01.29.08
Thanks, yet again, St. Anthony . . .
I am not the neatest individual, but I generally know where things are, and have a rather uncanny sense of recognizing when something is missing or out of place. When something is missing, I regularly ask St. Anthony for a bit of help in finding it or suggesting where to look. This is now probably a weekly petition for help with little things in my ordinary life. I have prayed to St. Anthony for years (on an “as needed” basis!), and one of St. Anthony’s best finds was my lucky fountain pen from high school that I misplaced and then found randomly in a field that I rarely visited and where I do not remember ever using the pen. The pen subsequently got me through my law school finals, and I think even the bar exam, before disappearing again a few years back.
Anyway, today I lost something rather important. I promised St. Anthony that if he helped find it, I would write a blog post in gratitude! Needless to say, after a frantic search (and some immature self-castigation on my part) the item appeared in a place already checked (per St. Anthony’s modus operandi). Thanks to the helpful saint for another great find.
St. Anthony of Padua lived from 1195-1231. He became the patron of lost articles after a boy stole his psalter (containing his notes for preaching) and St. Anthony prayed for its return. The boy was on his way out of town when he became compelled to return the book, which he did. Artists often depict the saint with a lily or the Child Jesus (as above) because the Child appeared to him, as witnessed by a third party and recounted after his death. St. Anthony is also depicted facing a crowd of eager fish because of an incident when preaching to a town full of heretics who would not listen to him; he proceeded to the sea, where he preached so eloquently that the fish stopped and popped their heads out of the water to listen to him. The heretics were accordingly more receptive and persuaded! (Fuller versions of these stories are available here.)
Word in Context: fulgurous
Here’s a nice selection from Judge Ferdinand Fernandez’s collection. (Judge Fernandez is a Bush I appointee, whom I had not known of before noticing this selection.)
We do have to give deference to counsel’s choices and determinations, but our ultimate decision will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case before us. In the constellation of refusals to have mitigating evidence presented, however, this case is surely a bright star. No other case could illuminate the state of the client’s mind and the nature of counsel’s dilemma quite as brightly as this one. No flashes of insight could be more fulgurous than those which this record supplies. Landrigan was not willing to merely express his opinions to counsel and, once having given those indications about his feelings, recede into comparative silence as counsel went about the business of conducting the proceeding. Quite the contrary; Landrigan took an actively aggressive posture, which ensured that counsel’s attempts to place mitigating factors before the sentencing court would come a cropper. Each of counsel’s feints in the mitigation direction brought a statement from Landrigan that painted an even bleaker picture and made matters even worse.
Landrigan v. Stewart, 272 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2001). Fulgurous comes from the Latin fulgur for lightning, and accordingly means characteristic of or resembling lightning. I also note the phrase “come a cropper” is an idiomatic expression meaning to fail (or to fall from a horse). Finally, for those legal beagles out there, I note that the Ninth Circuit vacated this opinion, reheard it en banc, and reversed in part. The Supreme Court then reversed the en banc panel, and following the mandate the Ninth Circuit vacated its en banc opinion.
For a description of a fulgurous field, see the post below.
01.28.08
Visiting Lightning
There are plenty of places I hope to visit during the remainder of my journey in this world, including Rome, St. Petersburg (Russia, not Florida), and Auschwitz, the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., pandas in a zoo anywhere (I’ve tried, they are inevitably sick or indoors or anywhere but the place I can see them!) and Rodin’s The Kiss (same problem as the pandas and there are three different copies I’ve tried to find in Stanford University, Paris, and London).
Perhaps the most unusual place on my list is a piece of art itself: Walter De Maria’s Lightning Field (1977). Somewhere in New Mexico (the exact location seems to be a secret, although I wonder if Google satellite could be used to locate it . . . ) is a field one mile wide by one kilometer long with 400 lightning rods arranged in a grid. To view the work, you make arrangements to spend a night at shelter on the property. If a lightning storm happens upon the place, visitors can see the work at work, but from what I have read the field is pretty interesting to walk through even without a storm. Read more about the piece and how to visit here. I first learned about it in an art history class, but have since read about visits in other articles as well. 
