All Blog Posts from Crossroads
What Constitutes A Significant Romantic Relationship?
Taking up one of civilization's most confounding questions, judges on a New York federal appeals court today threw up their hands like all the rest of us, ruling that even smart people can't agree on what makes a romantic relationship significant. The case involved a man who was required to notify his probation office when he entered a "significant romantic relationship." The court said the requirement was preposterous, since when, really, could anyone ever agree on that?
The ruling keeps alive for at least another generation the lucrative genre of romantic comedies that are premised, as the court put it, on "blurred lines and misunderstandings." ("When Harry Met Sally" is as just one example the judges helpfully provided.) And it ensures continued booming business for psychologists nationwide who get urgent calls from people shell-shocked to learn "He's Just Not That Into You."
From the opinion: "What makes a relationship "romantic," let alone "significant" in its romantic depth, can be the subject of endless debate that varies across generations, regions, and genders. For some, it would involve the exchange of gifts such as flowers or chocolates; for others, it would depend on acts of physical intimacy; and for still others, all of these elements could be present yet the relationship, without a promise of exclusivity, would not be "significant." The history of romance is replete with precisely these blurred lines and misunderstandings."
The ever-thorough and always clever Howard Bashman at How Appealing has the details and link here.
Continue »
The ruling keeps alive for at least another generation the lucrative genre of romantic comedies that are premised, as the court put it, on "blurred lines and misunderstandings." ("When Harry Met Sally" is as just one example the judges helpfully provided.) And it ensures continued booming business for psychologists nationwide who get urgent calls from people shell-shocked to learn "He's Just Not That Into You."
From the opinion: "What makes a relationship "romantic," let alone "significant" in its romantic depth, can be the subject of endless debate that varies across generations, regions, and genders. For some, it would involve the exchange of gifts such as flowers or chocolates; for others, it would depend on acts of physical intimacy; and for still others, all of these elements could be present yet the relationship, without a promise of exclusivity, would not be "significant." The history of romance is replete with precisely these blurred lines and misunderstandings."
The ever-thorough and always clever Howard Bashman at How Appealing has the details and link here.
Continue »
Can Airport Scans Be Child Porn?
As Britain joins the United States in tightening security procedures in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt, privacy concerns and English law may complicate the efforts to install high-tech full body screens. From Wired magazine: "Although scanned images are not supposed to be stored, there are concerns that security personnel are not adequately monitored and that images of children could fall into the hands of pedophiles." In trial runs, the Brits were forced to exempt children under 18 from the scans, and privacy advocates are seeking to block them entirely. "The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children," the Guardian reports.
Crimson Tide Was Born to Win
Turning our focus to the Major Story of the week, as I'm sure all of you are acutely aware, it's T minus 33 hours until kickoff in Pasadena, when the Crimson Tide ("They got a name for the winners of the world") squares off against the Longhorns ("I Want a Name when I Lose"). Now I don't think we Tide fans could get any more fired up, but an Alabama musician has a new song out for the game just in case.
I highly recommend playing it at full volume all day today and tomorrow, especially if you have those extra speakers on your office computer. You can listen to it here. There's a power ballad feel evocative of those great '80s bands from my college days, but it's really the lyrics that go the distance: "We got a line and they can block; It's game time, we're gonna rock…and Roll Tide Roll."
Seriously, how great is that?
And this: "Defense, offense. Lose the game? Nonsense. Until the end, we won't give in, Crimson Tide was born to win."
Ok, maybe it won't have the staying power of that Steely Dan classic, Deacon Blues. And it doesn't quite match the unrestrained euphoria a stadium full of fans (yours truly, included) singing, "Hey Tigers, we just beat the hell out of you." But I gotta say, it's pretty catchy. It's time to rock…and Roll Tide Roll.
I highly recommend playing it at full volume all day today and tomorrow, especially if you have those extra speakers on your office computer. You can listen to it here. There's a power ballad feel evocative of those great '80s bands from my college days, but it's really the lyrics that go the distance: "We got a line and they can block; It's game time, we're gonna rock…and Roll Tide Roll."
