Two of my younger siblings are in town for an extended visit, and I have been treating them to a cornucopia of grilled delights during their stay. Salmon, chicken, turkey legs, squash, pears, and, of course, steaks.

On Monday night, I served up asparagus, baked potatoes (cooked in the coals), and aged Hereford strip steaks. The food was delicious, but I suffered an unfortunate side effect from the cooking process. No, I did not burn myself (that was last month when I stupidly chose to remove a saute pan from the 375 degree oven without donning an oven mitt). Instead, I think I got a concussion.

After moving the steaks from the direct heat side of the grill(directly over the coals) to the indirect heat side (away from the coals), I placed the tongs on a small plate on my front porch steps. This plate was located directly underneath the hand rail on the porch steps. For some reason, during this maneuver my head was also directly underneath the hand rail. Once I placed the tongs on the plate, I raised my head to return my attention to the grill. Unfortunately, that darn hand rail was in the way. The rail hit me squarely on the top of the head. ("Mind his little fontanel, H.I."). I hit it hard, and then I fell to the ground like a sack of potatoes. I just laid there for a minute, groaning and moaning. I managed to sit up on the steps and regain my composure before Mrs. F-H reached the door. She had heard me collapse and wandered outside to investigate ("It sounded like a limb fell out of the tree," she said). I told her I was fine, even though I was a little dazed. She was non-plussed. Having been witness to (too) many of my previous self-induced head injuries, this one just didn't do it for her. No blood, no stumbling around, no incoherent babble, and I was still conscious. She went back in the house.

I managed to recover my senses enough to finish cooking the food. No big deal. I figured I've hit my head before, and hit it a lot harder than this. I'll have a little headache, but it will go away.

Guess what? Today is Thursday Wednesday, and my head still hurts. In fact, it hurts as much today as it did on Monday. And now I have a puffy swollen bruise peeking out from the edge of my hairline (But you said you hit the top of your head, Fitz-Hume. What gives? Well, let's just say that my hair is executing that time honored military maneuver known as the "advance to the rear" and leave it at that). A co-worker advised that I go see a doctor, but I can't imagine that the doctor could tell me something I don't know ("Mr. Fitz-Hume, you are a clumsy oaf and you might have a concussion. More likely, you probably have what we in the medical community call a contusion. Take some over-the-counter pain medicine and leave me alone. If it turns out you have brain damage, we can deal with that at a later date."). Nah, no doctor for me. Instead, I'll save $50 and just keep popping the Advil. I'm sure I'll turn out okay (and by "okay" I mean "the same as I was before the front porch laid the smack down on me"). Besides, what are the odds that I'll suffer from significant long-term side effects as a result of a grilling-induced blunt trauma to the head? Not good enough that I am willing to tell a doctor how I did this to myself.

I tell ya doc, it was a million-to-one shot.

Over the weekend, the IT/Systems folks messed around with our computers -- "migrated servers" or whatever -- and now I'm at sixes and sevens. All my (computer) cookies are gone, so I've had to re-enter (and re-remember) all my passwords and such. But weirdly, the old wallpaper I had on my computer is gone. The screen saver is still there, but now the background is just plain black.

So, I'm soliciting suggestions for new wallpaper for my computer desktop. To give you an idea of what I like, I'll tell you about the two other wallpapers I've had on this computer. I think the default was a picture of our courthouse, and now I can't figure out why it hasn't at least reverted to that. Anyway, first I had Edward Hopper's famous painting "Nighthawks." I've always thought this is a beautifully sad painting, and I can identify with it, especially after spending many late nights at Honey's in college.

I had that up for a few months, and then I changed to something even more noir. It's a crime scene photo of police standing over a body at the Los Angeles River, taken in 1955. NPR did a story about a collection of LAPD photos touring museums, and my wallpaper choice is the first picture you see here. It's both ugly and stylish; both horrific and mundane. Kind of like my job -- I deal with some pretty awful crimes, but usually in terms of procedure and paperwork, like I imagine those cops are talking about. Like them, a dead body has ceased to be an unusual thing for me. The last case that caused me to raise an eyebrow was a habeas appeal from a state conviction for (among many other offenses) carnal knowledge of an animal. (And since I know at least one of you will ask, it was a dog. And he was merely a principal in the second degree, because he induced his ex to...ahem..."know" the dog.)

