Forums have decorum. Message boards, often appear – not to.

It is difficult to believe that someone in a very high government office is EVEN thought of as possibly being involved in this kind of activity.

But it happens. It has happened so often that this country’s ethics is fast approaching a meltdown. As fast as government politicians stepped outside of the law – newspapers(not the New York Times or the Washington Post) tried to make those “dastardly deeds” palatable.

Even the FOLEY activity. A website said something like, “Rural America not moved by Foley Scandal”. An attempt to “reset” America’s values to a much lower level is obvious.

Two news papers

“Fitz’s suit looks like a dark olive color. The earth toned hippie!”

The shoes, what about the &#%ing shoes?

Holy crap!!

AND the tie. I need info on the tie. LOL!

Greenjeans @ 219

May I suggest that the courtroom blog be published separately from all the comments. That would permit those of us at work to easily go back and forth to the blog updates.

GOD YES!!!! THANK YOU Greenjeans!

Yes, yes, please!

The shoes, what about the &#%ing shoes?

Holy crap!!

Pachacutec @ 30

These juror processes are very interesting.

I think we are on to something here, sending a shrink to jury selection. Could start a trend.

It was bloody brilliant!

May I suggest that the courtroom blog be published separately from all the comments. That would permit those of us at work to easily go back and forth to the blog updates.

GOD YES!!!! THANK YOU Greenjeans!

I don’t understand how that could be a disqualifying position to take. If jurors mindlessly took witnesses “at their word” what would be the point in even bothering with selecting a jury or even having a trial? Might as well stop after the initial depositions. Even then, is the judge supposed to take all who were deposed at their word? I think not. That’s precisely why this trial is about perjury and obstruction of justice. The jury’s assignment is to discern what evidence that comes before them is plausible, or true. Their assignment certainly isn’t to mindlessly accept as true everything they hear from every witness they are exposed to.

I’d love to talk offline about what you’ve worked on.

But yes, I recently edited a friend’s book which, I think, was accepted at Stanford. And I realized my diss is really close to book form (if I take out all the theory claptrap). So I might try to do that. Though my Czech, in particular, is so rusty, I’d need some help.

My diss was:

Ch. 1: Why everything you’ve learned about Mysteries of Paris is bullshit

Ch. 2: How the feuilleton arose out of the nation-state consent through public state of moderanity (Napoleon 1)

Ch. 3: How the feuilleton spread to places without the same stability of nation-state (Napolon 2 and 3)

Ch. 4: The importance of active reading in teh feuilleton practice

Ch. 5: How the feuilleton works (This chapter is called “Nous est un auteur” playing off of Rimbaud’s Je est un autre, as a commentary on a different kind of modernity than most fuddy duddy literary scholars conceive of it.)

I’m actually a boring lit crit type; I just did a one-off presentation on blogging and some of its historical precedents/parallels my first year in grad school. But your diss sounds great – I know I’d read it – and messing with fuddy duddy notions of modernity is always worthwhile. *g* You should definitely go for it.