judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the month “September, 2015”

Watching short movies

Here is the latest post by Angela and Daz Croucher to their blog A.D. Croucher! They are up-and-coming young adult authors. Check them out!

A.D. Croucher

Fun fact! If you want to make a short film, a good first step is to watch short films. It’s a great way to see what cool things other filmmakers have come up with, and also to see just how endless the possibilities are for what short films can be. You’ll see so many different ways of opening a short, of setting up a story, of telling and resolving a story, all within the space of a few mins (sometimes shorts are more like 20-30 mins, but most are 15m or under). And you’ll realize, you can do anything! Yay! Also? You can do anything! Argh! What will you do??!

cat choices

We’ll cover what makes a great short movie story next time, but for now, let’s focus on seeing what’s out there, and how some great directors got their starts.

Eric Kripke, creator and showrunner of CW’s Supernatural, got his start with short…

View original post 522 more words

Advertisements

I KEPT MY NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION, PART II

Check out Faye Cohen’s post to her blog Toughlawyerlady!

ToughLawyerLady

This Blog is a continuation of Part I (see here). Previously I reported that I have already kept my 2014 New Year’s resolution to eat healthier, including eating more vegetables, so now I can eat what I want for the rest of the year. I discussed my PROCESS of reading recipes, listing ingredients, and shopping experiences. Now I will discuss my cooking PROCESS.

I have a client who is a vegan, and has been one for many years, before it became trendy. She suffers from various disabilities and she feels that eating fruits and vegetables in their purest form helps her conditions. As part of my representation for with her disability claim, I needed to know what her daily schedule is. She replied that it takes her most of the day to prepare her evening meal. I scoffed at her answer, but now I believe it. Below is just…

View original post 517 more words

NEARFest 2007: Photos and Memories

This post is in my series regarding the North East Art Rock Festival (NEARFest), more about which you can find here.  You can find all of my posts regarding NEARFest here and I started the series here.  You can also learn more about this particular Festival here and here.  The information below are just some highlights I remember and photographs I took from the Festival.

The lineup for NEARFest 2007 was (including Friday night):

Here is the 2007 logo, as designed by Roger Dean:

https://i2.wp.com/nearfest.com/images/logo_nf2007.png

This was the ninth NEARFest and my eighth consecutive Festival.  This Festival was the sixth Festival, and fourth consecutive Festival, to take place at at the Zoellner Arts Center on the campus of Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and it remained there until the last Festival.

For me, the take away from this Festival was the debut of a fantastic new band and the Festival’s focus on fusion.  The headliners for this Festival were, for me, lack luster.  Magma returned to the Festival after having initially appeared at NEARFest 2003 (see here).  As I described in this post, as much as Magma is a respected prog rock band, I can only take about twenty minutes of their relentless and driving beats and chants.  Hawkwind was, I think, an unusual selection as they are not as stereotypically prog rock as many prior headlining bands.  Regardless, they played very well and sounded as good as ever.  Their heavy space rock is more rock than space or prog but enjoyable nonetheless with a great colors and displays to accompany their music.  Fortunately, their topless dancers like Stacia did not contribute to their performance.

I really enjoyed Indukti.  They are another Polish prog-metal band in a similar vein as Riverside who appeared at NEARFest 2006 (see here).  In fact, the singer for Riverside sings with Indukti on some of their songs on their albums.  Indukti had a very hard and/or metal sound but, like Riverside, was able to adapt their aggressive sound with actual melody, dynamics, and contrasts.  They’re really good.  Of the newer bands that have ever appeared at a NEARFest, Magenta is one of most, if you will, “stereotypical” and self-aware prog rock bands.  They are fronted by the attractive Christina Booth (which helps in terms of stage presence obviously) who is a wonderful singer and their overall sound is one which very obviously and overtly channels Genesis, Yes, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, and Renaissance; they clearly want to be a band within the tradition of these bands and have adopted their sonic approach.  Robert Rich and Bob Drake were the “solo spots” of the weekend (see here for more on the solo spots).