Anyway, so now I need new wallpaper, and I'm looking for suggestions. A couple of rules. First, obviously, it has to be work-safe. Second, this isn't a must, but it might work better if whatever is going on is in the middle or right-hand side of the image, because a lot of stuff on the left would get covered by the desktop icons. The LAPD photo worked great for this. Third, it shouldn't look distorted when blown up to full desktop size. Or, conversely, if it's smaller and would be distorted if expanded, it should look okay in the "tile" layout (the image repeated across the desktop), because I prefer that to one centered image. I would only go with a single image in the center of the desktop if the image is exactly what I'm looking for and I can figure out a good matching background color, like a matte. On my home computer, I have a tiled picture I will never find again. It's a black-and-white crowd shot of the audience at a Grateful Dead show at one of the Fillmores. Repeated like that, I get a bunch of hippies cheering me every time I turn on my computer. I just realized that, since I can't find this picture on the web anymore, I'll need a wallpaper for my new computer, too. So I'm now officially soliciting for two wallpapers. (I used to have the "Failure" demotivational poster on my home computer; I might just go back to one of those.)

Also, it's probably not a coincidence that two of these selections have been black-and-white photos. I think I may still be in that mood. But all suggestions are most appreciated.

Finally, to thank you in advance for your help, please enjoy the Viking Kitties (check your volume before opening, but work-safe).

I don't get the show Fear Factor. I mean, my television receives the signal that broadcasts the show, but I don't "get it" in the sense that I really understand it. Perhaps I should also point out that I have never watched it, although I did watch the
Chappelle's Show spoof of it with Tyrone Biggums as a contestant. But it was coming on while I was at the gym last night, so I got to thinking about it.

The story is only available to subscribers now, but about a month ago, the Wall Street Journal had a story about how desperate the writers at the show are to keep coming up with new and more-shocking material. ("For 'Fear Factor,' Getting Boring is the Real Danger," April 29) When I heard about the show, I figured the task they could use that would scare the most people is public speaking, but that doesn't exactly make for scintillating prime-time television. (Billy Madison: "You see, industry was like a puppy that had lost its way....")

Anyway, instead of public speaking or making contestants take a test they're unprepared for, most of the stunts on Fear Factor appear to involve ingesting really nasty stuff, often the excretory or reproductive organs of various animals. At least that's what the previews highlight. There's also a lot of getting covered in bugs or snakes or other icky things. And while I wouldn't find any of that pleasant, it would require a long discussion of what exactly "fear" is for me to say whether these events should be on a show called Fear Factor. I don't have any problem with it, although I will say that I think the concept could be better illustrated if the contestants in those events were there involuntarily.

I suppose I could think up some "fearful" stunts for the show, but not having watched it, I wouldn't know if they've all be done or not. But one virtue that the eating and bug-hugging events have for this show is that they are easily quantifiable as part of the contest. Measuring how many inches eaten of yak intestine or how many minutes lain in the snake pit is an easy way to gauge the competition. How would you even judge a public speaking event? Fewest flubs?

Some of the other stunts play on a more traditional fear: heights. I'll say that I really don't like heights in certain circumstances, because I get the compulsion to jump. (If anybody has a link to more on this, let me know; I'm interested in it but can't find a link right now.) The clips of Fear Factor I've seen have contestants doing things like walking high tightropes or jumping off buildings, but always with lots of safety gear. This makes me wonder two things. First, how afraid would I be if I had an intricate safety harness backing me up? And second, what happens if the safety gear fails?

That was the thought that really triggered this post: What would happen if somebody died on Fear Factor? Obviously, they wouldn't show it on NBC, but doubtless the footage would find its way to the internet. But would they cancel the show for good? My guess is yes, partly because of the bad image the show would have and partly because the resulting legal hassles would make the show too expensive to be worth airing. But note that several films have been released even after a death during filming (The Crow and Twilight Zone: The Movie are two that come immediately to mind, and here's a gratuitous reference to legendary stunt man Dar Robinson, who died on a movie set.)

This post got interrupted by some real work, so I lost my train of thought and I don't remember my point, if I had one at all. But I still wonder how "afraid" the contestants could be if they know what the show is all about and volunteer anyway. Maybe they should just tell the contestants that someone died trying this stunt, to introduce that element of uncertainty.

I think I would like to see some more personalized challenges. Say, like telling an avid golfer, "We'll give you fifty swings, and if you don't get a hole-in-one, you can never play golf again." Or tell the jealous husband, "You know how you and your wife have those 'freebies' for extramarital flings, and hers is Brad Pitt and yours is (for symmetry's sake) Jennifer Aniston? Well, if you don't eat at least two dozen raw gazelle testicles, we're going to give her a weekend in Hollywood with Brad Pitt." Or tell the Fortune 500 CEO, "Do your own and your company's taxes, without cheating, or we'll send you to a federal penitentiary." Really put the pressure on!

In case you're wondering, I think my deepest fear is probably ignorance, or more precisely, the inability to learn. That's why Flowers for Algernon scared the bejesus out of me. I can't imagine knowing that I'm incapable of knowing more. But that's kind of hard to fit into a tv show. So I guess I won't be on Fear Factor anytime soon.

I'm not usually in the practice of Insta-linking to posts on other blogs and saying "Go read this." But...

