.D. 524
W. H. Auden
Law Like Love
Law, say the gardeners, is the sun,
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
To-morrow, yesterday, to-day.
Law is the wisdom of the old,
The impotent grandfathers feebly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.
Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.
Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I've told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more,
Law is The Law.
Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good morning and Good night.
Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.
And always the loud angry crowd,
Very angry and very loud,
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.
If we, dear, know we know no more
Than they about the Law,
If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the Law is
And that all know this
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again,
No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition.
Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyvay:
Like love I say.
Like love we don't know where or why,
Like love we can't compel or fly,
Like love we often weep,
Like love we seldom keep.
Dichotomy and Poetic Mechanisms in Auden’s Law Like Love
By: K
W.H. Auden’s poem Law Like Love presents an age-old quandary: how does one define the indefinable? Is the definition of law reached through an evaluation of what law means in one’s life, or is it a definition existing in and of itself—a universal constant? Auden illustrates diverging ideas of, and approaches toward, the law by presenting a series of multi-layered conflicts. The juxtapositions in Law Like Love are at once extremely apparent, as in the substantive argument of the definition of law; and astonishingly subtle, as evidenced in the poem’s more nuanced philosophical, structural and metamorphic dichotomies. While the major thrust of argument is immediately apparent, the more subtle cues layer upon each other, coming together in a crescendo at the end of the poem, when the reader is revealed the outcome of the poem’s journey—a passage from the concept of law as metaphor to law as simile. In defining law as a relational concept, Auden provides a valuable insight into the process of semantics, and the evolution of concepts and ideas from dichotomies into cohesive principles.
Auden introduces a menagerie of characters, consisting of normal members of society that most people deal with at some point in their lives—the gardener, grandfather, grandchildren, judge, scholar, and unidentified “others.” It is interesting that each group’s concept of law centers on the important things in that person’s life. For the gardener, law is the sun—for the old it is their wisdom for the priest, his pulpit. What the reader ultimately comes away with after reading the first seven stanzas is that each group has its own conception of what the law is. These statements are made assertively—they leave little if no room for argument. The definitions each of the groups attribute to the law are categorical, and often, as is the case with the grandfathers and grandchildren, in conflict with one another. “Others” even claim, just as assertively as the rest, that “law is no more, law has gone away.” The personification of the law as something possessed and internalized on a personal level is further emphasized in the seventh stanza: the crowd always says “law is we,” while the idiot always says, “Me.” The characters in the first seven stanzas consistently take on views of the law that are inconsistent with others’ views.
On a philosophical level, the conflict in the first seven stanzas accentuate the poem’s theme of legal positivism versus natural law. Positivist philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Austin argued that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not on its merits. Legal positivism is often contrasted with legal naturalism, which centers on the idea that the existence and content of law derives from moral concerns. While positivists focus on the relationship of ideas to one another, naturalists focus on the underlying purpose or meaning of ideas. Austen seems to assert through the structure of the poem that legal naturalism gives way to positivism. The Gardeners’, Grandfathers’, grandchildren’s, and priest’s arguments set forth the naturalistic view of law as innate, something that bears no relation to extrinsic facts. However, in the end Law Like Love is decidedly positivist—the poem is an exercise in of contrasts and conflicting viewpoints. Every character in the poem has their own view of what the law is. The undercurrent of legal positivism serves as a base for the substantive and structural conflicts of the poem.
The multiple dichotomies of the poem are reflected in the interchangeability of words and the antonymic nature of word-pairs. First, it is readily apparent that the words “law and “love” are interchangeable throughout the poem. This supports the conclusion that law and love are indeed similar, and analogous in their indefinable nature. The synonymous positioning of the words “law” and “love,” viewed alongside the glaringly antagonistic word choice, further accentuates the poem’s pervasive sense of conflict. Words are positioned against each other in pairs of antonyms throughout the poem: old and young, priestly and unpriestly, wrong and right, loud and soft, gladly and miserably. These words create a tension that pulls at the reader and causes a sense of uncertainty—which is the correct view? As it turns out, the characters in the first seven stanzas seem to have it all wrong about law.
The futility of the characters’ effort to understand is illuminated by the fiercely dissonant views each group takes, and the fact that they don’t seem to be listening to one another. The grandfathers “shrilly scold,” but the grandchildren don’t seem to listen. The judge offers a mundane explanation that the law is “the law,” a severe admonition likely to serve no use whatsoever. The scholars write that “law is neither wrong nor right,” yet they themselves obey the law.
