Two views of the sunset, looking west over the Sierra Nevadas. I took these pics from my front porch on a couple of evenings when I had the luxury of going home for dinner. Click to enlarge.

1. What is the best thing about the city in which you live? What is the worst?

The best thing about this city is proximity to Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Nevadas. I'm within an hour's drive of about a dozen ski resorts, dozens of high mountain lakes, and miles of hiking trails. Hard to ask for more from a high desert town.

The worst part of this city is the utter lack of dining options. There's just nothing here. Lunch? Sure, but a sandwich is a sandwich. If you want a decent dinner, you must drive to Reno. And when anything in Reno is better than your hometown options, you know you've got problems.

2. Describe an idea or invention of yours that you would like to see turned into reality.

I can't claim this as an original invention or idea, but I would like customized cable bundling to become a reality. I would like cable to become a completely a la carte deal. You order and pay for only those channels that you watch. Who wouldn't support that?

3. Name an overrated author, musician, and movie. Name an underrated author, musician, and movie.

I'm not a big fan of this question and I purposefully left "blogger" off of the list because I cannot take criticism. But, let's see...overrated author: I've got nothing. Overrated musician: I think that Dave Matthews Band is not so hot. Lots of people like them and at best I am "meh" about DMB. Overrated movie: Meet the Fokkers. Are you kidding me? That movie was so hyped, so anticipated, and so mediocre. I don't really remember laughing at all.

Underrated author: Hell, I have no idea. Underrated musician: I'm drawing a blank. Well, Lyle Lovett should be more popular than he is, but maybe he doesn't want to be, or maybe the superficial nature of society prevents him from achieving greater commercial success. Underrated movie: Ronin. A tense, well-written espionage movie with one of the best car chases this side of Bullitt.

4. If your life were a sitcom slated to air in the fall, what would the show be called? Who would you cast in the starring role? And for extra credit, give us a brief treatment of the show.

A show about a burned out lawyer who moves to a small town to try and work out his life issues? Yeah, I liked this one better the first time when it was called Ed.

Okay, okay. The show would be called Legal Division and would star Rob Lowe or Jeremy Piven as a newly-hired attorney working for the legislature. I see it as sort of like Spin City meets Office Space.

5. When is the fun supposed to start?

Soon, I hope.

I've got nothing to write that's worth reading, but I have an outlet for my musings and I will make full use of it.

- I'm sitting in my office "on call" in a manner of speaking, waiting until they (they being my cruel taskmasters) decide to (1) give me more work or (2) let me go home. Even casual readers of this site know which option they will choose. The only question is whether the assignments will be due immediately or only first thing tomorrow morning.

- TP asked me to name two favorite Seinfeld episodes and make the case for them. I'm too tired, frankly, to make much of a case for either one, but two of my all-time favorites are "The Tape" and "The Pitch (Part 1)." The Tape kills me because of all of the duplicity - George is supposed to keep a secret from Jerry and then Jerry is supposed to keep that secret from Elaine. It also features George in a cowboy hat. The end scene is a classic: Kramer, George and Jerry staring at Elaine

George: Stick around a while.
Jerry: It's early.
Kramer: We'll order Chinese.

I enjoy The Pitch Part 1 because George is in full-on George mode. His defense of his artistic integrity ("You're not an artist and you have no integrity.") directly on the heels of lying about his off-Broadway play "La Cocina" is absolute brilliant. George at his most unhinged is probably the most satisfying part of any episode for me.

- Some guy named "Mat" emailed a list of questions to me the other day which I will now paraphrase and answer:

1. Which of your friend's girlfriends would you sleep with and why?

Clearly, the man is a casual (perhaps even a first-time) reader because it should be apparent to all that I have few real life friends and the guy friends I do have - I won't mention any names - don't have girlfriends. So, putting aside for the moment what a horrible question this is, my answer is none of them because, among other reasons, no such girlfriends exist.

2. Would I rather give up taste or touch?

Certainly a better question than the first one, but not one to which I will devote much thought. I choose not to relinquish either. Loss of the sense of touch would render life very dangerous and dull. Not only am I not interested in losing the tactile sensations that protect me from harm, but loss of touch would steal from me the pleasurable sensations that make life worth living. Along with the obvious drawbacks from loss of touch, eating would be ruined, physical activity of any kind would be foreclosed to me, and for a guy who has a propensity for burning himself in the kitchen, the loss of touch would likely prove fatal.

Giving up taste / smell is likewise unpalatable to me. I like tastes and I like smells. They are a necessary part of my existence. No need to go into details, really. Suffice it to say that I require the sense of taste / smell. So, basically, my answer to this one is to take a page from W's book, ignore the question and stumble through some lame "answer" that isn't any kind of answer at all.

3. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I couldn't care less. All I know is what I've been told, and what I've been told is that God put dinosaur bones in the Earth to test our faith. The world is really only 4,000 years old and if you believe in dinosaurs, hold hands before marriage, or drink sody-pop then you are going straight to hell. The baby Jesus only loves you if you live in fear.

- I've been listening to the songs you guys submitted for the Blogroll Play List. There's some good stuff in there. Right now it's a matter of organizing the songs in a meaningful way. I've asked Milbarge to rehash his thoughts on mixtapes in a future post and I'll link to Mr. FunBall's guest post on mixtapes soon. I hope to have the Play List out by the weekend.

- Speaking of FunBall, he directed me to 20 Questions With Darth Vader. The Dark Lord of the Sith correctly read my mind - TWICE! - needing only 19 questions the first time and 20 questions the second time. Frightening stuff - or he read my post from the other day and easily deduced that I have coffee on the brain.

