The odds were 1 in 3,669,120,000,000.

Woman wins $1 million in a scratch card lottery, after previously winning $1 million on another scratch card. She works in a deli making sandwiches, and even after this new win, she's going to keep making the sandwiches. Will she keep buying scratch cards?

The European trailer for "The Path to 9/11."

Over on Kos, where they keep calling the show "Disney/ABC conservative fan fiction," they're saying:

[T]he advertisement makes it very clear just what sort of Limbaugh-style political porn this thing was intended to be.

The trailer certainly makes the movie look exciting. It made me go back to the NYT review by TV critic Alessandra Stanley. ("'The Path to 9/11' is an unsparing, and at times hyperbolic, portrait of bureaucratic turf wars, buck passing and complacency.") A lot of the bloggers who have been railing about "The Path" are laying into her. I see that there's a correction there now:

The TV Watch column in Weekend yesterday, about the ABC mini-series “The Path to 9/11,” referred incorrectly to a conclusion of the commission that investigated the terror attacks. The commission said the accusation that President Clinton had ordered air strikes against Osama bin Laden in August 1998 to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal was one of several factors that “likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force” against Mr. bin Laden. It did not conclude that the scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.

There. Happy now?

Anyway, this is Stanley's key point that's relevant to the demands to yank the film:

All mini-series Photoshop the facts. “The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place. It relies on the report of the Sept. 11 commission, the King James version of all Sept. 11 accounts, as well as other material and memoirs. Some scenes come straight from the writers’ imaginations. Yet any depiction of those times would have to focus on those who were in charge, and by their own accounts mistakes were made.

Various bloggers (and commenters in the preceding post) are crying slander and saying that the public figures who are seeing themselves portrayed here ought to sue. I'm not going to belabor the point I've already made in comments, but it seems very clear to me that the legal standard they are talking about would be outrageously repressive. Why is it so hard to step back for a minute and see how the ideas you're expressing would apply in other situations?

"You can't fix it. You gotta yank it."

Says Sandy Berger, who should know about yanking. He's a yanker of historic proportions.

I wonder what brainstorming went into the choice of the word "yank," which seems to be roundly favored by those who want to pressure ABC to withdraw its docu-drama "Path to 9/11." You know how the Democrats are obsessed with framing.

Yank! It'll make censorship seem positively patriotic -- the Yanks are coming! -- and kinda sportsmanlike -- how about those Yanks?

Moist.

It's moist and gray, really dank -- but nicely cool -- here in Madison today. It's been so pretty all week, but I have a ton of work to get done, so it's okay with me. I've got a thousand résumés to read -- literally. (I'm chairing the Appointments Committee.) And I've got three smallish, more-or-less scholarly things to crank forward. And some other things that I ought to write on a to-do list so I don't fritter away mental energy intermittently prompting myself to do.

Anyway, like that tree fungus? It's so clean and crisply designed. Not really that fungus-y, as fungus goes. I ran across it yesterday, walking to school, when I detoured from the main lake path up onto the woodland path:





That last picture after that last post makes me want to link to these lyrics (which were not written by Cat Stevens):

Morning has broken, like the first morning.
Blackbird has spoken, like the first bird.
Praise for the singing, praise for the morning,
Praise for them springing fresh from the Word.

Sweet the rain's new fall, sunlight from heaven.
Like the first dewfall, on the first grass.
Praise for the sweetnes of the wet garden,
Sprung in completeness where His feet pass.

Mine is the sunlight, mine is the morning.
Born of the one light Eden saw play.
Praise with elation, praise every morning;
God's recreation of the new day.

The Cat Stevens comeback.

Cat Stevens, AKA Yusuf Islam, has signed with Atlantic Records to put out a new album of pop songs:

"I feel right about making music and singing about life in this fragile world again. It is important for me to be able to help bridge the cultural gaps others are sometimes frightened to cross."

Some folks don't like it, but I'd like to hear what he has to sing.

You know, I had a picture of Cat Stevens on my wall, back when I was a teenager in the 1960s. This was when my walls were entirely covered with large and small pictures cut from magazines like 16 and Tiger Beat. Mostly 16. How I loved that magazine. I knew the day it was due on the newsstands and made a special, eager trip to the drugstore to buy a copy. If for some reason the new issue hadn't arrived on time, there would be lamentations. Anyway, the Cat Stevens picture got on the wall based solely on looks, as none of his records were playing in the U.S. at that time. I knew he was popular in England, which counted for a lot in those days. In college, I heard his records all the time, even though I never bought them myself. The singer-songwriter trend of the early 70s was not my style, though I liked the catchy songs well enough not to go crazy when someone else played them. These days, they play those old Cat Stevens songs -- "Peace Train," etc., etc. -- at my favorite café here in Madison. I enjoy the nostalgic feeling and the fact that they are great songs.

