Ciceronian Review

MHZ Mysteries

For reasons I no longer recall, I set my dvr to record a series titled Wallander, which showed on MHZ.  (MHZ is a foreign cable channel -- has news from India, Russia, Germany, France, and various other things.)  I wish I could recall what prompted the recording -- the three episodes I have so far are in Swedish, English, and then Swedish again.  At least I think it is Swedish -- the story seems set in Sweden.  But the episode in English is set in Denmark.  (My speculations are confirmed by Wikipedia -- of the clever one.)  The English and Swedish versions have different actors, but the plotting and characterization seems very close, if not identical.  Every once in a while a US channel picks up something from UK and tries to redo it.  Some succeed, like The Office (which, at least in the UK versions I saw was far too close to life to be funny) and some fail (miserably in the case of Coupling -- the US version used the identical script and was still absolutely awful).  But, getting back to it, the Wallander stories all seemed to fit together.  I am assuming it was originally Swedish, because there were twice as many, and the English version was not even set in the UK.  Aside from the curiosity of it, it was a nice reminder of parochial thinking and assumptions.  Borrow from the nearby nations?! My god, such a thought!  And for those of in the US (let alone Zion), it is so rare that it is a shock.  It is one (of a number of reasons) I read some British journals.  They have reviews and essays about apparently well-known folk I have never heard of, the obvious whole culture out of my sight.  (The audacity!)  It is a good thing to run into that with some regularity.  It wold be even better if, after these several years, it was al still a bit of a surprise to me.  Perhaps a board to get through the thick wit.

Not Quite So Innocent

Smart ass remarks by the police appear to be pretty intimidating.  The remaining Redds pled guilty to a range of felony charges on Monday in connection with their life-long love of grave robbing.  Turns out it took two moving vans (albeit boxes were only stacked two high) to cart off the illegal loot accumulated in the family homes.  It took 20 agents more than a day to collect and pack up the materials.  Not that the folk of Blanding are reconciled to the facts yet -- they still seem to think that the police should have knocked on doors and talked over with the looters why the looters should stop.  A curious view of crime I say.  West Side Story as documentary. 

The story is still cast as a clash between a more or less innocent local practice and the heavy hand of the federal agencies.  And that is a shame, but neither part of the story is right.  The local practice was just a habit of stealing and grave robbing.  Nothing about that deserves much praise or concern.  That the conduct was theft and grave robbery was well known.  Who owns the land is not a secret, nor was it a secret that the materials removed were valuable archaeological material, of importance to the remaining Indian cultures, and that there was monetary value to the loot.  Not really so different from drilling for oil on someone else's land.  It is a willful blindness.  The other side is also far off the mark.  When people are complaining about  police making smart ass remarks, it is plain that such folk are way into the dark of the wood.  Police pretty regularly destroy the insides of homes when making arrests, and break bones, and so on.  Some smart remark is not all that painful, and better indicates that someone thinks they are above the law.  The arrested were believed, reasonably, to be armed and to have discussed use of arms.  In that context, one would expect the agents to arrive  with guns out.  It seems acceptable enough here in the terrible wasteland of urban Zion.

I think these attitudes are part of the entrenched view of the rural that they are better than most Americans and deserve special consideration beyond the range of subsidies already provided. 

Utah's New Hole in the Wall Gang

Zion has its own kinds of controversies.  A few weeks ago, federal law enforcement agencies made a series of arrests based on indictments for stealing archeological and religious artifacts from federal property --  grave robbery and related thefts.  Most of those arrested are from the Blanding area.  In essence, what they are accused of doing is hunting artifacts on federal land, digging the material up, and then selling it.  During the investigation, there was the usual bravado talk of guns and resisting arrest.  Arrests are made, of some prominent citizens of the county.  Bit of an uproar, then, which gets a bit more vociferous (not really louder as there just aren't that many people in the county), when some of the indicted commit suicide.  In particular the local doctor (who had been arrested and acquitted on a previous charge of disturbing graves).  Well, that set off the real controversy, and led the sheriff to join in the brouhaha.  It seems that during the arrests, some of the arresting officers made "smart ass remarks."  And that warrants an investigation by the sherriff.  (Coincidence that one fo those arrested was Sheriff Lacey's brother?)  I do not know what statute might be involved, or how one could enforce it against federal officers, but live and learn. (No statute -- the investigation is to prepare a complaint to the federal authorities.  Apparently tax revenues are high in San Juan county, at least enough of a surplus to spend law enforcement money on investigating smarty pants talk.)  Smart ass remarks from the police?!  Apparently such behaviors which should be confined to arresting pot smokers and shoplifters?  Sheriff Lacey is not alone.  Senators Hatch and Benson have asked for investigations -- on the chance, I suppose, that there has been a frame-up, part of that well-known conspiracy by the federal government to persecute rural resident?  doctors?  what?   It is a Zion kind of story. 