- As you can see, I've really hit a wall with post topics. Frankly, I've got nothing. Well, not nothing, exactly. I've been working on several short stories lately, but I'm not sure that the blog is really the place to post that kind of writing - I may have to look elsewhere for an outlet for the more creative stuff I've been doing (no reason to punish our loyal readers with my "serious" writing). And I have been slowly piecing together a post which should allay any fears that I am the darling of the metrosexualist lobby. Whether I'll ever get around to posting that one remains to be seen. Oh, and I am working on a photo-blog of my running route, but I need daylight to finish that series.

In the meantime, I'll gladly take any photo-blogging requests you might have. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so this digital camera may soon allow me to rival Milbarge for sheer volume of content.

Carnitas are traditional Mexican tacos filled with slow roasted pork. These tacos are served by street vendors in Mexico. The vendors roast the pork shoulder on a vertical spit rotating next to an open gas flame. When you order the tacos the vendor slices off a chunk of meat, chops it and cooks it a bit longer over a griddle. The recipe below employs a different cooking method. Decidedly not low fat, but still very delicious.

Carnitas
(parts of this recipe are borrowed from Food TV)

Ingredients for carnitas
2 pounds of lard (no, that is not a typo)
2 1/2 pounds of pork butt, trimmed and cut into 2-inch cubes
2 teaspoons salt
1/2 teaspoon freshly ground pepper
1 cup Chile de Arbol salsa
24 corn tortillas
1 onion, chopped
1 cup of cilantro leaves (no stems), coarsely chopped
1 lime, cut into wedges

Ingredients for the Chile de Arbol salsa
1/2 pound of roma tomatoes
3/4 pound of tomatillos, husks removed and washed
1 cup (30-40) Arbol chiles
A heaping handful of chopped cilantro leaves
1 medium onion, chopped
4 garlic cloves, crushed
2 cups water or low-sodium chicken broth
1 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper

Make the salsa first. Preheat the broiler. Places the tomatoes and tomatillos on a baking sheet. Broil, turning occasionally until charred all over, 10 to 12 minutes. Transfer to a saucepan and add the remaining ingredients. Bring to a boil over high heat. Reduce heat and cook until onions are soft, 12 to 15 minutes. Transfer to a food processor or blender. Puree and then strain. Set aside.

To make the carnitas, melt the lard in a large deep saucepan over medium heat. Add the pork, salt and pepper, and simmer until tender, being careful not to crisp the meat, about 1 hour and 10 minutes. Remove the pork with a slotted spoon and set aside to cool. When the pork is cool enough to handle, shred the meat with two forks. Remove and discard any remaining fat. Transfer the meat to a medium saucepan, add 1 cup of the salsa and cook over medium heat, stirring frequently, 5 to 8 minutes.

To serve, heat the corn tortillas and wrap them in a towel to keep them warm and soft. For each taco, stack 2 tortillas, layer with the meat, top with the onion and cilantro, and squeeze a little lime juice over the top. Serve with the remaining salsa if desired.




As an alternative to or accompaniment to carnitas, let me recommend carne asada tacos - a Tex-Mex variation on the traditional Mexican taco. The idea is similar, but the filling for these tacos is grilled flank steak.

Carne Asada Tacos

1 skirt steak or flank steak, rinsed and patted dry
fresh corn tortillas
1 onion, diced
1 cup of cilantro leaves, chopped (no stems!)
1 lime, cut into wedges
1 avocado, chopped
Chile de Arbol salsa (see above)

for marinade
1 teaspoon vegetable oil
juice of one lemon
juice of one orange
juice of two limes
1 teaspoon of granulated garlic
1/3 cup of chopped cilantro leaves (no stems!)
1/3 cup of chopped green onion
1 teaspoon of salt
1/2 teaspoon of freshly ground black pepper

Place the steak in a large resealable plastic bag. Combine the ingredients for the marinade and pour over the steak. Seal the bag and place it in a shallow baking dish or pan. Allow the meat to marinate overnight in the refrigerator.

Remove the meat from the refrigerator and start your fire or light the burners on your grill. You will want to grill the steak over high heat. Once your fire is ready, remove the steak from the plastic bag and grill over direct high heat for maybe 8 to 10 minutes, turning once halfway through cooking time. You want to pull the steak off the grill when it is medium rare in the center. Remove the steak to your cutting board and cover loosely with foil for about 10 minutes (the meat will continue to cook while tented - you want to serve flank steak at no more than medium or it will be too tough to eat). During this time you can assemble your other ingredients.

Once the meat has rested, slice the meat into thin slices across the grain and then chop the slices into chunks. To serve, layer 2 corn tortillas, fill with meat, onion, cilantro, and avocado. Top with a squeeze of lime juice and a drizzle of salsa.

[The following post is a weekly update from Feddie and Eugene, the authors of the Coalition for Darfur blog]

A few weeks ago, PBS aired a made-for-HBO film about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda called "Sometimes in April." Following the presentation, journalist Jeff Greenfield held a panel discussion about world's last of response to Rwanda and the similarities to the current genocide in Darfur.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz was among the panelists and during the discussion, made the following points

Wolfowitz: One of the things that bears thinking about from the Rwanda experience, and everyone of these cases is different, and I think one ought to recognize that. But it seems to me that the thing that stuck me as unique about the Rwanda experience, on the one hand the sheer horror of it, with the exception of the Holocaust and even then at a sort of per day rate, this was probably the worst genocide ever. But secondly, and we'll never know this for sure because you never know the course that wasn't taken, but it was seem as though a relatively modest military action aimed at eliminating that regime could have ended the genocide and ended it rather quickly.