If the man who will always be Cat Stevens to me wants to do some new songs and "help bridge the cultural gaps," I say good. Why bitch about things he's done or said in his nonmusical mode? He's a musical artist. It's good to have him in his zone again. Let's hear the songs and take it from there.

Two Madison vignettes.

Walking home from work today, I took the lake path. Someone had dragged the yellow, orange, and green tables and chairs from the terrace out the end of the pier, and college girls were out there basking in the sun:



Getting much closer to where I live, I saw two little girls making their way home. They are, doubtlessly, in the elementary school's strings program:



I love that tiny cello on wheels!

Yes, tell me it will be cold here in the winter. I can see the leaves already turning on that tree.

"This is it: crunch time for getting the slanderous ABC television docudrama 'The Path to 9/11' yanked off the air."

That's what the Democratic Party just emailed me:

The network schedule has this slanderous attack on Democrats slated to start on Sunday night, September 10, at 8 o'clock -- and as long as it stays on the schedule, we have work to do. Take a minute right now and tell Disney president Robert Iger to keep this right-wing propaganda off our airwaves:

http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

Here's the good news: the suits at ABC and the Walt Disney Company have started panicking under pressure, thanks to your ferocious response to the outrageous decision to put this irresponsible miniseries on the air. But until Disney quits defending its plan to broadcast conservative propaganda -- fraudulently presented to Americans as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" -- the company should plan to keep taking every bit of heat we dish out.

Here's a quick catch-up on developments over the last 48 hours:

President Clinton, through his attorney, rebuked ABC for producing a "factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate" miniseries -- and walked the network through three make-believe scenes in the "the Path to 9/11" that defame people and misrepresent events during his administration.

Clinton's spokesman later stepped up the pressure, condemning Disney as "despicable" for "airing a fictional version of what is a serious and emotional event for our country. No reputable organization," he said, "should dramatize 9-11 for a profit at the expense of the truth."

The families of September 11 victims have weighed in on the controversy, telling "entertainers" not to "promote misleading or incorrect information as fact to the public."

House and Senate Democratic leaders hammered Disney president and CEO Robert Iger, in letters that questioned the company's commitment to its "reputation ... as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress."

Scholastic has pulled teaching materials off its website and has scrambled to adopt a plan to help teachers show students "the differences between factual reporting and a dramatization," but is still encouraging teachers to show their students this propaganda.

We should all be deeply concerned and disappointed that ABC would air a film that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation's history. It's particularly disturbing given that the producer of the piece is a well known conservative. It's incomprehensible how something like this could even get on the air.

In a few hours, we deliver letters from over 150,000 outraged Democrats to ABC's front doorstep. You still have time to make your feelings known. Join the thousands standing up for President Clinton and our party -- tell Disney president Robert Iger to keep ABC's right-wing propaganda off our airwaves....

For some reason that called to mind this quote from Arnold Schwarzenegger -- from an article about an audiotape that got him into trouble for saying that Republican Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia was "very hot" because of her ethnic "blood." He's apologized, and it was truly stupid to say that. But anyway, he said this other thing -- unrelated to the Garcia gaffe -- that sprang to mind when I read that email from the Democratic Party. It was this:

"You really pissed him off... But you know something? You pissed him off because it hit home. That's why it pissed him off. People always get irritated; always when you hit something that is the truth, that's when people flame out."

UPDATE: I've got a newer post on this topic here... with a lively comments section.

The Public Expression of Religion Act.

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted for the "Public Expression of Religion Act," which prevents the recovery of attorneys' fees in lawsuits based on the Establishment Clause:

Supporters say the bill, if passed and signed into law, would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from "abusing the system" when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion. Opponents say it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.

The committee's vote was split down party lines, with all 12 Republicans present supporting the bill and Democrats opposing it....

"[T]he ability to recover attorneys' fees in civil-rights and constitutional cases, including establishment-clause cases, is necessary to help protect the religious freedom of all Americans and to keep religion government-free," the [ACLU] statement said, noting the fees in such suits often total "tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars."

"Few citizens can afford to [pay such fees]," it continued. "But more importantly, citizens should not be required to do so where the court finds that the government has violated their rights and engaged in unconstitutional behavior."

Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), the bill's chief House sponsor, said the act was necessary to prevent such groups from intimidating governments into agreeing to out-of-court settlements.

"It is outrageous that public officials have been threatened with the prospect of financial ruin merely because they wish to defend their constitutional rights in a court of law," he said in a statement. "This is a big victory for Americans who care about our rich religious heritage in this country."

