I try to dress up; hilarity ensues.

Never, ever, think about what you’re wearing.

As anyone who knows me knows, my wardrobe is the demon spawn of LL Bean and Eddie Bauer.  The theory behind this is that when I think too hard about how I’m dressed, that’s when things really go wrong.  My solution:  a grown-up Garanimals system in which I can randomly pair the bottom half (denim or khaki) with the top (monochrome cotton) and produce a predictably non-ridiculous outfit.

The problem, as I mentioned, comes when I overthink what I’m wearing.  Examples are as many as they are embarrassing.  Like the time I accidently dressed like the catering staff at my aunt’s fancy Christmas party.  This was an annual event to which our father took us – I’m convinced – because he did not have a date.  I’m primarily convinced of this in retrospect by the total lack of anyone else within 10 years of our ages.  Because of the extreme fanciness of the party and my extreme nerdiness, my outfit was always a great source of stress, til one year I decided that, dammit, I would rock the place, outfitwise.  I had inherited a gorgeous black silk skirt from my grandmother.  Vintage!  Wasn’t that a concept somehow related to hip fashion?  A concept implemented by people who could walk into Goodwill & emerge looking like Katharine Hepburn?  It’s entirely possible that the skirt was in fact cool – I’ll never know because I thought to myself: top?  what goes with a vintage black skirt?  white goes with everything, right?  Now, non-dorks would have put the outfit together and immediately SEEN the problem:  I looked exactly like The Help.  White shirt; black skirt.  I, however, basked in the fashion-free comfort of my logic.  Vintage!  White goes with everything!  Result:  Awkward!

You do NOT want to know what I wore to the first day of my first summer associate job.

By now I’m guessing you’re breathing a sigh of relief on my behalf for the eventual adoption of my Garanimals system.  And you’re realizing that at least half the reason for this blog is a sort of Computer Therapy:  Humiliation?  No! It’s a blog post!

My most recent bout of overthinking was this weekend attending an off-Broadway play in New York.  Everything would have been fine if I’d just worn the outfit selected for and loaned to me by my friend the fashion savvy law professor and her fashion savvy 8-year-old daughter.  I had brought my friend’s dress with me to New York along with the bracelet her daughter had given me from her “jewelry party” – a bracelet that was cooler than 99% of my jewelry drawer.  Alas, it was all back at the hotel when we decided – at dim sum – to simply spend the hours between 2:00 and 7:30 Sunday walking around SoHo.  My cousins assured me that my khaki skirt, Flax shirt, and sandals would be fine for off-Broadway.  Of course I took that advice, right?

Of course not!  I had the genius idea that I could SHOP in SoHo and assemble a cool outfit as the afternoon progressed.

Step one – shoes – was a resounding success.  Sometime in the past few years, I made the decision that I was tired of being short and that there is technology out there – the high heel – to remedy this situation.  I’ve been on a bit of a heel binge ever since.  Happily, we stumbled into a shoe store in SoHo where I bought the coolest shoes I now own:

Cooler still, the store was having a buy one/get one free sale, which forced me to select a lower priced shoe in my size.  Shoes satisfying both criteria were few, so I ended up with something, um, interesting!  And perfect for my next court appearance!

(OK, YOU try photographing your own foot.)