What strikes me and seems to me is true in Rwanda, is true in Bosnia, is true in World War II, is true in Cambodia, this kind of systematic, one-sided elimination of a population is not done spontaneously by another ethnic group, it's organized by a criminal gang and if that criminal gang had been eliminated in Rwanda the genocide would have ended.

But that comes to my last point which is, then it depends on how do you conceive of the peacekeeping operation and nobody proposed, that I know of, going in and taking out the government.

Greenfield: Should they have?

Wolfowitz: I think so, yes.

[edit]

Wolfowitz: This is not a simple problem. The Rwanda case, I think, is striking because it at least it looks in hindsight to have been so simple to prevent something that was so horrible. But most of these cases are complicated ... In a way the Rwanda case is helpful for thinking about things but in some ways it's misleading because most cases are a little more difficult.

Wolfowitz openly argued that the world should have intervened in Rwanda, but then makes the strikingly disingenuous argument that Rwanda was somehow "simpler" than the current situation in Darfur.

Rwanda is only "simpler" because it is now over and hindsight allows us to see just how, where and why the world failed. But in 1994, with bodies filling the streets, Rwanda did not appear to be simple at all

U.S. Opposes Plan for U.N. Force in Rwanda By PAUL LEWIS 12 May 1994 The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, May 11 -- As rebel forces of the Rwanda Patriotic Front pressed their attack today against the capital, Kigali, the United States criticized a new United Nations plan to send some 5,500 soldiers into the heart of the Rwandan civil war to protect refugees and assist relief workers, saying it is more than the organization can handle.

[edit]

While not excluding any course of action, Ms. Albright said it remains unclear whether African countries are ready or able to send forces for such a dangerous and complicated mission at the epicenter of a raging civil war.

Ten years later, it now appears as if a few relatively simple measures backed by the necessary political will could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But in 1994, the genocide appeared massively complex and that complexity was routinely cited as a justification for not intervening.

And Wolfowitz is making exactly the same justification for not intervening in Darfur today.

Were there feasible solutions to Rwanda? In hindsight, the answer is obviously "yes." Are there feasible solutions to Darfur? It is hard to say because right now it seems so complex, but there certainly are if the world powers can muster the will to address them.

But unfortunately, it is far more likely that ten years from now, when perhaps another one million Africans have needlessly died, we'll wonder why we did not act when "it looks in hindsight to have been so simple to prevent something that was so horrible."

Seen on Amazon today, the cover of Jessica Cutler's kiss (and more) and tell book about life on Capitol Hill, The Washingtonienne. The reviews I've seen have been decent, but I'll probably wait for the paperback or the Cinemax-After-Dark movie. I'm sure it will be eagerly read by the parents of all those fresh-faced college students who are spending their first summers away from home interning on the Hill. But the thing that really made me chuckle was Amazon's assessment: "Reading Level: All Ages." Uh, not from what I've heard.

Via Howard Bashman, I see this en banc opinion from the Ninth Circuit which rejects a claim that the grand jury has a nullification right; in other words, the judge can instruct the grand jury that it "should" indict when it finds probable cause exists, and should not question the wisdom of the law under which it indicts. The dissent, by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins (joined by four judges in this case and sharing a position with Judge Alex Kozinski), did something I thought was noteworthy, though.

On page 52 of the pdf copy of the opinion, in the dissent's footnote 6, Judge Hawkins notes that "grand jurors seem to instinctively feel this concern" about the wisdom of the laws. For this he cites "a question posed recently to an ethics columnist." The question was "I'm on a grand jury. We've been given cases involving someone who views pornography on his computer behind locked doors and someone caught in the presence of marijuana. The assistant D.A. indicates that I shouldn't abstain from voting, but my conscience won't let me sleep if I make felons out of such people. May I vote not to indict?"

The "ethics columnist" is, of course, "The Ethicist" from the New York Times, Randy Cohen. Judge Hawkins doesn't reprint Cohen's answer, so I will. (Copyright sidenote: I feel okay reprinting the question in the column because I'm really quoting the Ninth Circuit opinion, which is in the public domain. And I feel okay reprinting the question and some of the answer, which together make up about half of Cohen's March 20, 2005, column, under the Fair Use doctrine because I'm criticizing it and making no commercial use of it. I don't think I'm doing a disservice to the spirit of Cohen's answer by not reprinting it in full, though. I tracked the article down via Lexis.)

Cohen's answer to the semi-anonymous grand juror ("L.D., Fountain Hills, Ariz."):

Ethically, you may. Legally, it's debatable. [snip] One reason we use grand juries instead of going directly to trial is to forestall overzealous prosecutors. [snip] Thus, a sensible and ethical grand jury would discourage a D.A. from throwing the book at every jaywalker in town while he ignored murderers. Grand jurors should not merely rubber-stamp the government's wishes but should act as the conscience of the community -- particularly important in a forum where the accused cannot present a defense or call witnesses or introduce evidence.

Cohen backs up these assertions with quotes from "a capital defender with New York's Legal Aid Society" and "head of the New York Civil Liberties Union." Color me shocked at their position. He does get the opposite viewpoint (that grand jurors have a duty to indict if probable cause exists) from "a special assistant county attorney in Phoenix." And although Cohen says that the "former chief of the New York State Attorney General's civil rights bureau" "finds middle ground," I don't see it in the former A.G.'s quote: "''You may not try to accomplish in the jury room what you've failed to achieve at the ballot box."

I'm not the Cohen-hater that some bloggers are. (I don't live my life by his guidance, though.) But this answer strikes me as woefully incomplete. Perhaps we can attribute it to space limitations, but in the printed answer, Cohen does not back up -- aside from tossing in warring quotes from partisans -- his initial declaration that "[e]thically, you may" refuse to indict someone for violating a law you think is unwise.