Friday night was entirely focused on fusion: Alan Holdsworth, Secret Oyster, and One Shot all performed that evening.  Secret Oyster and One Shot, while performing well and impressively, were, to me, garden variety fusion bands.  I am sure better fans of the genre would have more to say about them.  The focus for me, obviously, was Holdsworth who stands tall as a preeminent prog rock fusion guitarist considering his pedigree in U.K., Bruford, and Soft Machine (among others).  His playing is fluid and smooth, yet at times muscular and assertive.  He can make his guitar sound  like other instruments so that keeps the music from becoming too sonically-similar and monotonous.  Unlike a lot of fusion guitarists, Holdsworth does not feel the constant need to shred and his virtuosity is not diminished or questionable in the least as a result.  In fact, I find fusion relies on shredding way too much to the point where it gets monotonous and boring.  Holdsworth does not fall into this trap.  He was clearly a master and it really showed.  It was fantastic seeing him live.

I think my favorite band of the weekend was Pure Reason Revolution and, I am sad to say, they have since broken up after making only three studio albums.  I appreciated their understated pretension with their use of Latin and obscure titles.  Their sound was modern, driving, and very melodic.  The were fronted by Chloe Alper, who has a certain  je ne sais quoi that makes you want to watch and hear her.  She provides a good example to other female singers and musicians in that you do not have to be nearly naked or sexually provocative; all one needs is some talent and respect for the art of music.  The background singers individually have very average voices but when they sing along with Alper, they sound very soulful and have depth as they sing their very clever and well written lyrics.  The music sounds like – if you will – Pink Floyd meets Radiohead with a dash of Porcupine Tree.  A lot of old school prog fans dismissed them but I think that is only because the band’s music often has a beat to which someone can move, are more song based, employs some electronica in their sound, and do not veer off into virtuoso playing and soloing.  Unlike a lot of prog rock bands, their playing is not flashy or indulgent but always focuses on the melody and the drive of the music.  So, needless to say, the band’s sound does not conform to some traditional prog rock standards.  I think the criticisms of the old school prog rock fans are short sighted as they, ironically and contrary to the spirit of what prog rock is, try to box in what prog rock is, and miss out on the innovative sound that this band presents.

Finally, this Festival was my seventh time meeting Roger Dean (Yes and Asia cover artist), third time meeting Paul Whitehead (Genesis and Van Der Graaf Generator cover artist), and second time meeting Annie Haslam (Renaissance lead singer), who once again was not there to perform but to hawk her artwork (more on her here).

Photographs:

 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Dad Awarded Right To Make Medical Decisions Because Mom Objects To Vaccinations

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

“In Archer v. Cassel, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 515 (CT Super. Ct., March 10, 2015), a Connecticut trial court awarded the father of two children final authority to make health care decisions for them, largely because the mother has religious objections to their being vaccinated.”

You can learn more about this issue here.

Claim for Ineffective Counsel is Ineffective

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed the Constitutional standard for the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution´s guarantee of counsel for criminal matters in the recent matter of U.S. v. Keller, 2013 WL 6409360.

Keller, an attorney, was a defendant in a criminal case where he was convicted of wire fraud consequent to misappropriating his clients´ money which he held in escrow for them. After his conviction, Keller moved to vacate his conviction on the basis of having ineffective defense counsel pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, which is the subject of the above-cited case. In order to warrant a reversal of a criminal conviction on the basis of ineffective counsel, Keller had to demonstrate that his attorney´s performance was deficient and that his attorney´s deficient performance prejudiced his defense.

In order to demonstrate that his attorney´s performance was deficient Keller had to show that his attorney´s conduct was not just deficient, but below an objective standard of reasonableness. An objective standard of reasonableness means that the lack of success of a particular tactical decision is not necessarily evidence of deficient performance. The court will not engage in hindsight to evaluate an attorney´s decisions. To demonstrate prejudice, one must apply a “but for” analysis where one must show that the negative result of a trial (e.g., the conviction) would not have occurred but for the deficient representation.

Keller listed a multitude of issues which he believed demonstrated deficient representation to warrant setting aside his conviction; the Court disagreed with each one and each will be briefly described below.

First, Keller claimed that an agreement between the prosecutor and his attorney regarding certain evidentiary issues demonstrated a conflict of interest as Keller claimed his attorney wanted to “go easy” on the trial judge in order to curry favor with the trial judge in a concurrent civil case his attorney coincidentally also had with the trial judge. The Court rejected this argument, pointing to a lack of evidence and the fact that the evidentiary issues were not really in dispute.