01.27.08
Orphaned Words
Plato writes the following passage in the Phaedrus:
[Socrates:] You know, Phaedrus, writing shares a strange feature with painting. The offsprings of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if anyone asks them anything, they remain most solemnly silent. The same is true of written words. You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just that very same thing forever. When it has been once written down, every discourse rolls about everywhere, reaching indiscriminately those with understanding no less than those who have no business with it, and it doesn’t know to whom it should speak and to whom it should not. And when it is faulted and attacked unfairly, it always needs its father’s support; alone, it can neither defend itself nor come to its own support.
(275d-e, Nehamas and Woodruff translation). As this passage articulates, one danger in setting ideas down in writing (or art) is that they stand alone and immutable, unable to dialogue or offer nuances or clarify ambiguities. The work is fixed. Because of this permanence, nominees for the federal bench at all levels now presumably cringe at or avoid publication of any potentially divisive statement.
I find the permanence of writing a frustrating, yet inescapable aspect of the medium. As I and my ideas and abilities mature, I cannot re-write all that I have previously written. I look back on some of my written work, including a few published pieces, and recognize a naivete or immaturity of thought that borders on embarrassing. Even this blog (which I can delete, but which is probably cached by Google or somebody out there in perpetuity . . . ) is a risk. I set down ideas, casually and regularly, submitting them to the amusement and judgment of both known and unknown readers. Perhaps that motivates, at least in part, my use of a pseudonym, although I have decided not to write anything I would not put my own name to here (and most of you readers out there know who I am anyway!). Yet, writing as an activity helps me to formulate my own thoughts. It is a snapshot. And at some point, an author should let go of the work, perhaps not even coming to its defense (for example, I think J.K. Rowling was horribly misguided in “outing” Dumbledore recently) and leave the words as orphans to be find their own way in the world.
Feel free to orphan a few words of your own in the comment box. 
01.24.08
A Thought for Thursday
With the limited time I have this evening, I just thought I would share a link to this article by Gerald Bradley endorsing John McCain and highlighting his pro-life credentials. I have not figured out which candidate to support yet (none of them have convinced me yet, and McCain’s lack of executive experience concerns me), but this is the best reasoning I have found for McCain to date. Keep reading until the last bit of the article for an interesting story about Mother Teresa and McCain’s wife.
01.23.08
A Bit of Levity
The past few posts have been rather serious. (Almost as somber as the time my mother and I went to Canada’s Stratford Festival and she let me pick the plays–we had a rousing weekend of Oedipus the King, Coriolanus, and Equus. I wonder why mom and I haven’t taken a trip there together since . . . .)
I have not yet figured out how to post videos, but here is a fun link. The whole site is rather interesting and these guys look great. I would love to see them perform live some day!
If Life Begins at Conception, then . . .
Following from yesterday’s post, and continuing on in this week of the 35th anniversary of Roe, I offer the following facts, which surprised me when I first learned them.
Birth control pills have three effects: (1) thickening of mucous, (2) suppression of ovulation, and (3) hardening the lining of the uterus. If effects (1) and (2) “fail” to prevent conception, then after conception a fertilized egg reaches the uterus and is unable to implant in the lining that has been rendered “hostile” by the pill. See here. Effects (1) and (2) are contraceptive, but (3) functions as a back-up after contraception. This “back-up” is an abortifacient, that is, it causes a very early abortion, before the woman would even know she had conceived. If life begins at conception, then the life conceived withers and dies when it cannot implant to find nourishment.