To begin with, while Cohen does note that the grand juror can presumably vote for a lesser charge, that doesn't solve the dilemma. The distinction between misdemeanors and felonies isn't based on how serious the grand juror thinks the offense is. And while Cohen says that the grand juror may "honorably find [the law] not applicable in this case," there is no reason to think the grand juror is that misinformed about the prosecutor's evidence. L.D. made it apparent that the prosecution has met the techincal requirements for establishing probable cause that the defendants committed felonies, but that she doesn't like the consequences that flow from that. I concede that advice columnists might float hypotheticals for the benefit of other readers, but if the grand juror didn't think the elements had been established, there's no moral dilemma at all. Cohen also fails to catch the slip in the grand juror's logic chain: L.D.'s vote will not "make" the indicted defendants felons -- we have trials for that. For all of this talk about instructions to juries, we can't forget the one we give petit jurors: "An indictment is not evidence of guilt."

Clearly, given the close vote in the Ninth Circuit, Cohen is right to state that the legal merits of grand jury nullification are "debatable." But why is the ethical argument any less in doubt? How is it so clearly ethical to insert your own conscience for that of the "community," as established in the criminal laws? I think there are strong ethical arguments on both sides of the equation, but Cohen takes the ethical conundrum as answered and moves on to the legal question, when he should have done the opposite. Assuming grand jurors may nullify, when are they ethically permitted to do so? Assuming grand jurors may not nullify, are there times when they may still do so ethically, and are there times they must do so for the sake of ethics? Those are the real questions, and Cohen doesn't come close to them. (A fair criticism of me is that I won't right now, either, but then again, I don't call myself "The Ethicist.")

I've mentioned this before, somewhere wayback in the wayback of this blog, but I think the issue of role-dependent ethics is a critically important one for lawyers who want to think about the moral aspects of their profession. To sum it up brutally, the question is whether one may do things because of his or her role that would be unethical if not for the role. For example, some lawyers think it's okay to lie -- or "mislead" -- as part of their representation, whether it's criminal defense or prosecution or, say, proclaiming a "bottom line" offer in a negotiation when you know your client will go lower if need be. Lying is unethical, and I don't think it's enough to say that because you carry a bar card you don't have to face the moral consequences of doing it.

There's a lot more to discuss in that arena, but I think it can apply to grand jurors too. What is the ethical thing to do? How is that changed by virtue of your role as a grand juror? And if your grand jury service is inconsistent with ethics or morality, which should you give up?

Dateline: Milwaukee. Partisans of Marquette University sports teams are fighting mad over the school's decision to change its nickname yet again. In the last decade, the teams have gone from "Warriors" to "Golden Eagles." For reasons unknown to logic, the school decided this spring to change it to "Gold." Furor ensued. Backpedaling adroitly, school officials have decided to let alumni and faculty vote on a new nickname from a slate of candidates. The legal community clamors for news of Seventh Circuit Judge Terence Evans's vote (and does he get to vote twice for getting both degrees from MU?). The reason? Judge Evans's previously-revealed interest in school mascot nicknames. (See pages 4 and 5 for mentions of Marquette.)

Dateline: Santa Maria, California. Jay Leno will testify today in the Michael Jackson trial. First of all, I love how CNN feels like it has to identify Leno as "comedian and talk show host Jay Leno." Does anybody not know who Leno is? And for that matter, is it really accurate to still call Michael "pop star Michael Jackson"? Isn't there a statute of limitations on how long a singer can be called "popular" if it's been many years since he's had a hit? What's next -- "teen heartthrob Frankie Avalon?" "Television sensation Ed Sullivan"? Finally, if I were the prosecutor in the Jackson case, I would read back every one of Leno's jokes about Michael Jackson during cross-examination. First, that would make him look like a normal person, provided he has any sense of delivery or timing (he can skip Leno's lame repetitions of the punch lines for the audience members who only turned up their hearing aids when they saw everyone else laughing). Second, it will fill the jurors in on all the jokes they've been missing, and they will appreciate that. Third, if any of the jurors reveal that they know the jokes in advance, the judge will know they haven't been paying heed to the admonition to avoid coverage of the trial! Fourth, since you're going to ask about relevance, here's my answer. Presumably, the defense won't be dumb enough to ask Leno for a character assessment of Jackson during direct. So if the prosecution starts to tell the jokes, the defense may well object that the questions go beyond the scope of the direct examination. But Leno's testimony is expected to be that the accuser's family tried to shake him down for money (essentially) was that the accuser sounded suspicious but never asked for money, and but Leno called the cops about it. So that's basically a statement that he thinks the kid's family is a bunch of scam artists, and relevant because that's the defense theory of the accusations here. But telling all the jokes with punch lines suggesting Jackson is guilty would undermine Leno's testimony because they're inconsistent. "Did you tell any jokes about the kid? Did you accuse the kid of scamming Jackson in any of your jokes? How many jokes did you tell suggesting Jackson is guilty? If you didn't trust the kid's family, why tell jokes about a man being on trial for his life who might be falsely accused? Is that a joke to you?" In sum, the jokes are "Jackson = guilty"; the testimony is "kid = huckster." Something doesn't follow. (Well, in theory, I guess both could be true, but that would mean that Jackson has monumentally bad judgment about whom to molest.) Now, to be sure, I don't expect the prosecution to go down this road, but it would be interesting to see Leno under a stringent cross. Update: I made a minor correction above, since I wrote this before I saw reports of Leno's testimony. I also noticed his lines from Monday's show as reported by the Post: "Leno quipped: 'I was called by the defense. Apparently they've never seen this program.' Referring to the current heat wave gripping Southern California, Leno said he's been 'sweating like a Cub Scout' at Jackson's Neverland Ranch."