Giddy with my SoHo shopping success, I forged ahead to … hold on.  Context:  It was at least 95 degrees out and dripping with humidity.  So Tim and I were in the process of devoting five hours to walking/rolling, people-watching, walking/rolling, sweating, searching for air conditioned spaces, drinking in air conditioned spaces, walking/rolling, sweating, etc.  It was actually great fun to absorb an afternoon in lower Manhattan like that, but did I mention the humidity?  So when I finally found a dress I liked, I was – what’s the proper word when applied to a lady? – glowing.  Perspiring.  Sweating like a pig.  The dress is actually objectively great, now that I’ve had the chance to try it on in Denver’s dry air.  But I walked out of the shop in a skin-tight silk dress and 4-inch heels, feeling more or less like I was wearing a Zip-Loc bag, and headed straight to the theater.  The humidity was interfering with the complex relationship between the dress and its lining even before we got to the theater and discovered . . . steps.  Five or six of them.  At the front entrance.  At the only entrance.  The nice people in the box office assured me they had a ramp, and so they did.  Tim proceeded up at a 45% slope* with me pushing a bit – in the dress with the lining and the 4-inch heels – into the un-air-conditioned** breeze-free lobby, where we discovered two things:  (1) the air-conditioned theater would not open for half an hour; and (2) the dress code was variations on linen cropped pants (women), cargo shorts (men), and Birkenstocks (both).  I spent about five minutes with my dear husband reassuring me that I really looked “hot” – it now dawns on me he probably meant the temperature and not the compliment – before I went to the ladies room to change back into the khaki skirt.

I couldn’t part with the shoes, though.  I’m not sure a Flax top has ever been paired with 4-inch heels, but I’m sure – logically – that I rocked that look.  Right?

**********
* Plus or minus conventional building industry tolerances for field conditions.

** How many dashes is that word supposed to have and where are they supposed to go?

Maybe we were a secret Russian spy family.

Mom, Dad & Khrushchev, meeting to set up our cover identities  . . . .

See below for explanation!

From Russia with love

One of the reasons I thought it would be good to start a blog* was that it might provide an incentive to write down some family stories for the Niece and Nephew.  They’re 12 and almost 17, though, so I’m confident that they’re not interested in listening to Aunt Amy drone on about the weirdos in their extended family.  This way, I can have the fun of telling the stories, and they can read them at their leisure.  Since it’s public and since I love them very much, I’ll spare them the dysfunction** and let them uphold a fine family tradition by digging it up later when they get good and curious.

I’m also sort of hoping some of these stories will inspire other folks to share theirs, which I’ll post or not depending on whether you let me.  And how many really funny family weirdos they involve.

So I thought I’d start with two related vignettes from my parents’ experiences in the late 1950s.  This, dear Niece and Nephew, was the world into which your father and I were born: The Cold War.

Vignette #1.  My Dad writes from law school in 1957:***

My train ride up was most enjoyable.  I sat next to an air force corporal who works in the control tower at Westover Air Force Base.  He told me a lot about the base, including that there are bombers on constant alert loaded and ready to go with hydrogen bombs in them.  And that the pilots have a special course in Russian cities which he knows from the air like he knows the palm of his own hand.  I supposed that I should have taken it for granted that with all our preparations we would have some of the weapons actually ready to use, but it still is a little shocking to realize how completely we are on a war footing.

Vignette #2.  My Mom writes from Moscow, one stop on their European honeymoon in 1959:

Before I go any further, I must tell you about my experience of this morning.  We went to The Kremlin.  After seeing the museum, the group was set loose to see the cathedrals at our leisure.   . . .  After a stroll through the churches, Peter and I started walking through the grounds.  As we were walking down a smallish street, we heard cheering behind us and went back to see what it was.  Out from the middle of the crowd popped Khrushchev, headed down the street in our direction.  Peter gave me a shove and I shook hands and exchanged pleasantries,**** then introduced Peter.  I think K was a bit flabbergasted, but no one stopped us.  After it was all over, one of the boys in the group rushed up with his Polaroid camera and said, “I think I got you!”  We waited impatiently the 60 seconds it takes and it’s a beautiful picture!

I’m hoping my mother can find the photo and that she has a scanner.  My memory is that the photo features my parents and the back of Khrushchev’s bald head.

No, Niece & Nephew, we weren’t Russian spies raised as suburban kids in the 1970s.  We all had ugly haircuts, even the real Americans.  Especially the real Americans.

What I found striking about both of these vignettes is trying to imagine parallels to today.  Chatting with an air force corporal about drone targets?  Taking a tour of Tehran and chatting with Ahmadinejad?  It seems to have been simultaneously a scarier and more innocent time.   Was it?  Or is every time equally scary and innocent because it’s the same species – us – stumbling through it using the same small fractions of our hominid brains?