Seriously, how great is that?
And this: "Defense, offense. Lose the game? Nonsense. Until the end, we won't give in, Crimson Tide was born to win."
Ok, maybe it won't have the staying power of that Steely Dan classic, Deacon Blues. And it doesn't quite match the unrestrained euphoria a stadium full of fans (yours truly, included) singing, "Hey Tigers, we just beat the hell out of you." But I gotta say, it's pretty catchy. It's time to rock…and Roll Tide Roll.
Obama's Reverse Spin: "This Was A Screw Up"
(CBS/ AP)
Two days after the attempted Christmas day bombing of a Northwest airliner bound for Detroit, the message from the Obama Administration was "the system worked." This afternoon, the President delivered a dramatic reversal of that narrative.
Speaking somberly and forcefully from the White House, Obama said the government had "sufficient information" to have potentially disrupted the attack, but that the intelligence community "failed to connect those dots." He spoke of the "the human and systemic failures that almost cost nearly 300 lives," and he vowed, "we will do better."
He was more blunt in a private meeting with top advisers just before he spoke before the cameras: "This was a screw up that could have been disastrous. We dodged a bullet but just barely. It was averted by brave individuals, not because the system worked, and that is not acceptable."
Continue »
Obama and the "Warrior Ethos"
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
It's a pressing issue, as the Obama Administration prepares to fly 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four top al-Qaeda plotters to New York for a criminal trial and, on Friday, to arraign in a Detroit courtroom the Nigerian man charged with the attempted Christmas Day bombing. And it's an enormously difficult one for this administration, which says it's emphasizing the rule of law and seeking to restore U.S. image abroad, while at the same time trying to reassure the American public it is doing everything possible to fight terrorism and keep America safe.
Last night, a new voice—one far removed from the partisan political din--entered the debate. Henry Crumpton is a revered figure in intelligence, someone who has been called in the Washington Post a "genuine American hero" who "changed the way the United States fights terrorism." He developed and implemented the astonishingly successful strategy that ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan in the weeks after 9/11 by partnering small groups of intelligence officers with local opposition groups.
Continue »
Auld Lang Syne
I was summoned to federal court here in Washington the other day for jury duty. It was a big drug conspiracy trial in Chief Judge Royce Lamberth's courtroom—the kind of fascinating case, with a first-rate judge, that you read about in the paper and want to know more about.
There were multiple defendants, charged with serious crimes and facing lengthy sentences. They sat with their lawyers and wore headphones to hear a translator explain the proceedings in Spanish. As we in the jury pool took our seats in the courtroom, they looked at us with an intensity that felt almost like a glare. Some of us would be selected to decide whether they'd be spending much of their lives in prison.
Judge Lamberth asked us to rise, and he swore us in before he briefly described the case. He asked if anyone knew the defendants, their lawyers, the prosecutors or the drug agents. No one did. Then his clerk passed out a lengthy questionnaire, with page after page of questions designed to get at bias and whether we'd give these men a fair trial. Most were simple. Yes, I was fair. Yes, I would listen to all sides. No, I wouldn't give police testimony more weight.
I paused at one: Do you think drug dealers are A) more responsible, B) less responsible or C) equally responsible than the actual drug users. I thought about that for a while. I marked A.
But there was this: The trial would take six to eight weeks. Would that cause a hardship? Now let me tell you, I would have loved to serve on this jury. But six to eight weeks? Would that cause a hardship?
Yes, I wrote. And I wrote, and I wrote. I hadn't worked since late September because I was changing jobs, and my old employer, ABC News, enforced a non-compete provision in my contract. The provision prevented me from working anywhere else--even commenting online--so I had to sit out until it expired, and I wasn't getting paid, which was a problem since my husband and I had decided to separate earlier in the year. I was supposed to start at CBS on January 4, right after the trial would get underway.