By offering this fact, I do not wish to judge anyone for the decision to contracept. I just hope the decision is made with all the facts. In my experience, doctors tend to avoid or gloss over the abortifacient effects in describing the drugs to patients. Furthermore, according to some of the websites linked above, the insert material in the pills does not disclose the abortifacient effect, but rather refers the reader to additional sources for information, and those sources contain the information about effect (3). Check out the PDR descriptions for further verification, just note the discussion of implantation–if the pill makes the uterus lining hostile and prevents implantation, it affects a zygote after conception.
01.22.08
A Memorial
Not many Supreme Court case names become common parlance. Most of the memorable ones seem to come in criminal law (often constitutional cases of criminal procedure, many interpreting the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures”). Their names alone (even just the first party) become shorthand for their holdings. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (which just rolls off the tongue–I imagine some Supreme Court clerks just shaking their heads and deciding they have to get the justices to take this case, whatever it is about) held that the state must demonstrate voluntariness of consent and that consent is determined by the totality of the circumstances. Miranda v. Arizona formulated the infamous Miranda warnings and Terry v. Ohio permits investigative or “Terry” stop-and-frisks. Kyllo v. United States held that the government’s use a device that is not in general public use (in that case, a thermal imaging device) constitutes a search and requires a warrant.
And then there is Roe v. Wade. Perhaps more than any decision, this one has wrought untold grief upon both the individuals harmed by the abortion procedures (mothers, fathers, and children) and upon our entire form of government. Today, thousands will be marching in Washington D.C. not to the legislature, where changes in law ought to be made, but to the Supreme Court, where the “least dangerous branch” (Federalist Paper #78 Alexander Hamilton) of government does its work. I wish that both sides of this debate could at least agree (although this is not the case) that the whole issue should have been left to the legislatures of the several states, and not constitutionalized. This would have avoided the confirmation process for judges becoming ridiculously politicized and perhaps would have precluded some of the convolutions in constitutional interpretation. I leave more of that legal analysis to others for the moment.
I went through a large portion of my life not thinking much about abortion. Without critical thinking or decent catechesis, I probably landed somewhere in the camp of personally opposed, but thought it should be legal. I had vague notions of free choice and not wanting the world to become over-populated. Then I found myself in a bastion of conservativism, in a place where only one side of the debate (life!) reigned, and the other side was dismissed as irrational. I do have to admit the pro-choice crowd is not irrational, they are just wrong. There is a critical difference. For piping up with this thought, many suspected I was pro-choice (I never really said, and at the time I was not so sure what I was, at least that’s how I remember it). I did have personal growth to do on this issue, and on much of my faith, but the glaring lack of dialogue and disdain from some in that environment did not help my journey.
Anyway, I still believe that those supporting choice are not irrational, but make a fundamental mistake about when human life begins or ensoulment occurs. I assume that abortion supporters stop short of advocating infanticide. I also assume that they do not believe that the status of the (what to call it? every term is loaded!) fetus depends on the intent of the mother to bear or abort. (Really, that’s a lousy argument.) Thus, at some point something actually happens in reality, and everyone (except Peter Singer) recognizes a human person that should not be killed. When is that critical moment? Those supporting abortion rights consider the fetus, at least at early stages, to be just a blob of tissues. Removing a blob of tissues is not morally problematic. Thus, why not abort? I, however, will not support the proposition that the blob of tissues is not a living human being or that it lacks a soul for several reasons. (Caveat: this is a blog post, not a moral treatise, so this is the gist of argumentation, not its most eloquent form. For fuller defenses see here (be sure to click on the titles for the non-summary version of arguments). See also here.) Primarily, when considering critical and unknowable questions such as the beginning of human life or ensoulment, it is most prudent to err on the side of caution. Caution dictates that conception is the moment at which all the genes come together to create a unique person, distinct from the mother or father, not just an Aristotelian potential. Science also continues to reveal more and more about fetal development that suggests an early beginning of life. Ending another person’s life is morally problematic, unlike removing a blob of tissue.