***************

* WordPerfect — which I use to draft — still thinks “blog” is a typo.  I love it anyway.  It’s a dysfunctional love, but devoted nonetheless.

** Unless it’s really really funny.  Like the time my father threw an ice cream cone at my brother and me.  It was only dysfunctional for a nanosecond or so, and then passed immediately into family legend with much hilarity.  The precipitating cause was the fact that the Dairy Queen had large soft ice cream cones on sale for less than medium cones.  Dad requested a medium amount of ice cream at the – lower, large, sale – price.  No go.  Anyone who knows my brother or me knows what came next:  There is no way anyone with our nerd DNA would tolerate such an offense to logic.  A fierce legal argument ensued which – not being in control of the soft-serve machine – my father lost.  All it took was one smart-ass remark from his kids — and with both of us in our teens, that came almost immediately — and my father launched a large ice cream cone in our general direction.  We have recognized that precise place on Route 1 every time we’ve passed it in the 40 years since.  There was talk of a plaque.

*** I’m correcting most of his typos.  Although he was a brilliant lawyer, my father never, ever learned to spell.

**** Yes, Niece & Nephew, your Grams***** speaks Russian.  How cool is that?

***** Yes, she asked to be called Grams.  But then we often called my grandmother “G’Ma,” pronounced “gee-ma.”  I think it was because we could not spell “grandma,” so the spelling thing might be genetic too.

Socialism and basketball and other unrelated topics

Just curious – how many of the folks whining about LeBron James are also accusing Obama of socialism?

Sure it’s true that the All LaBron All The Time media programing was fairly nauseating, but the man simply did what we’re all supposed to do in a capitalist system:  negotiate at arm’s* length to get the best deal.

So James is supposed to redistribute his basketball talent to Cleveland, while Obama is supposed to, what?, protect the good capitalists at the insurance companies from sick people?

Apparently the biggest accusation of socialism against Obama is that we’re going to be required to sign up for health insurance.  (Please don’t tell me it’s the bailout – initiated by and necessitated by the ineptness of his predecessor.)  We can’t have a system that covers everyone regardless of preexisting condition if you can wait until your condition preexists to sign up.  No one would buy insurance until they need it.  The only rational alternative would be to refuse health care to formerly heathy people who suddenly find themselves sick – which would be fine by the newly anti-socialist sign-misspellers  . . .  until they get sick, at which point the illness itself would be Obama’s fault.  Really, teabaggers. would you rather pay for universal preventive care or massively expensive emergency care?  Or just let people die?  Very pro-life of you.  (More on that later.)

And another thing!  Isn’t health care really part of our national defense?  I mean, when we say we’re defending America, what the heck are we defending if not Americans?  Certainly not just American soil, because most folks don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to the soil, the air, the trees, the animals, the ocean, etc etc.  And the opponents of health care can’t possibly mean they’re defending the American constitution – they’re perfectly happy to toss that out the window in an effort to secure the image of toughness abroad and a hetero monopoly on marriage at home.

No, dammit, when we think of defense spending, we should think about what it really takes to defend the American people, for example, making sure we don’t die in a terrorist attack AND making sure we don’t die because some bureaucrat denies our chemo claim one too many times.

Now this is why I love blogging.  Not only did I not have to have a point, see (as we say in the law biz) supra, but I also don’t need to draw this all together with some sort of concluding sentence that manages to connect LeBron to health care policy.   Even better, this post will be sufficiently far removed from the front page that I can completely change my views on the socialization of basketball when Carmelo Anthony becomes a free agent.

*I’ve never know whether it was “arm’s length” or “arms’ length.”  Are both parties sticking their arms out or just one?  Or maybe one party is sticking both arms out.   No, you can never overthink punctuation.  Why?

So long sweet van!