Second, Keller took issue with the fact that his attorney did not oppose the prosecutions´ admission of recorded conversations as evidence. The Court rejected this argument on the basis that no viable argument for their inadmissibility could be articulated, nor did Keller attempt to make one in his motion. The Court made it clear that failing to raise non-meritorious arguments does not amount to deficient legal representation. Keller subsequently argued that these recordings were obtained through duress and/or were unfairly prejudicial or coercive. He also claimed that the transcripts for the recordings were flawed. These arguments were rebuffed by the Court, which indicated that pressure to reach agreements is not necessarily duress and there was no prejudice as an undercover investigation is, under applicable law, explicitly not prejudicial or coercive. Regarding the transcripts, the trial judge specifically instructed the jury to give weight to the recordings over the transcripts for the same if discrepancies were found between the two; regardless, Keller never identified which portions of the transcript were inaccurate. Indeed, Keller offered testimony to explain the above during the trial so the jury which convicted him was completely aware of the issues at play. Therefore, Keller´s attorney electing not to object to the above was not deficient.

Third, Keller was critical of his attorney´s handling of witnesses. The Court noted that Keller did not demonstrate that his attorney´s decisions regarding witnesses had any effect on the outcome on his trial. Further, the additional witnesses Keller wanted to be called (who his attorney did not call) did not amount to deficient counsel as the Court believed their testimony would only have amounted to cumulative evidence anyway. Besides, the Court noted, the witnesses his attorney elected not to call had their own set of credibility issues (e.g., one uncalled witness was Keller´s fiancée) to make the decision not to call them tactically justified. The trial judge also gave Keller´s attorney significant deference in how aggressively he examined the witnesses especially considering the tactical options open to him.

Fourth, Keller then complained that his attorney did not make an issue of the fact that one of the jurors audibly complained of the length of deliberations and that another juror held the hand of the victim during sentencing. According to the Court, even if both of the above were true, neither action evidenced enough prejudice to warrant setting aside the conviction. Moreover, Keller does not make any allegation that the above actually resulted in prejudice, confirming the trial judge´s ruling on the matter.

Fifth, Keller lists a variety of times he believed his attorney should have objected to testimony on the basis of hearsay. However, the Court rejected this argument as well as Keller failed to demonstrate that the testimony at issue was actually inadmissible. Indeed, the Court found that the testimony highlighted by Keller was either admissible or was strategically allowed to be entered in as evidence to help his case; regardless, Keller did not demonstrate that the admission of the testimony at issue led or contributed to his conviction.

Sixth, Keller took issue with his attorney not raising the issue of alleged false grand jury testimony. However, the Court was not persuaded by this argument noting the extremely high standard (which is unlikely to be met) to successfully make an issue of testimony before a grand jury and that, even if Keller is correct, it would have had no effect on his indictment.

Finally, Keller raised complaints about his attorney´s performance during sentencing. Keller´s initial argument regarding his attorney´s alleged failure to object to the amount calculated as damages was simply factually wrong as, according to the Court, he did object. His subsequent argument claiming the lack of character witnesses called by his attorney was rejected by the Court as Keller´s own testimony conflicted with the testimony he claimed he wanted elicited from his potential witnesses. He concluded by criticizing his attorney´s failure to raise an argument regarding the alleged insufficiency of evidence at the trial to prove his criminal intent, but the Court was not persuaded by this argument either as the Court ruled that any arguments to that effect were not meritorious anyway.

As can be seen above, the standard to successfully prove one had ineffective counsel sufficient to meet Sixth Amendment scrutiny is extremely high, which should be of some comfort to practitioners. Ultimately, regardless of the multitude of arguments presented by Keller, none could meet the basic two prong test his arguments had to pass, namely that: (1) an attorney´s representation must be objectively below standards and (2) the poor representation must result in a negative outcome.

Originally published in Upon Further Review on June 16, 2014 and can be seen here.

What liberals can learn from conservatives about losing the culture war

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; last week I came across one in The Week, which is a magazine for which I have a subscription.  I have been saying for years that the cultural change our nation is experiencing is not an internal change within worldviews, but is a change of one worldview for another.  Perhaps more importantly, the new worldview, which is inherently and internally incoherent, has had to resort to borrowing from the old worldview in order to flesh itself out; unfortunately, the new worldview is generally insufficiently self-aware to perceive that it is doing this.  It is the clash of the old worldview within the new worldview coming to a head that has caused so much political strife in recent years.  The article below goes into detail about the worldview clash, why it exists, and what may come of it.  Be edified.