Dateline: Washington. I'll let readers come up with their own transition from the last story, but lawmakers nationwide are scrambling to close loopholes in Medicaid that had taxpayers paying for Viagra for some convicted sex offenders. A quick glance through some news aggregators turns up stories of about 200 instances each in Texas, New York, and Florida. Department of Health and Human Services officials say that states have the authority to refuse funds if the drugs aren't "medically appropriate" for particular patients, but of course we'll end up with blanket bans. I'm not "in favor" of handing out ED pills like M&M's to sex offenders. (Aside: I have seen plenty -- plenty -- of cases in which the guy drives to the rendezvous point with a digital camera and a bottle of Viagra -- it's like there's a checklist out there or something.) But I would rather see states use existing laws to handle this rather than pass a soundbite law that's not necessary.

Dateline: Indianapolis. Here is a pretty evenhanded and thoughtful story about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who will be presiding over his third execution in five months in office. The inmate received some publicity recently by asking to donate his liver to his sister.

Dateline: Chicago. The Illinois Supreme Court admitted a lawyer to the bar eighteen years after it rejected him for having poor moral character. In short (although you should read the whole thing), he was a thug and drug dealer (among other crimes) who lied on his applications to get into school. Still, he managed to turn his life around in law school. In 1987, the Illinois Supremes seemed to bend over backwards to avoid admitting him. He eventually went to Arizona and became a nationally-recognized expert on DUI defense. And now the court has reversed itself, so everyone's happy.

Dateline: Jackson, Miss. Where was this judge when we needed him to shut Pauly Shore up? In the ongoing bribery trial of former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, the federal judge handling the case fined a prospective juror $5000 for discussing the case. I bet that sent a message to the rest of the venire. I have never heard of a juror fine that high in any case. Needless to say, the prospective juror was excused.

Dateline: Providence. I'm off on the road to Rhode Island! The first line of this story (reg. req'd) says it all: "Sex for money isn't illegal in Rhode Island as long as the sex takes place indoors." You can't solicit outdoors (such as from a street corner or car), but inside anything goes, thanks to a loophole in the law. All fun aside, though, it looks like some of the massage parlors that have sprung up because of this are exploiting the women in them, and that's not any better than a pimp on the street. But there's no reason the state can't go after the exploiters without having to change the current law on prostitution, is there?

Dateline: San Antonio. Don't mess with Texas, they say, and I guess that goes especially for Texans' boots. And probably double for the boots of the Texas legislature. A San Antonio bootmaker was arrested after failing to deliver custom boots ordered by several Texas lawmakers. If you're looking for dumb criminals, this might take the cake.

Dateline: Mayberry. The bootstrapping flim-flam man reminded me of the classic "Andy Griffith Show" episode "Those Gossipin' Men," in which a traveling shoe salesman comes to town. Aunt Bee sets out to prove to Andy that men are as gossipy as women, so she spreads the rumor that the shoe salesman is really a Hollywood talent scout. So all the men line up to get shod and audition, and wind up paying for a lot of shoes and eating a lot of crow. But the news from Mayberry is sad today, because of the passing this weekend of Howard Morris, who played mountain hooligan Ernest T. Bass. Bass only showed up in a few episodes, but was one of the show's best and most memorable characters. His battles with Barney, who always summed up Ernest with "He's a nut," were priceless comedy gold. Morris went on to become a noted Hollywood writer and director, but always embraced the wacky Ernest T. character, showing up at fan fests regularly and having a lot of fun with the role. (I think my favorite of his episodes was the one where Ernest wanted to join the Army so he could get a uniform to impress the ladies.) So long, Ernest T.

In response to my post detailing my recently renewed love affair with coffee, TP asks, "10 cups of coffee a day? Good lord, FH. I absolutely love coffee, and am a complete coffee snob, but that seems a bit much. Why not skip the coffee and go right for the coke? What kind of coffee you drinkin', anyway?"

T to the H to the L followed up with fifty questions of her own, including, "Yes, F-H, I'm also interested in this coffee you're consuming. What kind is it? Is this work coffee or some sort of fancy metro blend? Do your limbs shake by the end of the day? What if you miss a cup or...seven? Do you have withdrawals? And what are the logistics of drinking coffee in the shower? How do you keep the coffee warm and unsullied by shower water? I'm just baffled by this whole process. Are you having an affair with Juan Valdez?"

Being the good blog host that I am, and not one to delay in answering the burning questions presented by our good readers, I will address each of their questions in turn.

Why not skip the coffee and go right for the coke?

For one thing, I don't make the big bucks like you fancy high-priced private lawyers. I'm a public servant, but not in the Marion Barry mold.

For another thing, it's because I don't want to look like this. Or this. Or end up like this. And for the love of coffee, I don't want to turn into this guy.

What kind of coffee am I drinking anyway? Is this work coffee or some sort of fancy metro blend?

No. NO. It is not some fancy metro blend, nor do I drink it out of a special cup. I have four or five kinds of coffee in the freezer at home, but that's because I like a little variety in my coffee. I have one can of coffee and chicory from Cafe du Monde for those times when I'm in a N'awlins kind of mood (which isn't often). I bring the basic Folgers on fishing and backpacking trips, but for these relaxing times, I make it Suntory Starbucks times: shade-grown Mexican, Serena Organic Blend, Yukon Blend, and Sumatra Blend. I'm no coffee snob, I don't consider Starbucks the be-all end-all of coffees, but I do happen to like a few of their whole bean products.