We said good-bye to our 1993 Caravan today.  We’ve been keeping it out in San Francisco where we have a fair number of cases, because paying the monthly bill for long-term parking at SFO is cheaper than renting an accessible van — at $120ish per day — every time we’re out here.  We just bought a new van in Colorado, which permitted us to bring our 2002 Caravan out here, and say farewell to the 93.  We’re parting from the van we got married in!  *sniff*  OK, we didn’t strictly speaking get married in the van, but we did get a free meal on the way to our honeymoon when the drive-through lady saw the “just married” verbiage all over the side of the van.  Thanks, Mark!

Enough sentimentality!  We also say goodbye to the dead radio, nonfunctional odometer (really!  only 60,000 miles in 17 years!), and a steering wheel that made driving from SFO to Berkeley feel like piloting a small plane though intense turbulence.  The Caravan has hubcaps, but only following hours of intense philosophical debate after the theft of the old ones:  hub caps do not, as an engineering matter, contribute to the operation of the car vs. hub caps are essential bad-ass accessories.  I’ll let you guess who was on which side.

I have been lucky enough to have reached the age of almost (still almost) 50 while having parted from only two cars:  the 93 Caravan, and the 1978 Malibu that belonged to my father, that I drove during law school (85-88), and that I sold when I got the Honda Accord that I still own.  The 78 Malibu was the Worst Car Ever Made.  I know some of you Pinto and Gremlin owners want to claim this title, but in the 1978 four-door Malibu, the rear windows didn’t open.  Didn’t Open.  Not as in the handle (remember them?) was broken; it didn’t have a handle.  Or an automatic opener.

When my father took it back to the dealership to point out this obvious defect, he was told that it was a new feature designed to “increase the leg room.”  Any further questions why the Japanese auto industry kicked our asses in the 70s?  If I recall correctly, the car was also stuck in second gear for most of the first year my father owned it, which the dealer did finally correct.  My dad was thrilled with the improved mileage.

No, we’re not very car savvy in this family.  “Change the power steering fluid?  Power steering has fluid?”  That’s me, wondering why the Malibu suddenly wouldn’t turn.

In law school, my second biggest expense after tuition was new alternators, which the Malibu seemed to require every few months.  Upgrading to an Accord in my third year brought the revelation that you can actually drive a car for weeks at a time without requiring repairs!  And the 88 Accord continues to thrive — 22 years later — stubbornly refusing to fail and provide a good excuse for a new second car.

Update:  We may be able to sell the Caravan to our co-counsel — see above, Josh; you’ve been warned! — leaving open the possibility of visitation rights!

Again with the offensive words.

Since blog comments had not been developed during the paleolithic period, my cro-magnon friend continues to respond via email.  He & his neanderthal colleague insist I come down one way or the other on the use of the word “idiot.”

If I’m candid, I have to admit I’m on the fence.  The history of “idiot” is just as noxious as that of “retard” but history does not supply the full answer.  It also matters how the word is meant and heard in contemporary speech.  I can say that when I hear the word “retard” I hear an effort to disparage the target by a comparison to a cognitively disabled person; when I hear “idiot” I interpret it to mean simply “stupid.”

So I would like to hear more from others — in the comments if you’re a modern human, email if cro-magnon — what you think when you say or hear the word “idiot.”

I was trying to think of other examples of words that have lost their true meaning as epithets, and are in general use without reference to an earlier offensive meaning.  It’s easy to think of examples in the opposite direction:  it doesn’t make the word “bitch” innocuous that its dictionary definition is “female dog.”  I’ve heard it’s a false etymology that has rendered the word “handicap” unacceptable.  It was thought to derive from a reference to begging — “cap in hand” or “hand in cap” — but in fact goes back to betting conventions involving the announcement of odds.  Its real meaning, in other words, is the one at the racetrack.  While I suppose it is mildly offensive to for a disability to be analogized to odds in betting, the ADA definition is “substantially impaired in a major life activity,” which seems much more explicitly harsh than being burdened with longer odds.   Or maybe I’m just remembering fondly our last vacation in Vegas.