________

While the conservative movement tears itself apart in a hugely entertaining food fight, liberals looking to engage with conservative ideas in a more substantive and serious way really should read and ponder the issues raised in William Voegeli’s thoughtful review essay in the Summer 2015 issue of The Claremont Review of Books. These liberals just might learn something illuminating about how conservative intellectuals are coming to terms with their loss of the culture war. They might even learn something important about themselves.

Voegeli’s essay, “That New-Time Religion,” reviews two recent books about the culture war and harkens back to several other books and essays from earlier moments in the history of social conservatism. As Voegeli notes early on in his essay, conservative ideology remains politically potent on a whole range of issues touching on the size of government, economic and tax policy, and regulation. But on social issues, conservatives have suffered something close to a rout. Why? And what does it mean?

One explanation favored by many conservatives — and nicely captured in Voegeli’s title — is to describe the loss as a shift from one form of religion, orthodox Judeo-Christianity, to another. This new faith, which has made its peace with and may even be a direct outgrowth of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, has been given many names. Some call it a counter-orthodoxy of Autonomous Eroticized Individualism. Others dub it post-Protestantism. Still others prefer Moralistic Therapeutic Deism or the Church of Anti-Discrimination. But whatever its name, this new-time religion gets described in the same way — as a quasi-religious spiritual and moral system with its own reigning dogmas, demons, sins, and paths to redemption.

As Voegeli recognizes, the limitation with thinking about recent events in these terms is that it tells us very little about what brought about the change from one faith to another. One day America was an orthodox Christian nation. The next — poof! — we were post-Christian hedonists, our new faith calling on us to dismantle the family and other core social institutions in the name of personal liberation. It just happened, like magic — or maybe black magic.

Somewhat more helpful, though even gloomier, is the outlook elaborated over two decades ago by the late historian Christopher Lasch. This view holds that (in Lasch’s words), “liberal democracy has lived off the borrowed capital of moral and religious traditions antedating the rise of liberalism.” Voegeli concludes his essay by endorsing this interpretation of a fundamentally parasitic liberalism — and by claiming that the consequence of having depleted this cultural capital without making provision for replenishing it has been the transformation of the United States into a country marked by “moral anarchy.” (The phrase comes from founding neoconservative Irving Kristol.)

Liberals will scoff at such judgments, but Voegeli can point to an impressive roster of thinkers in support of his position. Virtually every political philosopher from Aristotle on down to James Madison maintained that good government depends on citizens possessing moral virtue. If we really have ended up with a society in the throes of moral anarchy, that would seem to be a cause for genuine, well-founded concern about the future of self-government in the United States.

But of course America today isn’t really in the throes of moral anarchy — and Voegeli knows it. As he writes at one point, Americans today are “simultaneously latitudinarian about some questions, and righteously intolerant about others.”

Precisely.

What can explain this strange combination of moral relativism and absolutism? Voegeli describes it well in a few passages, but he doesn’t do much to identify its origins — which can be traced back to the very foundations of liberal democratic government.

Liberalism was devised in the immediate aftermath of the early modern Wars of Religion. It aimed to get people who disagreed strongly about God and other metaphysical matters — including the highest human good and the ultimate end or purpose of life — to stop killing each other and learn to live together in relative peace and order.

We would achieve this goal by getting government out of the virtue business. Instead of orienting itself toward a highest good or end, which is often a matter of violent dispute, liberalism would build on the low but comparatively solid ground of preventing the greatest evils in life, including violent death, gratuitous cruelty, and despotism. What makes this possible is the promulgation of a novel form of morality — a morality of individual rights — to replace or supplant the moralities of ends that until that time had dominated politics.

Liberal nations therefore tend to have two functional forms of morality — one based on goods or ends, the other based on individual rights. If the relation between them were static and fixed, there would be no culture wars, and maybe no ideological conservatives either. The morality of rights would specify a small number of fundamental, narrowly defined political freedoms enjoyed by individuals, while the old moralities of ends would dominate the large, thriving private sphere of life from where they would exercise a strong, even overwhelming, influence on the nation’s public life, political debate, and law-making through democratic representation and public opinion.

There is reason to believe that James Madison and many others of the founding generation believed that this is exactly the way liberal government would work.

They were wrong.