The coffee I drink at work is straight from the cafeteria. It's drinkable, but only just. It gets the job done and satisfies my craving, but I would prefer something else.

Do my limbs shake by the end of the day?

Yes, if you must know. In fact, last night at a meeting with my boss I had to place the draft of my work on her desk so she could read it because my hand was shaking so badly.

What if you miss a cup or...seven? Do you have withdrawals?

I can exist on 2 to 3 cups per day, but it's hard to function without at least 5 cups. I feel a bit like a junkie because after an hour or two my body starts sending signals that it is displeased with the lack of coffee. I try to listen to my body so as to avoid any nasty withdrawal symptoms.

And what are the logistics of drinking coffee in the shower? How do you keep the coffee warm and unsullied by shower water?

The coffee sits on my bathroom countertop while I stand in the shower. I gulp it down as soon as I step out of the shower. Really, it's more of a post-shower event rather than an in-shower event. Still, it's not hard to drink coffee in the shower. You just step out from under the water, take a drink, rinse and repeat.

Are you having an affair with Juan Valdez?

Pass. I'm not sure that people are really interested in whether I'm having an affair with Juan Valdez or anyone else.

There is no way that this post can live up to the hype. At first, I had grandiose plans involving recipes, a breakdown of regional Mexican fare, and a pair of digressions on New Mexican and Californian cuisine. But in the end, it was just too much. I decided to scrap the whole project and start over. And then I was taken away from this post - AGAIN - by the Man. At this point, I've resigned myself to a short, lackluster post because otherwise I'll never get the chance to finish it.

TP asked for a post explaining the difference between Mexican cuisine and Tex-Mex cuisine. As Dylan has explained many times, there is nothing so pretentious as a blog post in which the author holds himself out as "explaining" anything. So, rather than explain how traditional Mexican and Tex-Mex cuisines differ, I will provide my opinion on the main differences in the two culinary traditions.

Let me first qualify this by saying that Mexican cuisine is quite varied and regional influences are significant. There is not a single "Mexican" cuisine just as there is not a single "American" cuisine. So, for the purposes of this post when I refer to Mexican cuisine understand that I am referring to primarily to the food of northern and central Mexico - and then only my personal experiences with said foods.

Mexican cuisine is both simpler and more complicated than Tex-Mex. Vegetables, pork, chicken, fruits and nuts, and fresh cheeses play more prominent roles in Mexican fare than in standard Tex-Mex cooking. Braising is more common in Mexican cuisine, while Tex-Mex features a lot of grilling. Tex-Mex is essentially fusion cuisine (but then, so is Mexican cuisine). It's a blend of Mexican ingredients, cooking styles and flavors with ranch-style cooking and that most ranch-style of ingredients: beef.

That one word - beef - represents the biggest difference between Mexican and Tex-Mex. Traditional Mexican food uses pork or chicken, even fish, but beef is not a common ingredient. Of course there are Mexican beef dishes, but a good rule of thumb is that if you're eating beef, you're eating Tex-Mex.

Aside from beef, one of the more important differences between Mexican and Tex-Mex are the tortillas. Mexican cooking makes use almost exclusively of corn tortillas, while flour tortillas feature prominently in Tex-Mex cooking. In all my travels to Mexico - dining out, eating in people's homes, eating street vendor food - never once have I encountered a flour tortilla. Now, I am sure they exist in Mexican cooking, but they are rarely seen. I stayed with a very well-to-do Mexican family in central Mexico for about 6 weeks one summer while I studied Spanish at the local university. In all that time, corn tortillas (made fresh at the neighborhood tortilleria) were the only kind of tortillas I was served. Contrast that with Tex-Mex, where you can get corn tortillas in one of two ways: fried and served as tortilla chips (another food I've never seen in Mexico) or fried and served as tacos. For the most part, Tex-Mex dishes are served with flour tortillas - think burritos, soft tacos, enchiladas, and fajitas.

Another difference is that pinto beans are more important to Tex-Mex cooking than to traditional Mexican food. Black beans are a staple of Mexican food. Pinto beans and refritos are just not as common south of the border. Pinto beans served with cheese on top is definitely a Tex-Mex concoction. Speaking of cheese, Mexican cooking sparingly utilizes creamy fresh cheeses like queso fresco and queso asadero, while Tex-Mex piles on the cheddar, the monterrey jack, and the sour cream. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But yellow cheese and sour cream means you're dining on Tex-Mex.

That's about all I have to say (for now) on what separates traditional Mexican food from Tex-Mex. I like both cooking styles and would be hard pressed to choose a favorite. My favorite traditional Mexican dishes are carnitas and mole poblano. Carnitas are soft corn tortillas filled chunks of slow roasted pork, onion, cilantro, and lime juice. Mole poblano is a delicious, thick sauce of chiles, fruit, nuts and unsweetened chocolate served over chicken or pork. For dessert, I would follow either dish with chunks of fresh mango dusted with chile powder and served on a stick.

Without a doubt, the ultimate in Tex-Mex (though not necessarily my favorite) is steak fajitas. Fajitas are as Tex-Mex as you can get, served with ice-cold margaritas and sopapillas for dessert. My favorite Tex-Mex is probably carne quisada burritos. Carne guisada is a dish of chunks of beef simmered in a spicy gravy. Roll that up in a fresh flour tortilla and you've got something really special.

I know this post isn't the comprehensive opus TP was expecting, but it's all I have had time for. I will do my best to post recipes for all the dishes mentioned above for Thursday's recipe post (I'll even include a beef variation on carnitas for the kosher kids in the audience). Until then, if you have any questions or disagreements or comments, please feel free to chime in.