One of the reasons I would like to hear from other folks is that I have recently been called on a couple of words that I now try not to use but have not gotten to the point of busting others’ asses for using (as I generally do with “retard”).  Among these are “crazy” and its synonyms and “lame.”  All of these disparage by comparison to people with disabilities, and there’s just no way to spin that comparison that makes it OK.  Seems to me disrespectful to use a group characteristic as an insult.   That is, until “Republican” is seen for the insult it truly is!

Happy 4th!

Here’s what I’m thinking about today, in addition to Tim’s excellent steak fajitas that we will share with the in-laws, and the ensuing patriotic display of vanilla ice cream with raspberries and blueberries.

The Constitution, and the fact that has been amended to increase our freedom over the years.

All of the people who argue about what it means to be free.

Our kick-ass miliary.  Seriously, while I may not agree with the way a certain just past president chose to deploy it, it seems deeply deluded to think we’d be protected in its absence.  In addition to talking back to the television, I tend to talk back to bumper stickers — for example, to the ones that assert that war is not the answer, I quote a rival sticker I’ve seen:  “except in cases of slavery or totalitarianism.”  Many ordinary — no, extraordinary — men and women sign up to put their asses on the line to protect us, and I honor them today.

I also honor the many other men and women who have put their asses on the line to protect and increase our freedom … whether facing the fire hoses of Selma, enduring the police batons of Stonewall, or sitting in a federal building til they enact the damn regs.

And the many other things that make us the free people we are today, including but (as we say in the law biz) not limited to:

People who sport bumper stickers with over-simplified political theories.

People who show up in parks with misspelled signs and no real sense of what the words on them really mean and those who show up to yell back at them.

Youtube

The Onion

Innovators and the people who believe in them.

People who sit in the front of segregated buses and people who park their wheelchairs in front of inaccessible buses.

Update:  People who teach their children about the First Amendment.

Everyone who calls bullshit on easy answers and accepted truths.

Happy 4th, everyone!

More on offensive words

A well-meaning neanderthal liberal dropped me a note asking whether “idiot,” “moron” or “imbecile” were as offensive as “retard.”

Good question — so I thought I’d see if anyone else wanted to weigh in on it.  My gut* says “idiot” and “moron” are OK; “imbecile” is not so OK, but I don’t have any idea why.  My best guess is that “idiot” and “moron” are much farther from their (unfortunate) clinical roots than “retard” is.  But I’m very much open to being called on that.  Honestly, I seem to recall hearing that “hysterical” has its roots in an internal organ that women have but men do not, and should thus be avoided.  In light of the crap I have to read every day, though, I don’t plan to stop saying things are hysterical.  Or maybe I’m just reclaiming words of female disempowerment . . .  bitches!

Ultimately, there is some keeping track to do — I have learned only relatively recently that “gyp” and “welsh” are inappropriate as epithets and have stopped using them.  But it seems to me it’s no more arduous than all the keeping track we have to do if we generally want to be thoughtful people:  who is “Dr.” and who is “Mr.” or “Ms.;” who might have had personal experiences that make certain topics of conversation painful or awkward; whether and which cuss words are appropriate for the context (e.g., court hearing; lunch with in-laws; drinks with co-counsel, in order of increasing profanity).

What do other folks think?

* Update:  A cro-magnon colleague of the aforesaid neanderthal wrote to point out my gut’s total historical ignorance.  None of these three words —  “idiot,” “moron” or “imbecile” — is ok, he writes, because  “back in the day, mental retardation was defined based upon severity as idiot, imbecile and moron.  Those words all define levels of retardation and were even politically incorrect about 40 years ago.”  So was I supposed to do research & shit before blogging?  I skipped that page of the instruction manual!

Seems to me, though, that in current usage, “retard” is meant to compare the target of the epithet to a person with cognitive disabilities, whereas “idiot” and “moron,” at least,  have taken on a more general meaning of “stupid.”

One of these things is not like the other

Opposing counsel in one of our wheelchair access cases complains that our refusal to recite their position in our brief deprives the defendant — a multinational chain of fast food* restaurants — of its “right to due process.”