Plus, I wrote, I spent part of my forced time-off fulfilling my public duty: I had just served on a jury in D.C. superior court only three weeks before. It was a minor criminal case, but we couldn't reach a verdict. There were two holdouts for "not guilty," and we argued for three days. One juror yelled. Another cried. The judge finally declared a mistrial. I didn't really want to go through that again, either.
We all turned in our questionnaires. The next day, Judge Lamberth started the individual questioning of jurors. He called us one-by-one into the large courtroom and asked us to elaborate on our answers in the questionnaire. When my name was called, I took my seat in the jury box, as the defendants and all the lawyers looked on, and I spoke into a microphone. I felt shaky and oddly nervous. Maybe it was the formality of the proceedings. Maybe it was that I Could Not Serve On This Jury For Eight Weeks.
So this would be a hardship for you, Judge Lamberth asked, looking at my written questionnaire.
Yes, I said, nodding. Yes. And I started to repeat what I'd written in the questionnaire about being off work without pay for three months and needing to start back in January.
Judge Lamberth listened as I nervously rambled on. Then he smiled, and, to my surprise, he cracked a joke: You haven't considered getting back together with your husband, just so you can serve on this trial?
No, I said, shaking my head, laughing along with him.
Lamberth summoned the prosecutors and defense attorneys to the bench. He said a few words to them. As they returned to their seats, he turned back to me.
Ok, he said, I'm going to excuse you.
But then he added this: I just want you to know I thought your book on the Supreme Court was terrific. Good luck to you at CBS.
I was so taken aback, it was all I could do not to jump up and down as I said thank you. Sometimes life surprises you in a very good way.
And so I report to work, as scheduled, next week as the new CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent. On Sunday, I'll join Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, along with some of my new colleagues, to discuss the war on terror and the Christmas Day plot, as well as big legal stories on the horizon for 2010.
There will be plenty to talk about this year, as we grapple with issues and challenges that will define us as a nation and reverberate for generations. Just to name a few, there's the looming indictment and trial of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, as well as President Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prision and transfer detainees to a prison in Illinois. And there's the expected Supreme Court retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, which will give Obama his second Court nomination. My money is on Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for reasons we'll get into in another post. (Those of you who were high on Janet "the system worked" Napolitano should readjust your sights).
But I'll also be looking more broadly, beyond the law. That's one reason I didn't try to take my old blog, "Legalities," with me from ABC. Those of you've who read Legalities know I didn't always stick to the law. There were, for example, all those Sarah Palin columns, the good and the bad. And there were the ones about race and the South, where I grew up, and the ones about the difficulties getting four kids out the door before school starts when your 5-year-old flat-out refuses to comb her hair. And of course, all those blogs about the Crimson Tide.
Welcome, instead, to "Crossroads."
Here, we'll talk about the decision points in law, and also how that intersects with politics and culture. We'll cover the issues big and small, and the headliners too, like Tiger Woods, Mike "it was a media room, not a shed" Leach, and the 2010 versions of those wacky Balloon boy parents (you know there will be someone, somewhere who tops that this year). And since I'm a die-hard football fan, you're going to get some sports, especially on January 7. (Roll Tide Roll!)
I'm looking forward to getting started. And in the meantime, Happy New Year. I hope you all raised a cup of kindness last night to the old acquaintances and are, like me, looking ahead with much hope to the new.
There were multiple defendants, charged with serious crimes and facing lengthy sentences. They sat with their lawyers and wore headphones to hear a translator explain the proceedings in Spanish. As we in the jury pool took our seats in the courtroom, they looked at us with an intensity that felt almost like a glare. Some of us would be selected to decide whether they'd be spending much of their lives in prison.
Judge Lamberth asked us to rise, and he swore us in before he briefly described the case. He asked if anyone knew the defendants, their lawyers, the prosecutors or the drug agents. No one did. Then his clerk passed out a lengthy questionnaire, with page after page of questions designed to get at bias and whether we'd give these men a fair trial. Most were simple. Yes, I was fair. Yes, I would listen to all sides. No, I wouldn't give police testimony more weight.