Those are some sharply drawn party lines. I'm definitely with the ACLU on this one. "Americans who care about our rich religious heritage in this country" -- that really grates. Taking a strong position in favor of separating religion and state doesn't mean you don't "care about our rich religious heritage in this country." I mean, could Hostettler get any more conservative buzz words into his sentence? Victory, Americans, rich, religious, heritage, country.

Meanwhile, the ACLU forefronts "keep[ing] religion government-free," which really is one of the Establishment Clause values, even though it's not what we usually feel is motivating the ACLU to bring its lawsuits, so you may feel pretty skeptical.

Nevertheless, keeping government out of religion really is something Americans who care about our rich religious heritage in this country should know is every bit as much a part of our rich religious heritage in this country as keeping religion out of government and protecting free expression about religion. And -- I hasten to add -- so is avoiding fighting about religion... which would be a good idea now... even in Congress.

A tale of two conspiracy theorists.

The Deseret Morning News reports:

Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called "9/11 truth movement" that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center....

[Jones has spoken] publicly about research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero. He said he found evidence of thermite — a compound used in military detonations — in the materials.

In recent weeks, after becoming the co-chairman of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Jones seemed willing to go further, implicating unnamed government groups but not President Bush....

"BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty," the [University's official] statement said. "We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."

Last fall, BYU faculty posted statements on the university Web site that questioned whether Jones subjected the paper to rigorous academic peer review before he posted it at physics.byu.edu. Jones removed the paper from BYU's Web site Thursday at the university's request....

Jones, also known for his cold fusion research, provided academic clout to the 9/11 truth movement...

Meanwhile, back in Madison, the Capital Times covered the first day of class taught by the UW's 9/11 conspiracy theorist:

"Ladies and gentlemen," he began. "Students, auditors and journalists. Welcome to Conspiracy Theories 370." The room erupted in applause before he shouted "Not!"

Getting real, he added: "This is a class on the religion and culture of Islam."...

On Tuesday, Barrett talked about the fundamentals of Islam and the course. The religion is the fastest growing in the world, as well as the United States, he said. There will be jobs for people who understand Islam and know how to interact with Muslims.

"You will learn something in this class that will have some career potential for you, which is rare among the humanities," he quipped.

He focused on religion and culture. In talking about religion, he asked students for definitions and wrote several words on the blackboard: belief, structure, control, symbol, rules, code, and morality....

Courtney Schiesher, a senior from Chicago, said Barrett was a lively lecturer. She said his personal views on the terrorist attacks do not sour her toward him.

"If he thinks that far outside the box, he also has some other interesting ideas to provoke student discussion," she said. "I'm looking forward to attending the rest of the classes."

BYU and UW are very different places, but there are many other factors that can account for the different treatment. One is the fact that Barrett is just a part-time adjunct with a one semester contract, while Jones is a tenured professor. Another is that Jones is in a Physics department, wielding the authority of the hard sciences. Barrett's course is in a department called Languages and Cultures of Asia, and the standards of what you can say under the rubric "culture" seem to rather lax everywhere. It's just the humanities...

UPDATE: You're wondering how many students showed up for Barrett's class? About 200.

"I'm going to skin you alive. Come here if you've got the balls... I look forward to shooting you seven times when I get my hands on you."

Said to the judge by a man on trial for threatening to kill a judge. But this wasn't just a ridiculous impulsive outburst. Basque separatist Ignacio Javier Bilbao Goikoetxea means to threaten violence "until I die or I'm killed."

"Bill O'Reilly made me a little nervous once, but that was because he was very tall and took so long to order his Irish oatmeal."

Says Cathy Seipp, answering one of 12 Silly Questions, "Which persons you've written on have most scared you?" More:

Did you have to develop a thick skin or does it come naturally?

I guess it just came to me naturally, although naturally we all become less sensitive to what others think of us as we grow older. Or at least, we should. The alternative is to remain forever a sensitive adolescent, and that's kind of pathetic.

Did you have to develop your self-confidence to write as fearlessly as you do or did it come naturally?

Again, I think most people naturally gain confidence as they age, if only because we develop a sense that we finally know what we're doing. What puzzles me is why so many people are scared of so many ridiculous things.

Yes, you young folks, notice this. It's true. But you don't really have to wait until you're older for it to happen! You can read this as advice and arrive early at the place where aging will take you naturally. But maybe you can't. It's all about emotion, and the brain really does change with age. Still, it might be useful to think about, to assuage any fear you might have of growing old.

UPDATE: Cathy writes about the silly questions piece (and this post) on her blog.

"Apple has issued a recall on several models of Mac laptops because the battery can overheat and catch fire...."

"Experts say a Mac fire is just like a PC fire, except it's more hip and condescending." -- Conan O'Brien.