What I am doing at work: Three cases that have been just kicking me in the tail for a while. Suffice it to say that I hate diversity jurisdiction. And I'm starting to see the value of a jurisprudential approach that relieves me of having to examine legislative history. Plus, I've gotten a little manic about keeping up with Booker cases, even though that universe has expanded beyond my capacity to manage it. Other than that, not much. I'm basically working on the same stuff I was the last time you heard from me.

What I am doing at home: I've been doing some spring cleaning, and the place looks a lot better. Rearranged some furniture, got rid of a few things, stuff like that. I bought an extra-nice set of sheets for my bed, which makes a lot more difference than I would have thought. I bought an extra-nice pillow with memory foam inside it, but the darn thing is so high and stiff that I couldn't sleep -- it feels like my head is being propped up too high, and it made my neck uncomfortable. It did work well for reading in bed, though. But the overall theme is trying to straighten things up and get the place in shape, slowly but surely. It helps that I've still got some stuff in boxes that I never unpacked after I moved -- now I can just seal the boxes back up and tell myself I've started packing for my next move.

What I am reading: I just finished Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. It's interesting and enjoyable, although not life-altering or anything. Note that the authors have a blog with some good stuff as well (and a chance to win t-shirts!). I don't want to quibble with it, but the book highlighted the biggest problem I have with economists. (There's an old joke about economists and can openers that illustrates this well, too.) People don't always behave rationally, and when assessing human behavior, you can't just assume away all the inconvenient detritus. Also, I was a little confused by the section on which is more dangerous, guns or swimming pools. More specifically, the authors ask which is more dangerous to have in a home with kids, based on how many kids die from guns or pools in a year. Although they act as if it's surprising, no one reading the book should be shocked to learn that the authors' conclusion is that swimming pools are more deadly than guns. But as I recall it (I don't have the book in front of me as I write this), their data set is kid deaths divided by the total number of guns and swimming pools in the country. (Even if I've misremembered and the actual data are total guns and pools in homes with kids, my response still holds.) Given that there are a lot more guns than pools in this country, the kid-per-gun death rate looks mighty small next to the kid-per-pool death rate, thus lending credence to the notion that guns are safer than pools. But what are the numbers when you ask about actual encounters with guns and pools? How many kids playing with guns kill themselves versus how many kids going swimming wind up dead? It's like that old beef over whether flying or driving is safer (Freakonomics gets into that too) based on miles driven/flown. But my question is this: If you had to be in a crash, would you rather be in a car crash or a plane crash? How many people survive plane crashes? How many people survive car crashes? How many kids survive getting their hands on a gun? How many kids survive going swimming? Why aren't those numbers important? Similarly, in the chapters debunking "obsessive parenting," there's a lot of talk about percentages and averages and likelihoods and all. And while I concede that their numbers are probably right for the "average" kid, no parent thinks their kid is average. You don't have to understand regression analysis and the standard deviation to know that, for some marginal cases, the averages don't hold. So even if Levitt and Dubner are right that parental choices like taking the kid to the museum aren't likely to make a difference, could they deny that these acts make a difference to some kids, somewhere? Should the parents of that kid act "rationally" and not be "obsessive"? And if you don't (and can't) know in advance whether your kid will be the outlier, the one for whom those things will make a difference, and even if you know that the odds are slim that they will, shouldn't you still be "obsessive" in the hopes it will pay off, provided there's no harm in doing so? I don't know the answer to those questions, but those were just some thoughts I had by the end of the book. Still, it's thought-provoking and entertaining, and I recommend it.

What I am watching: This weekend I watched Showtime's movie Our Fathers, about the Catholic priest child abuse scandal. It reminded me of A Civil Action in some ways (I liked Our Fathers better than the movie version of A Civil Action, but it isn't as good as the book). Ted Danson does a pretty good job as a lawyer taking on the church, and Christopher Plummer is great as Cardinal Law. It's quite powerful at times, and worth watching. I hope this doesn't sound like a theme, but I also saw the Kevin Bacon movie The Woodsman. If you're not familiar with it, Bacon plays a pedophile recently released from prison and trying to start his life over. It's not bad, although there are some quite improbable plot points. Bacon does as good a job as someone could with the role. However, even he can't quite pull it off. The role depends on the viewer hating the character, yet still pulling for him to come through. We're able to accomplish the latter only because we like Bacon too much to really manage the former. It would be interesting to see the original play version, or this film with an unknown actor, to see if it could be done. In a completely different vein, I watched Primer, a really neat low-budget ($7000) sci-fi movie. Two guys invent a time machine, and much weirdness ensues. Be forewarned, though: it is very, very hard to follow. I watched it twice (once with the director's commentary on), and still didn't get a lot of it. The IMDB forum helped, but of course there are a lot of spoilers in there. The good thing is that the film is only 78 minutes long, so it's easy to watch several times. Bottom line: one of the most inventive (no pun intended) movies I've seen in a while. If Fight Club made you go "hmm," Primer will blow your mind.