The aspect that most elucidates Auden’s view of the law is the poem’s mechanics, which are incredibly nuanced. Auden constructs in Law Like Love a poem that denotes disequilibrium and resolution through its rhythm and structure alone, without ever needing to examine or interpret substance. The difference in the cadence of the first seven stanzas, and the last two, is glaringly obvious, but a closer analysis reveals an even greater contrast. Out of thirty-four lines in the first seven stanzas, only seven lines begin with unstressed syllables, and out of the twelve lines in the eighth stanza, all but one (or arguably two) lines begin with unstressed syllables. In the final stanza, each line begins with an unstressed syllable. Further, while the reader can comfortably pause at the end of each line in the first seven stanzas, the eighth stanza begins a pattern of enjambed lines--a clear shift in rhythm. Additionally, the eighth stanza is the point at which the narration shifts from third person to first person. The final stanza is the most tidy, consisting of twin couplets in perfect iambic meter, taking on a formality and cohesiveness absent from all prior stanzas. The shifts in rhyme, structure and meter alone, not even taking into account the meaning of the words, indicate a discord and final accord. Auden’s poem is a journey from rhythm that breaks into an unsteady cant, to an even more steady rhythm. The final stanza is constructed of iambs that have the cadence of a heartbeat, indicating steadiness, conclusion, equilibrium.
The structure of the poem serves beautifully to complement its substantive transition. Auden takes the reader from the concept of law as metaphor to simile. This change is explained in the eighth stanza: “No more than they can we suppress/ The universal wish to guess/ Or slip out of our own position/ Into an unconcerned condition.” The assertion is that the speaker can either guess or slip—If he does not guess, then he concedes that the law is and thus, arriving at a conclusion similar to the characters in the first seven stanzas, ceases to become concerned. The ultimate crux of conflict in the poem is the quandary of what to do when he perceives he must take a point, yield to the “universal wish to guess,” that is not suppressible, yet somehow in so doing avoid losing concern over the matter. The speaker’s solution is to change the concept of assertion from “Law is” to “Law like” – a movement from metaphor to simile. The law cannot be defined by a metaphor, as the law is all things to all people. The speaker seeks instead to define what the law is like. He recognizes that he needs to guess because he can’t suppress the urge to do so, yet he is wary of the danger that guessing could lead him to slip into unconcern over the matter. He realizes that the danger of becoming unconcerned doesn’t mean that he needs to try to label something that cannot be labeled. He does take a stand, and it is that law, like love, is indefinable as a metaphor—the law can never be consistent, it is always changing. It is a living thing, different with each judicial decision and each new statute. The concept of law in the poem is ever-changing, and evolves as the poem evolves.
By asserting that law is defined more as a similarity or likeness of something, rather than a personification or embodiment of its perceiver, Auden recognizes that the law is all things to all people—and that law can never be consistent. By taking a step backwards and looking at the law from a wider angle, Auden reveals the astonishing point that a change in perspective can shed light on a previously incomprehensible problem. Just as the speaker takes a step back to review the concept of law, a step back from the substantive barrage of conflicts in the poem reveals a structure that indicates a clear resolution. Auden’s portrait of law as a likeness, a simile, is both astute and appropriate, as like love, law can never fully be explained.
Who would give a law to lovers? Love is unto itself a higher law.
~Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, A.D. 524
horoscope
i spent the entire day studying in the "super-quiet zone" of ucsd's geisel library, and then doing practice essays in my living room. and then i checked my horoscope and it says this:
Watch your step today, for you can be so fascinated by someone nearby that your powers of discrimination are weakened. It may not be as wonderful as it all seems. Beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder and you are susceptible now because you are in touch with the magic of your own inner world. You'll come out okay if you remember that you are being seduced by your own desire for pleasure, and not by whatever is on the outside.
apparently the other aries of the world are having a fun, passionate time with intriguing beautiful strangers.
horoscopes suck.
Watch your step today, for you can be so fascinated by someone nearby that your powers of discrimination are weakened. It may not be as wonderful as it all seems. Beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder and you are susceptible now because you are in touch with the magic of your own inner world. You'll come out okay if you remember that you are being seduced by your own desire for pleasure, and not by whatever is on the outside.
apparently the other aries of the world are having a fun, passionate time with intriguing beautiful strangers.
horoscopes suck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)