And then there is the defense in the letters to local papers -- the conduct was okay because it was a way of life there in Blanding.  Make for a good slogan -- "Blanding, where grave robbing and theft are a way of life."  One wonders about the reaction to digging up graves of Mormon settlers.  One wonders about the defense -- is it just that the law does not apply there?  Is it an effort to revive the glory days of southern Utah as home of the criminal elite?

Honduras and Constancy

Over the weekend, the Honduran President was displaced by a coup d'etat effected by the military.  Unlike most coups, this one seems to have had the support of the Supreme Court and the Legislature.  Very unusual.  All the same, a coup.  By its nature, a coup displaces the will of the electorate because it terminates the office of the President elected by the citizens of Honduras.  As expected, the OAS and its member states (all, as far I know) have condemned the coup.  Interestingly absent was a call by the Republican spokesmen for more forceful action in Honduras.  One would think the Republicans would want forceful intervention, which, in Honduras, would likely be pretty effective.  Or at least an economic boycott, to support the democratic process.  But that has not been forthcoming.  Maybe it has to do with the President overthrown -- a Chavez ally, so perhaps not worthy of support. 

I don't think it is helpful for that party to be so brazen in the posturing with principle.  It would not cost the Republicans much of anything to just stand against military coups.  It is not like Lenin would be raised from the dead as a result, or even Bill Ayres. 

Throw Him on the Barbie

This has been an interesting week for the Republican Party and for the defense of marriage crowd.  Sen. Ensign has an affair with a staffer.  Gov. Sanford has an affair, wanders off to Buenos Aires with his darling and has his staff lying about hiking the Appalachian Trail.  The defense of marriage from gays and lesbians seems to be losing its luster --the defenders aren't all that taken with their own marriages it seems.  Another way to see it is to think of it all as competition between the parties -- the Demoncrats had John Edwards finding sex in the middle of a presidential campaign (shades of Gary Hart).  The Republican candidates couldn't match it so the next rank of up and comers had to match Edwards.  So Ensign goes public when -- well, not so very clear why.  Extortion is not usually attempted by the party lawyer sending a letter.  Not to be outdone, Mr. Sanford decided that unexplained disappearance would be okay -- Gary Hart again!  That was a self-destructive move.  Which all suggests that the old slogan is still good -- Republicans make good barbie - throw one on today.

Hunger

Based on some recommendation -- I have forgotten where I saw it -- I read Knut Hamsun's Hunger.  It might have been in a letter from James Wright to Robert Bly, whose afterword to the novel I skipped.  The introduction by Auster also skipped.  It is a relatively short novel, and certainly modernist in the pre-war sense.  The basics of the novel are that it appears as the first person narrative of a journalist who is both without any steady or even remotely sufficient work and likely somewhat insane.  I think it is both.  Not that I have ever been hungry enough to live the relevant circumstances.  But it seems so very different from the description of hunger's effect on the mind by, e.g., Achebe.  That is pretty limited evidence, and however thin it is was I relied on.  Mostly, though, it seemed to me a novel about a man whose mind is not entirely all interconnected, as shown by his odd thoughts and behavior.  And modernist in the self-awareness of the pieces moving apart from one another.  It reminded me, as it does many, of Dostoevsky or, in places, Gogol.  Like them, Hamsun's character is very chatty with himself, and quite funny.  Most of the book I think is quite funny, not just the inner monologues.  The things the speaker does and his circumstances are absurd -- a journalist writing pieces about the meaning of the world while too hungry to think, and the many times his peculiar sense of duty requires him to give away everything.  In that sense, a bit kantian.  And fit quite well into travel to and from a deposition -- another peculiar use of one's time, use to limited ends.