More personally, I have now experienced pregnancy and childbirth. Having held Little One in this world, and being able to look back at the ultrasound images and to recognize Little One, and looking back on the experience of pregnancy, I am convinced that a separate person and soul was within me for those many months. By eight weeks I had heard that individual’s heartbeat, not just the functioning of some tissue. The personhood of that being was not dependant upon my intent to bear the child. The personhood existed, and I am convinced this existence began with conception. (Note to argumentative lurkers out there, this is a bald assertion, not an argument.) My conviction gained strength after giving birth, I thus imagine it would be much easier for a young girl to choose abortion than for a mother who already has a child. I do not know what mental gymnastics some women must do who bear a child, and then take that child to have an abortion of her own, thinking it is in the daughter’s best interests. What about the interests of the grandchild? I know so many couples anxious to adopt, and who have adopted. Those children are wanted!
My husband and I (but not Little One!) will be fasting today for all the pregnant women out there who, for all sorts of reasons, feel the need to choose an abortion. May they find comfort and one of the many places that can help and support them. To be clear, those women deserve such love! There is no room for anger at them if they make a desperate choice. The choice to abort is wrong, but we must find help for those women to enable them to make the right choice.
01.21.08
A Lively Mass
To our happy surprise, the Good Bishop offered Mass at our parish yesterday, on Sunday evening, at the regularly scheduled evening time. It was a vigil for life, since this week marks the tragic anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Our Little One, who is usually uncannily quiet at Mass every week, thought this was just a delightful liturgy. Starting with the homily, Little One began chanting, “Hey, Bishop, I’m over here in the back! Bless me! No, I’m out here in the vestibule! Nope, back here in the pew! Now I’m in the cry room! Hey, exposition too, after Mass, this is great! Can we stay?! No?” (Of course, this sounded mostly like “bla, blu, bah, bah, bah, bah bah,” but we all knew what Little One meant.) It seemed somehow fitting that Little One’s little voice came out at this Mass that remembered all the millions of voices that are silenced each year through abortion. Perhaps sensing this, more than a few parishoners stopped to comment on Little One’s cuteness as we packed up in the vestibule, as Our Lord watched from the monstrance on the altar.
01.16.08
On Pilcrows and Interrobangs
Back when I worked on a publication in law school, one of the more tedious tasks (with possibly questionable efficacy) was the “read-aloud.” In this final stage of editing, pairs of editors would read rather dry and lengthy articles, and their footnotes, out loud to each other. The reading included punctuation. (Thus, the first sentence above would be read: “Back when I worked on a publication in law school comma one of the more tedious tasks open paren with possibly questionable efficacy close paren was the open quote read hyphen aloud stop close quote.”) My editing partner had a special talent for distinguishing italicized commas from standard font commas (a task more difficult in some fonts than others, and this was a font with jaunty commas!). The most exciting moments (other than finding those pesky italicized commas) were the rare exclamation mark, which one reads aloud as “bang.”
For the rare soul out there who enjoys having the labels for punctuation, I have two to add to your collection. The interrobang and the pilcrow. The interrobang combines a question mark and an exclamation point and looks like this:
The pilcrow designates a paragraph and looks like this:
Interestingly, monks used the pilcrow in the Middle Ages to designate a new train of thought, thereby conserving paper space. (I extrapolated a bit from this article, which does not mention monks or paper space, but who else would be using the convention regularly and for what other reason?)
Rumor has it that some chambers use read-alouds before opinions are published. (If I were clerking for such a judge, I would definitely try to slip in a bang, or maybe even an interrobang to spice up that task!) If I had to design an editing process now, I am not sure that read-alouds would be part of my system. Of course, its efficacy is only as good as the editors. Our publication did pretty well, all things considered. I did, however, have occasion to cite to it after its publication and, sadly, had to use a “sic” to denote a mistake in the original. I suppose it remains a good opportunity to practice humility!