I’m thinking of putting them in touch with a client of ours with a due process claim:  an inmate with mental illness who has been in solitary confinement for 10 years based on a system of secret demerits that he has no effective way to challenge.

This has been another episode of Stupid Opposing Counsel Tricks.

*  Sorry, “quick serve.”  Commercial correctness, I guess!

If we’re going to defend hetero marriage, let’s do it right.

Folks opposed to marriage equality argue that if gays and lesbians are permitted that state-sanctioned status, it will have the effect of destroying heterosexual marriages.  In response, they promote legislation ostensibly designed to protect this venerable institution.  Most liberals campaign against these measures, on the grounds that they are unfair (what part of “equal protection of the laws” is unclear?) and irrational (straights have done a pretty good job of marriage destruction all on their own).

My view is:  if we’re going to use the legislative process to protect heterosexual marriages, let’s pass laws that might actually reduce stress and promote harmony in those marriages.  These measures would “save” those marriages in the sense that the people in them would remain happy with one another and therefore married, rather than in the way that opponents of gay marriage think it works:  that we’ll only stay together if we can smugly monopolize the legal label for our relationships.

Warning:  what follows traffics in the basest of gender stereotypes, derived directly from my own 16-year experience with heterosexual marriage.

The Home Bathroom Separation Act.  Husbands and wives were not meant to share the bathrooms in their home.  The vast genetic differences in cleanliness perception and many practical differences in paraphernalia make sharing facilities a source of stress in 55% of heterosexual marriages.*  Under this proposed legislation, all new homes will be required to have two completely separate bathrooms adjacent to the master bedroom and money will be allocated from the federal budget to retrofit houses of married heteros with one extra master bath. [2024 note: I wrote this long before people started freaking out about trans people in public bathrooms. I still don’t want to share my home bathroom with my husband – beard hairs in the sink! – but have no problem peeing in a public restroom stall next to anyone of any gender. I’ve added a bit of verbiage to clarify.]

The Laundry Technology Act.  All new washers and dryers will be equipped with control panels of equal or greater complexity to a sound system of comparable price.  In addition, federal regulations will require garment labels to include one of the following two statements, as appropriate:  “This Goes In the Light Wash,” or “This Goes In the Dark Wash.”  At least 43%* of the bickering in hetero marriages concerns lack of laundry participation by one of the two genders commonly found in those unions.  This measure will not only promote increased participation, but will ensure that the result is not uniformly pink.

Music Parity Regulations.  FCC regulations will require at least one station in each broadcast area to play folk rock and heavy metal tunes on a strictly alternating basis.  Imagine the heterosexual marriages — not to mention lives — saved by not having driver and passenger switching constantly among stations in search of (to take a completely random example) Boston or The Indigo Girls.

Quality Motion Picture Act.  At least five movies each year will be required to have both exciting action sequences (car chases; explosions; zombies) and a plot with believable, grown-up dialog and characters.  Hetero marriages will flourish when husbands and wives not only attend but enjoy the same movies.

Full Funding for Public Education, Universal Health Care and Assisted Living Act.  Approximately 95%* of the fights in heterosexual marriages concern the kids’ schools, the doctor’s bills, and how to care for the in-laws without having them actually move in.  The FFPEUHCALA will ensure high quality public education, availability of heath care without forgoing food and heat, and a comfortable, safe old age for your in-laws** somewhere other than your home.  This legislation will avoid at least 3.2 million* heterosexual divorces each year.  In addition, just imagine all the quality time hetero couples will have in lieu of the hundreds of hours they now spend filling out insurance forms, fighting with insurance companies, filling out more forms, waiting on hold to insurance companies, and figuring out how to pay for things they already bought insurance to pay for.

Let’s see if those anti-marriage-equality folks really want to protect hetero marriage — let’s see if they’ll support all this crucial legislation.

* All statistics in this post are invented out of whole cloth.  They sure sound about right, though, don’t they?

** Love ya, Denver & Nora!