One problem, often noted by conservatives down through the decades, is that moralities of ends tend to atrophy over time once they have been relegated to the private sphere. But the far greater problem is that when individuals armed with their rights begin pursuing privatized ends, they predictably go off in a thousand different directions. The ends proliferate. A pluralistic society becomes ever-more pluralistic. Eventually and inevitably, someone’s private pursuit of the good collides and clashes with a still-extant public norm or law that traces its legitimacy to a morality of ends tacitly affirmed by large part of the population. (Think of a homosexual objecting to anti-sodomy laws, or a gay couple demanding the right to marry.)

That amounts to a direct conflict between the morality of rights and the morality of ends. And when that happens, sooner or later the morality of rights will prevail. All it takes is the claim of a rights violation, a receptive judge, and a partially sympathetic public for a new individual right to be recognized and an old end to be declared politically illegitimate, extracted from the nation’s public life, and banished to the private sphere. The ratchet only moves in one direction — toward the increasing privatization (and political impotence) of moralities of ends.

Viewed in the broadest perspective, the world’s liberal governments are conducting a multi-generational experiment to test if Aristotle was right to think that politics is invariably an activity in which various groups contest with one another over how to define a shared vision of the good life. The liberal bet is that a society can function perfectly well, and individuals can thrive, with no publicly affirmed vision of a highest good — and with an ever-expanding vacuum at the core of its public life where such visions used to be.

Not that most liberals today are aware that such an experiment is in progress — let alone understand how audacious it is, or the enormously high stakes involved in seeing it through to completion. Contemporary liberals more typically treat the novelty of a society lacking an overarching vision of the good as the most normal (even the only defensible) thing in the world.

Conservatives are, of course, far less sanguine. One need not share their disconsolation to gain something important from exposure to it. In flirting with despair about the likely results of the experiment, conservatives at least testify to the fact that it is underway.

For liberals interested in gaining some much-needed perspective on the radical project to which they are implicitly committed, William Voegeli’s stimulating essay is a very good place to start.

By Damon Linker and originally published in The Week on September 18, 2015 and can be found here.

 

How to make a short movie: The Real Quinn Hardy

Here is the latest post by Angela and Daz Croucher to their blog A.D. Croucher! They are up-and-coming young adult authors. Check them out!

A.D. Croucher

This summer, we wrote, directed and edited a short movie called The Real Quinn Hardy, about an aspiring singer-songwriter who thinks she’s about to make it to the majors. When it all goes wrong, she digs deep to write a song that she hopes will change everything.

It all started back in April, in Nashville, at the Bluebird Cafe, where inspiration struck in the middle of eating a black bean burger, forcing us to actually stop eating (damn it though the burger was SO GOOD, the muse does not respect the burger) and start scribbling the first few ideas, beats and lines of dialogue.

Later that night (after an AWESOME Bluebird set by the way — shoutout to Jessica Roadmap!), we pretty much had a first draft. We spent a month polishing and rewriting it, because all writing is really rewriting, then a month in preproduction where we cast our…

View original post 621 more words

NEARFest 2006: Photos and Memories

This post is in my series regarding the North East Art Rock Festival (NEARFest), more about which you can find here.  You can find all of my posts regarding NEARFest here and I started the series here.  You can also learn more about this particular Festival here and here.  The information below are just some highlights I remember and photographs I took from the Festival.

The lineup for NEARFest 2006 was (including Friday night):

Here is the 2006 logo, as designed by Roger Dean:

https://i2.wp.com/nearfest.com/images/logo_nf2006.png

This was the eighth NEARFest and my seventh consecutive Festival.  This Festival was the fifth Festival, and third consecutive Festival, to take place at at the Zoellner Arts Center on the campus of Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and it remained there until the last Festival.

The Festival has always presented quality music even if I thought its lineup was a little lackluster, but this particular Festival presented arguably its best lineup yet, if not the best it ever had.

At the top of the list is Keith Emerson, most notably of ELP and the Nice, is an unequivocal prog rock legend.  He is undoubtedly one of the biggest and most famous names from the prog rock movement and the biggest prog rock artist to ever appear at NEARFest.  His performance was fantastic, even despite the fact that he was suffering from carpal tunnel at the time.  He played a vintage moog synthesizer and at times he looked more like an old telephone operator than a keyboard player when he played it.  He also played a handheld moog that was long and rectangular and he shot fireworks out of the end of it (and, honestly, treated rather phallicly on occasion as well).  He played his classic ELP and the Nice material and had a full time guitarist in his band (unlike ELP and the Nice) which made for a more sonically diverse and harder edged sound.  It was truly a landmark in my prog rock fandom to see this legend in concert and up close!

