..
.. Emma Forrest makes a very good point: “Love is so delicate, you can’t afford to risk it on fake holiday.” (AP/ Nashua Telegraph, “British author had no need for Valentine’s Day rubbish,” Feb. 20, 2005; also pub. at CNN.com as “I don’t like Valentine’s Day,” Feb. 11, 2005)
The author of “Cherries in the Snow” [nice haiku image] may be in a minority among members of her gender, but I know she finds lots of support in mine. The romantic gestures that really count aren’t those coerced through commercially-motivated promotions. It’s the everyday demonstration of attention, appreciation and respect that has real meaning (sort of like haiku).
Of course, I wouldn’t risk disappointing the object of my affection (nor risk bodily harm), by totally ignoring Valentine’s Day.
George Swede‘s quiet moments of romance are more my style.
at the height
of the argument the old couple
pour each other tea
almost unseen
among the tangled driftwood
naked lovers
on the face
that last night called me names
morning sunbeam
sunrise
I forget my side
of the argument…………………… by George Swede from Almost Unseen: Selected Haiku of George Swede
sealed —
the Valentine card
she never sent
………………………………. by dagosan
A hat-tip to New York Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, for endorsing the concept of no-fault divorce in her State of the Judiciary address this week. Similar kudos to the NYC Bar for its persistence on this issue, and to the State’s Women’s Bar Association, which has finally given up it opposition to no-fault divorce. Some women’s rights groups and domestic violence
advocates, such as the NOW-NYS chapter, continue to oppose no-fault, apparently believing that the current system gives the wife more leverage over her spouse. (NYT article, Feb. 8, 2005; The Journal [Westchester] editorial; NY Daily News article, “Dying man denied divorce,” Feb. 13,
2005 )
[Ed. Note] New York State does not have “no-fault” divorce — one party must assign blame to the other or they must both agree to a Separation Agreement, and then abide by it for one year, before either can sue for a “conversion” divorce. The spouse who doesn’t want the divorce — or merely wants it less– can use the process to extract concessions from the initiating spouse that would not otherwise be available. Many lawyers help turn the process of creating a Separation Agreement between the spouses into a long, antagonizing and very expensive experience. Couples who want a quicker resolution, must often cook up phony evidence of fault (adultery, cruel treatment, etc.), a process that is far from edifying.
A Newsday article (Feb. 13, 2005) gives a good wrap-up of the issues and the players. 
The article quotes Kaye:
“After long and careful reflection, I have come to see that requiring strict ‘fault’ grounds may well simply intensify the bitterness between the parties, wasting resources, hurting children, driving residents to other states for a divorce andd elaying the inevitable dissolution of the marriage.”
Kaye also told the Legislature that revision of the Domestic Relations Law should “scrupulously safeguard the interests of the most vulnerable litigants — especially the already disadvantaged poor and victims of domestic violence — while providing needed relief from the fault requirement.”
Frankly, there still are many lawyers who oppose no-fault because they fear a loss of income. However, the principled stance of major bar groups across the state will hopefully help to make statements like the following in Newsday passe: “it might seem counterintuitive for lawyers to want to streamline a process that makes them money.”
Seven national library associations and the American Antitrust Institute sponsored an invitational symposium at Georgetown Law Center on Feb. 11, titled “Antitrust Issues in Scholarly and Legal Publishing.” The link will take you to a paper presented by AAI’s president, Bert Foer, and further information about the symposium.
Does any one know whether the NYS Bar House of Delegates acted on the proposed new definition of pro bono service that we panned here, when the met at the end of January?
A little pet peeving, brought on by the CNN.com article linked above, plus frequent visits to one of my favorite weblogs: Could people please stop using the phrase “eclectic mix.” “Mix” will do just fine; we don’t need to be told your selection is also “eclectic.”. Nobody thinks the variety found in your reading list, record collection, or weblog content is totally random. And, the 416,000 results for the Google search eclectic mix”> confirms my suspicion that the phrase is over-used. Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. Even haikuEsq gets grumpy.