On a different subject, I recommend the comments on the Iranian situation at Fistful of Euros.

Leaders

Iran reminds me of a small piece in the series "I, Claudius."  Pretty poor production values by today's standards, and very talky.  The series is about the Julian-Claudian emperors, cast as the reminiscences of Claudius.  There is a scene late in the series, most of the details of which I do not recall anymore - which emperor, etc.  In any event, the person is before the emperor and about to be sentenced to death for plotting or such.  The man says, to the effect of, "One thinks that if one shouts 'Liberty!' the walls of the city will all fall down.  They don't of course."  And off to his death.  But it is a piece of thought that recurs for me.  And Iran is an example, in this sense -- what is the US to do, and what is it that the government and the President to say?  We are for liberty and for democracy and so on.  But to what end?  It does not seem likely that anything said by anyone here will have a useful effect there.  At least, it is hard to see what good would come of governmental announcements.  The US is no friend of Iran and it would be less than serious to suppose that those in opposition to Khamenei and Ahmenijad will be bolstered by announcements.  Maybe.  But also, and much more certainly, ammunition for the government.  This is a hard problem for political theory -- when and what sort of intervention.  Makes Walzer's story-telling (in place of theory) more palatable.  But not more instructive.

Irell Gets Slapped

In this decision, the Central District of California found Irell's performance wanting.  The Court suppressed evidence based on failure of the defendant's counsel -- Irell -- to properly disclose actual and potential conflicts, and for giving stupefyingly bad advice.  The government took its lumps -- important evidence was suppressed.  Irell, on the other hand, not quite so much.  There is the embarrassment of a public rebuke by the Court, which is something.  And the Court referred the firm to the State Bar.  But that is the end.  The Court did not order disgorgement of fees, and did not sanction any particular lawyers or the firm's management.  I did not see anything in the order which would put any particular lawyers in front of the State Bar.  And that seems odd.  Someone had to have committed the violations -- particular lawyers are named as having communicated in various ways, but the Court never says anything about any of them violating their duties.  The firm alone violated duties?  That is odd.  Not only because actual people have to do the things which constitute the violation, but also because it is unclear how the firm could be under the State Bar.  The firm is not a member of the Bar, never sat for an exam, etc.  The members did.  And what will the Bar do?  Is there some provision allowing sanctions against a firm, rather than against some lawyer?  It looks, in the end, that there is the public reprimand and nothing more.  Which hardly seems a deterrent, let alone justice. 

On the other hand, the Bar did successfully prosecute a prosecutor for ethical violations.  The outcome of that, is mixed up.  But remarkable that it happened.  So maybe there is more there than I think.  Not for the first time. 

Schnabel

Julian Schnabel has directed four films, of which I have seen three: Basquiat, Before Night Falls, and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.  All three are quite good, and not of a kind I would say.  They are all quite unlike his prior work -- his paintings, etc.  It is a curious case where the second line of work - the film making -- is much better and more interesting than what brought Schnabel fame in the first place.  The latter I found to be entertaining, but only.  Post-card art I would say.  The movies are visually interesting and inventive, well-paced, intellectually engaging.  Thoughtful.  The other art is commodity work.

Basquiat, for example, conveys the art effectively, and also the person.  It is a good biographical film, at least in the sense that it conveys a good deal about the nature of the artist, his context (what the old would call his milieu), and the drift into death.  It is one of the best about a visual artist that I have seen.  (There is a video about Cartier-Bresson that is quite good as well, although that is almost all art.)

Ward, You're Back!

Remarkably, Ward Churchill won his wrongful termination suit, at least at the trial level.  Churchill was fired by the University of Colorado following his remarks about the September 11 attack.  After the fact, the University uncovered evidence showing Churchill was a pretty poor scholar -- plagiarism and the like -- and tried to dress up the firing with that set of clothes.  But it was political.  After all, if plagiarism won't get someone fired from Harvard, why should it be enough for Colorado?  An unfortunate aspect is that Churchill is an unattractive plaintiff, he is sanctimonious and a poor political thinker.  The jury gave him only $1 in damages, which tells you a good deal.  The judge has yet to decide whether Churchill will be re-instated. 

He is a good test for commitment to academic freedom and integrity, or one of a couple.  Yoo is another good test, and there is the Harvard plagiarists.  Rubbermaid standards.