The legends who appeared at this Festival did not stop at Emerson.  Ozric Tentacles, while not nearly as “known” as Emerson, is a stalwart band in prog rock circles.  This band typifies and personifies modern space rock and put on a fantastic and mesmerizing show.  Hatfield and the North is yet another band which can be added to the long list, made possible by the Festival, of bands I never thought I would ever see live.  Hatfield is perhaps the quintessential Canterbury band and one of the most important purveyors of the subgenre.  They were on the older side, but still sounded as they did on record.  Tony Levin is someone who is simply legendary in prog rock.  He has played on over five hundred albums and with (or for) most prog rock bands in some way (see here).  In fact, he had already played NEARFest once before (see here).  This time he played with his own band, which is largely Peter Gabriel‘s band without Gabriel, which included prog rock keyboard wizard Larry Fast (who also had appeared at a previous NEARFest).  Michael Manring is an innovative and influential bass player who, interestingly, played as a solo artist here getting as much sonic diversity he could out of his instrument (he and Johnson were the solo spots at this Festival.).  Finally, FM is a classic neoprog band which many were very excited to see, although I must admit that I am not much of a neoprog fan.  I may have over used the word “legend” in this post but the fact is, as you can see, this Festival was truly legend after legend.

As usual, this Festival offered some smaller time bands which I would otherwise have never heard of but for this Festival.  Riverside is a fantastic Polish progressive metal band.  Despite their “metal” sound, they also have a lot of subtly and an ear for good melody.  KBB was probably my favorite “new” find.  They are an Asian instrumental band featuring violin who also are extremely melodic melding many styles, including jazz.

Finally, there was Niacin.  These guys are also a smaller band but I write about them separately because they are a “supergroup” of proven musicians.  The band is led by bass player Billy Sheehan who has played with Mr. Big, Terry Bozzio, Steve Vai, David Lee Roth, among others.  Sheehan is a phenomenal virtuoso who plays at lightening speed and is an incredibly dynamic presence on stage.  His bass was combined in a rhythm section with drummer Dennis Chambers who is an ambidextrous drummer who has played with Santana, Parliament-Funkadelic, and John McLaughlin.  He was an impressive presence who thundered away playing impressive polyrhythms and is quite possibly, in my view, the best drummer to have ever graced the NEARFest stage.

Finally, as a final note, I once again met Roger Dean, this was my sixth time, and he was as accommodating as always.

As you can see, this Festival was simply amazing. I don’t think there has ever been another quite like it.

Photographs:

3 4 5 6 7 8 9111213141516

‘Christian America’: Corporate invention or founding fathers’ vision?

This is from jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com which you can find here:

“Recent surveys have indicated that many, if not most, Americans believe the founding fathers wanted this nation to be officially Christian. But a new book by Princeton historian Kevin Kruse slices and dices this notion with razor-sharp facts and anecdotes. In “One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America,” he shows how corporations such as General Motors and Hilton Hotels partnered with clergymen and politicians to conflate patriotism and pietism. Here he tells how our nation’s Ten Commandments monuments were originally movie marketing props and how evangelist Billy Graham participated in America’s shifting mindset.”

You can learn more about this issue here.

Funny Deposition Responses Recorded By Court Reporters

Check out Faye Cohen’s post to her blog Toughlawyerlady!

ToughLawyerLady

This is article was contributed by Gregg Wolfe, the owner of Kaplan Leaman & Wolfe Court Reporting & Litigation Support. Obviously, court reporters record every word at a deposition and Gregg was kind enough to forward us a list of funny deposition responses that have come up!

Funny Deposition Response 1:

Question: “What is your date of birth?”

Answer: “July 15th.”

Question: “What year?”

Answer: “Every year.”

Funny Deposition Response 2:

Question: “Can you tell us what was stolen from your house?”

Answer: “There was a rifle that belonged to my father that was stolen from the hall closet.”

Question: “Can you identify the rifle?”

Answer: “Yes. There was something written on the side of it.”

Question: “And what did the writing say?”

Answer: “‘Winchester’!”

Funny Deposition Response 3:

Question: “What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?”

Answer: “Gucci sweats and Reeboks.”

Funny Deposition Response…

View original post 286 more words

Post Navigation