I paused at one: Do you think drug dealers are A) more responsible, B) less responsible or C) equally responsible than the actual drug users. I thought about that for a while. I marked A.
But there was this: The trial would take six to eight weeks. Would that cause a hardship? Now let me tell you, I would have loved to serve on this jury. But six to eight weeks? Would that cause a hardship?
Yes, I wrote. And I wrote, and I wrote. I hadn't worked since late September because I was changing jobs, and my old employer, ABC News, enforced a non-compete provision in my contract. The provision prevented me from working anywhere else--even commenting online--so I had to sit out until it expired, and I wasn't getting paid, which was a problem since my husband and I had decided to separate earlier in the year. I was supposed to start at CBS on January 4, right after the trial would get underway.
Plus, I wrote, I spent part of my forced time-off fulfilling my public duty: I had just served on a jury in D.C. superior court only three weeks before. It was a minor criminal case, but we couldn't reach a verdict. There were two holdouts for "not guilty," and we argued for three days. One juror yelled. Another cried. The judge finally declared a mistrial. I didn't really want to go through that again, either.
We all turned in our questionnaires. The next day, Judge Lamberth started the individual questioning of jurors. He called us one-by-one into the large courtroom and asked us to elaborate on our answers in the questionnaire. When my name was called, I took my seat in the jury box, as the defendants and all the lawyers looked on, and I spoke into a microphone. I felt shaky and oddly nervous. Maybe it was the formality of the proceedings. Maybe it was that I Could Not Serve On This Jury For Eight Weeks.
So this would be a hardship for you, Judge Lamberth asked, looking at my written questionnaire.
Yes, I said, nodding. Yes. And I started to repeat what I'd written in the questionnaire about being off work without pay for three months and needing to start back in January.
Judge Lamberth listened as I nervously rambled on. Then he smiled, and, to my surprise, he cracked a joke: You haven't considered getting back together with your husband, just so you can serve on this trial?
No, I said, shaking my head, laughing along with him.
Lamberth summoned the prosecutors and defense attorneys to the bench. He said a few words to them. As they returned to their seats, he turned back to me.
Ok, he said, I'm going to excuse you.
But then he added this: I just want you to know I thought your book on the Supreme Court was terrific. Good luck to you at CBS.
I was so taken aback, it was all I could do not to jump up and down as I said thank you. Sometimes life surprises you in a very good way.
And so I report to work, as scheduled, next week as the new CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent. On Sunday, I'll join Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, along with some of my new colleagues, to discuss the war on terror and the Christmas Day plot, as well as big legal stories on the horizon for 2010.
There will be plenty to talk about this year, as we grapple with issues and challenges that will define us as a nation and reverberate for generations. Just to name a few, there's the looming indictment and trial of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, as well as President Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prision and transfer detainees to a prison in Illinois. And there's the expected Supreme Court retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, which will give Obama his second Court nomination. My money is on Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for reasons we'll get into in another post. (Those of you who were high on Janet "the system worked" Napolitano should readjust your sights).
But I'll also be looking more broadly, beyond the law. That's one reason I didn't try to take my old blog, "Legalities," with me from ABC. Those of you've who read Legalities know I didn't always stick to the law. There were, for example, all those Sarah Palin columns, the good and the bad. And there were the ones about race and the South, where I grew up, and the ones about the difficulties getting four kids out the door before school starts when your 5-year-old flat-out refuses to comb her hair. And of course, all those blogs about the Crimson Tide.
Welcome, instead, to "Crossroads."
Here, we'll talk about the decision points in law, and also how that intersects with politics and culture. We'll cover the issues big and small, and the headliners too, like Tiger Woods, Mike "it was a media room, not a shed" Leach, and the 2010 versions of those wacky Balloon boy parents (you know there will be someone, somewhere who tops that this year). And since I'm a die-hard football fan, you're going to get some sports, especially on January 7. (Roll Tide Roll!)
I'm looking forward to getting started. And in the meantime, Happy New Year. I hope you all raised a cup of kindness last night to the old acquaintances and are, like me, looking ahead with much hope to the new.