Phil Carter at Intel Dump had this really strong post yesterday about a White House memo that, in Carter's words, "appears designed to find every legal workaround possible to justify coercive interrogation and torture at Guantanamo Bay." This is must-read, big-deal stuff that is obviously not going to be the biggest story in the news this week.

Be sure to follow the trackbacks to Carter's post for more, and see also this post from Eric Muller at Is That Legal? asking some important questions.

I had a longish rant here but decided to erase it, because others are saying it better than I can. I'll just say that all this leaves me troubled.

My apologies to anyone who has suffered from the dearth of Fitz-Hume posts lately. I have been compelled to attend to other priorities in my life. My judge retired on June 3rd, and his retirement forced me to devote a significant portion of my time at work to actually finishing out his caseload. My typical work week could normally be summed up like Peter's job in Office Space: I'd say that in a typical week I only really do about 15 minutes of actual work. Not so for the past several weeks.

And in my non-work time, I have been consumed with looking for a job. My current tenure ends on August 12 (a scant 2 months from now) and I have yet to find a new job. Not that I have not tried. By my count, I have submitted more than 150 resumes and applications to a variety of judges, government agencies, and private firms. I have had one interview in the last 18 months but no offers. As you might imagine, the prospect of being unemployed come August is not appealing. Thus, for the foreseeable future, my posts will be sporadic or non-existent, at least until I have obtain new employment.

So there's the update. I must get back to the job hunt. Wish me well. I look forward to posting again just as soon as is practicable. I will now return you to your originally scheduled program already in progress.

I noticed that a lot of the links in my blogroll have the word "appeal" in them. There's How Appealing and Southern Appeal and Abstract Appeal and Criminal Appeal and Direct Appeal. Soon, I'll be adding all the other "appeal" blogs out there:

**Ally McAppeal: The shortest skirts in the blogosphere!

**Sex Appeal: No skirts at all; coverage of legal issues in the adult entertainment industry.

**Sax Appeal: Two words: Jazz law.

**Sox Appeal: News from the Chicago White Sox and Boston Red Sox, written by Carlton Fisk.

**Tex Appeal: A new group blog from Lonestar Larry, the Curmudgeonly Clerk, and our own Fitz-Hume.

**Tax Appeal: "Something-D-O-O economics...anyone? Anyone?"

**Appeal, Schlemiel: The latest law news...in Yiddish.

**The Freeappealin' Bob Dylan: Legal themes in Bob Dylan songs.

**Appealercrombie & Fitch: I would tell you what this one is about, but I'm not cool enough to click on it.

**Dude, Where's My Appeal?: No, seriously, dude...wait, what was I talking about?

**Banana Appeal: Covering legal news from Central America.

**Let's Make An Appeal: You can have the error you've preserved, or you can trade it in for a new claim subject to plain error review, or you can have what's behind Curtain #3.

I know you don't consider BTQ your first source for news, so by now you should know that former President Ronald Reagn has died.

I have spoken before of my admiration of Nancy Reagan for "her constancy for the former President and her steadfastness in downplaying attempts to canonize the man." She has some nice comments about her husband in Time this week. As sad as this time must be for her and the family, and as willingly and lovingly as she has assumed the burden of caring for Reagan, I'm sure it's a relief for them that he's no longer suffering.

As for Reagan himself, I'm not sure what to say. He was the first political figure I was really aware of. And after all this time, I still can't draw a bead on him. He seems either to be the most simple or most complicated of men. Much like our current President, I suppose. And by "simple" I don't mean "dumb." I mean basic, uncomplicated, un-Nixonian, normal.

I guess my bottom-line assessment is this. Whatever Reagan's achievements might have been, I'm not ready to start taking bids for blasting a new face onto Mount Rushmore. And while I understand the love that Reagan devotees have for the man, I'm bracing myself for them going overboard. I've heard there is even a push to rename California "Reaganland." Okay, I made that up, but you believed it for a second, didn't you? I have a feeling Reagan's successor would support it.

But let's take Nancy's cue and remember that Reagan was just a man, not some superhero. The way I see it, doesn't it say so much more about Reagan's accomplishments that he could have such a revolutionary vision for government and still be an ordinary guy (who acted with chimps) and had some faults?

I'm certainly not prepared to call Reagan the greatest president we've had. But I think the desire to turn Reagan into a saint depends on that characterization. To use a sports analogy, even if Reagan is Babe Ruth, you still have Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Shoeless Bill Clinton....well, you get the idea. No one's trying to call baseball "Ruthball," even if he was the best to ever play the game. For me National Airport will always be "National Airport," and I'm perfectly content to have Reagan's lasting physical legacy be the largest government building in Washington. Isn't his real legacy an idea? You don't need a groundbreaking and a cheap plaque to call that "Reaganism." So let's celebrate a truly American life this week, but don't make me get new stationery.