My Power Book has one of the recalled batteries. I feel strangely unthreatened by the thing. I've filled out the form and am awaiting the replacement, but I'm still using the computer. I even use it in bed, surrounded by flammable fabrics. What are the chances? I don't, however, keep it in bed, on, while I'm sleeping. Some people do, you know. I'm pretty attached to my computer, and I do keep it where I can reach it without getting out of bed, and I do sometimes wake up in the middle of the night and use it. But there is a line. I'm not going to sleep with it in the bed. Not on purpose anyway. Let's just say, I wouldn't lie down with it in the bed. I'm quite capable of falling asleep while sitting up in bed with the thing on my lap. Recalled battery and all. Living dangerously, out here in Madison, Wisconsin.

Who would watch the video of the stingray killing Steve Irwin?

Here's a serious discussion -- on BBC.com -- of whether the video should be shown. I think the answer is so obviously no that it seems lurid even to raise the subject. I realize that would make this post itself lurid, and I confess to trying to create a mental picture the incident I've read about. That picture is lurid.

Anyway, two medical ethicists examine the topic. Anna Smajdor concludes:

Irwin spent much of his life bringing to a wider public a vision of "nature red in tooth and claw", no fluffy bunnies or cute kittens here. His programmes were not for the squeamish, but portrayed wild animals capable of killing a man.

The footage of Irwin's death is his ultimate message to us of the ruthlessness and power that we admire and fear in nature.

Daniel Sokol disagrees, even though Irwin himself once said, "If I'm going to die, at least I want it filmed."

Should you, the viewer, watch the footage?

The answer depends on your motives. Are you a marine biologist or ethologist (someone who studies animal behaviour) eager to understand the defensive behaviour of a frightened stingray? Are you a cardiologist or toxicologist interested in aspects of the injury itself?

Before watching the footage, we should ask ourselves: why do I want to watch this? I suspect many people would answer "for entertainment" or "out of curiosity"

It may well harm the watcher, whose humanity and moral sensibility will suffer.

And remember, you can't unwatch it. Once the real image is in your head -- replacing the fuzzy visualization you have now -- it will always be there. Maybe you've yielded and watched some gruesome video on the web -- perhaps a beheading. I haven't, partly because I've never gotten over what I was raised to believe, that it is wrong to go looking out of curiosity, but also because I want to protect myself from the lingering image.

I should add that I've changed my view about averting your eyes from something you're seeing that you haven't sought out. I greatly admire people -- like doctors and nurses -- who have work to do and deal with what they need to see to do it. And I think squeamishness is a childish character flaw that should be overcome.

"The very idea of an institutional blog is a contradiction in terms."

Writes Terry Teachout. (This comes up in the context of talking about the trouble Lee Siegel got into blogging at The New Republic.)

The best blogs are idiosyncratic, unmediated expressions of an individual sensibility, a notion which tends to make old-media executives squirm, so much so that many print-media publications refuse to let their employees blog.

I think that’s a mistake. In fact, I think editors and reporters should be encouraged to blog independently of the publications for which they work.

I said something similar to that first paragraph in that Yale Law Journal Pocket Part essay I mentioned this morning. The essay is mainly about whether law journals should change in response to the internet, but at one point I talk about institutional blogs, specifically law school faculty blogs:

[You law journal editors don't] need to host a blog to talk about your articles. In fact, it is better if you don’t. Institutionalized blogs tend to be flat and safe.

I have put some effort into starting a faculty blog at my law school, perhaps something like The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog. But I have little hope that this project will go well, and I note that the Chicago project has never gained much traction. Since the original spike of attention that greeted the announcement of its existence, the traffic to the site has waned. And there is no bloggish energy to the site, with a post – usually a long one – going up only every few days. I don’t think this is a special Chicago Law School problem, but a predictable consequence of worrying about preserving the dignity of the institution they so conspicuously represent.

To continue to Teachout's train of thought... of course, I'm in favor of lawprofs blogging independently from the law school's website. Law schools shouldn't fret too much about their lawprofs expressing themselves idiosyncratically in our own separate blog spaces. There's a temptation for the law school and the lawprof blogger to try to improve things by making a bigger, better law school website replete with blogs, but it will suck the energy out of the blogging.

Postscript: Speaking of Lee Siegel, I enjoyed watching Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus argue about it on BloggingHeads.

Rooftop cognac.

It's evening in the Mad City. The table's out on the rooftop garden, where they serve the cognac in a square glass.



It's a mellow feeling, watching the light fade on the church spire distorted by the glass of water:

A 9/11 tattoo.

A reader asks:

If you were going to get a tattoo about 9/11, what would it say and where would you put it? Or -- do you think it's not your thing, or is it somehow not appropriate?

Comments? Don't get sidetracked into the question of whether a person should get tattoos at all. Assume a tattooer. (And don't picture me, of course.) Is there some reason to eschew the 9/11 tattoo? If not, what should it be?