What I am listening to: Well, the radio station I used to listen to changed its format from classic rock to country without warning. So I had to cast about the dial like the S.S. Minnow in search of a port. The '80s station gets some airplay, but they have a lot of commercials and play a lot of bad '80s songs, and thus is better for an occasional check-in as opposed to extended listening. There are two other classic rock stations (which might explain my old channel's decision to go country) that I'm dividing myself between these days. Neither is as good as the old one, but both are acceptable. One drawback is that the one I listen to more plays a little too much R.E.O. Speedwagon. Still, it's not awful to have the last thing you hear before heading out to start the day be "Time for Me to Fly." Enjoy having that in your head all day. Also, I've been in the mood to hear some bossa nova, after hearing it in the soundtrack to Next Stop Wonderland (a cute, quirky picture). It reminded me of the movie Bossa Nova, a charming little romantic movie (although I'm sure it's too "Americanized" to please native Brasilians). Anyway, I went to three different record shops Saturday looking for a bossa nova album but didn't see anything that looked right. I know that searching for one or two albums to define the whole genre is like asking for the one album that could introduce someone to the whole scope of rock 'n' roll, but that's what I was doing. I've got some ides if I want to order something from Amazon (and a friend from Brazil if I can get in touch with him), but if anyone has suggestions, feel free to pass them along.

What I am thinking about: What the hell to do with my life. I wish I had Sherry's courage and abilities. Well, I'm not even sure that's really the problem. I've been feeling restless and anxious for a while; out of sorts. This, as much as anything else, was the reason for my sabbatical. And it's not that I think things are better, let alone solved, now. It's just that not blogging wasn't the answer. I feel like I need to shake things up, to reorient myself, to quit treading water or whetever the heck I'm doing these days. Even on the days when I don't feel terribly bored, terribly depressed, terribly down, I don't feel happy. I don't feel like I have a direction. In the words of the troubadour Tom Petty, "I'm tired of screwin' up, tired of goin' down/ Tired of myself, tired of this town." But the difference between me and Sherry (well, among many others) is that most of the time I like my work, and I have no desire to leave the law. Even if I don't know what to do within it, I have even less of an idea of what I would do without it. _¡I know how much you love to hear my tales of angst and ennui _¡, so stay tuned.

What I am not thinking about: What the reaction of Islamic extremists would be if they knew that the Koran on my bookshelf was between a copy of the Kama Sutra and the Book of Mormon.

Shout-outs: Thanks to everyone who hung around here at BTQ during my absence, and thanks to Fitz and Nataliya for doing such a fine job, as I knew they would. Thanks again to Fitz for putting up with my contstant barrage of emails of things I should have been posting. Thanks to everyone who sent along words of encouragement. I wouldn't have come back if I didn't think anyone missed me. Okay, that's not strictly true, but let's pretend it is.

As Fitz mentioned, I will be doing double duty this summer and posting JB girls over at Soup's BBQ & Daycare. Basically, when Soup decided to go on walkabout for the summer, I seized the opportunity to help out everyone and post some pictures over there from time to time. (The first one will be up later today.) At first, I thought this might be a way to get my blogging fix, but I knew I wasn't going to be posting any real content over there, so it would be a dim substitute. (Hm. I think that was my nickname back when I was a substitute teacher.) So I decided to live by a motto I use a lot but probably don't live up to enough: "If you're gonna go, go all out." Plus, I missed blogging and I don't think I've really served any purpose by quitting. So, the upshot is, I'm back. For now.

1. Apparently, Milbarge's "sabbatical" is over, but he's decided to post at Soupie's BBQ & Daycare instead of here. That's okay. If and when he tries to return, he'll find his password will no longer give him access to BTQ. That's right, I've changed the locks. Nobody puts BTQ in the corner. Nobody (!).

Given his dedication to our little enterprise lately, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict a Summer of George for the Daycare. A smattering of spindly, bookish JB girls and one guy sitting on the couch, shirtless, eating a block of cheese.

2. I don't pay attention to the news so much anymore, but I recently saw a headline somewhere that the world is outraged because some pictures have been published of Saddam in his undies. The horror, the horror. I would not have shed a tear for Mussolini when they strung him up from the lamp post, I don't think Pinochet should have gotten away with mass murder just because he managed to live to a ripe old age, and I can't find it in me to give a damn about "the timeless art of seduction" as practiced by a monstrous butcher.

3. Have I mentioned that Mr. Two Weeks Vacation (whose office is conveniently located directly across the hall from mine) has not worked a weekend since March? I was here from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and 8 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. yesterday. When I checked my messages last night, there was a voicemail from this joker asking me if I would be interested in helping him make some repairs on his 4-Runner some afternoon this week. Serenity now! Serenity!

4. I have only 2 more weeks of work before the end of our legislative session. Of course, I'll work the equivalent of 4 weeks during that time, but after that it's smooth sailing and 40-hour weeks for a year. Once the session winds down, I hope to shift my schedule to a 4-day work week and use the long weekends to do some traveling during the summer and lots of snowboarding in the winter. As a corollary, how much coffee can one man drink? I used to be a 2 cups a day kind of guy, but lately I've found myself drinking 7, 8, even 10 cups of coffee a day. And not just in the mornings. I'm drinking coffee all day long - when I wake up in the morning, in the shower, first thing when I arrive at the office, etc. I drink coffee during my lunch break and in the afternoons. I've even taken to drinking coffee in the evenings even though it keeps me up late. I don't know what's happening to me. It's like I am addicted or something. I would try and quit, but it's just so good.

5. I decided to scrap the original draft of my post opining on the difference between Mexican food and Tex-Mex. I'm going to churn out a new draft today and have that up by early afternoon. I am also working on the musical version of my blogroll and I'll try to have that up some time this week. I know this is not the stuff a real writer would spend his time on, and I know what you're thinking, "Since when are you a writer?" My answer to you is "Writer? We're talking about a blog."

6. Finally, I have some free time today, so if there are any topics on which you'd like to see a post, please leave your request in the comments or send me an email. For a variety of reasons, I'm thinking clearly lately, but my motivation to come up with new topics? Of course! Absolute zero.