Yet Another Powerful Man Thinks With HIs...

Sex and powerful men.

It's a repeat topic on this blog because it's a constant issue in the real world. That potent - ha! - combination of power and alpha male, the possibility of taming it, the headiness of proximity to it.

Understandable on the part of women (or men) who find these characteristics irresistible. (Who wouldn't?) And equally so for the alpha male, who constantly believes he can get away with sexual gratification on the sly -- that is, until the media or some whistleblower is nipping at his heels, ready to expose him.

But seriously, won't these guys ever learn? How many of them will crash and burn, just from their inability to keep their pants on? My opinion: they'll never learn, and it'll happen as long as humans populate this planet.

General Petraeus is a true American hero. He's an awesome guy, no question about it. Squared-away, career military, four-star general, CENTCOM commander, director of the CIA, and totally respected in all circles of all political stripes. (You can check out his bio on Wiki -- I always thought it was kinda neat that he grew up in my neck of the woods, right here in the Hudson Valley.)

So why -WHY? - would a straight-shooter, high-roller, man who has everything risk it all for a beautiful, brilliant woman? Did he honestly think no one would EVER know? Did he think it wouldn't matter (like, not even to his now publicly humiliated, and fairly homely, but loyal, überadmirable wife?) if he compromised himself like this?

Or did he just think with his --? Well, you know. Yeah. He did.

And what about his partner? The other woman? Was she too intoxicated by his magnetism as the alpha male to consider the 'what if?' What if her husband found out? What if her two young kids were exposed to her extra-curricular activities? What was in it for her? Instant gratification, without regard for the consequences to herself, and to her family.

A powerful man is once again toppled by sex. Again.

Ode to My Doggie

Okay, this is indirectly related to this blog.  My writing buddy - my Golden Retriever,  who always  kept me company, even during my 36-hour writing marathons -- is no longer part of the living. Her suffering and passing caused me much sorrow, and a serious slowdown in all my writing.

Jenna, my beloved Golden Retriever, after valiantly battling a slow-growing brain tumor for 14 months, finally succumbed on Thursday, August 18, 2012. At age 15, the tumor ruptured a few days earlier. Sweet and loving companion to the end, it was only in her last 48 hours that she became completely immobile and disoriented, and ultimately, just ... tired.  It was her time, much as it broke my heart.



Jenna was a devoted member of my family, providing unconditional love, sweet retriever smiles, wagging tail, and soft warm eyes that glowed with affection and kindness. She played with my children as they grew from being toddlers to college-bound young adults, ran steadily with my husband on 5-mile jaunts until she was 11, stayed by my side as multiple sclerosis stole my mobility and shoved me into a wheelchair shortly after her rescue.
  


I adopted her, sight unseen, at 11 months of age, in May 1998 -- the best Internet purchase I ever made, the best money I ever spent. Jenna came into this world with a proud lineage that included Topbrass Kennels in her background, surrendered by some fool who had no clue about the treasure s/he had. Thank goodness, because that's how she entered our lives.

While I had always been an avid advocate for neglected and abandoned animals (my kitty is a rescue also), Jenna proved even more strongly that rescuing a dog not only provides the gift of a new life to the dog, but provides a treasured addition to the recipient family.

She even rescued me, when an adverse reaction to one of many (ineffective) MS drugs caused me to go into a seizure - she barked frantically, racing up and down the stairs to summon help. Little did I know that 9 years later, I would be nurturing her through her own seizures as a brain tumor silently and slowly wrecked havoc on her brain.



Incredible dog, more human than most humans.



I was lucky to have her -- happy, healthy and wonderful -- for so long. Even in her last year of life, when she was presented with so many struggles, she faced them with the valor and intelligence of her breed, and with the love and trust for us, her family, that makes her passing so unbearably sad. There is a huge void in my life now.

**

Addendum:

I just got a puppy: a Golden Retriever/Great Pyrenees rescued from a Georgia kill shelter when she was maybe a few weeks old. The peepee poopy accidents and constant chewing are distracting me from my writing, but the breath of babyhood is wonderful.




Are Divorce Judges REALLY that mean?

Ummmm...Yeah.  They tend to be hot-headed.

You could say they max out from hearing sordid, petty, nasty personal battles, day in, day out.  Or that they get fed up with how divorcing parties often make things up (okay, LIE) to try to get an advantage in their cases. Or that they tend to be judges on the bottom of the totem pole who get assigned to matrimonial cases until they work their way up the judicial ladder over the years.

Or maybe - maybe - some people have no damn business being judges at all.

Regardless of the reasons, matrimonial judges do tend to be heavy-handed -- sometimes downright nasty. And this judge in West Virginia is, unfortunately, not an anomaly.

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/244992-video-shows-family-judge-yelling-at-pastor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APD4a347bPQ&feature=youtu.be 

I've Been A Bad Blogger

I have so many ideas for posts, but no time to write 'em. Instead, as my novel, Client Relations lumbers past its fourth year of existence, I've been alternatively leaping and slogging through revisions, up all night and then some. Hoping THIS will be my year... But I can't keep ignoring Bedroom to Courtroom like this, not when so much stuff is happening. From the John Edwards trial to the London Whale; from the latest craziness in the practice of law, to the insanity of Fifty Shades of Shit making it to the top of the bestseller list. Time to take a break from Client Relations soon, I think, or be forever dumping on myself as the world's crappiest blogger!

Razzle Dazzle- Top Fictional Lawyers

Ahh, my endless and, I hope, soon-to-be-ended, revisions to my novel, Client Relations, have made me examine my protagonist's stakes once again. And her "character arc." How she starts off as in the story, how she changes. I confess, I'm still mired in a quagmire, trying to define her.

So, after another all-nighter (no, they didn't end in college or law school), I stumbled on this fun article in the ABA Journal about the top 25 fictional lawyers of all time (excluding the awesomely righteous Atticus Finch).

I agree with 15 of them (asterisked)....

The ABA's choices are, in this order:

*1. Frank Galvin, "The Verdict"
*2. Paul Biegler, "Anatomy of a Murder"
3. Perry Mason
*4. Professor Kingsfield, "The Paper Chase"
*5. Henry Drummond, "Inherit the Wind"
6. Lawrence Preston, "The Defenders"
7. Jack McCoy, "Law and Order"
8. Rumpole, "Rumpole of the Bailey"
*9. Judge Haywood, "Judgment at Nuremberg"
*10. Sir Wilfred, "Witness for the Prosecution"
11. Alan Shore, "Boston Legal"
*12. Vinny Gambini, "My Cousin Vinny"
13. Lt. Kaffee, "A Few Good Men"
*14. Arnie Becker, "LA Law"
*15. Arthur Kirkland, "And Justice For All"
*16. Hans Rolfe, "Judgment at Nuremberg"
17. Mitchell Stephens, "The Sweet Hereafter"
18. Ally McBeal
*19. Sandy Stern, "Presumed Innocent"
*20. Patty Hewes, "Damages" - YAY,a woman!
*21. Michael Clayton
*22. Jake Brigance, "A Time To Kill"
*23. Rusty Sabich, "Presumed Innocent"
24. Forest Bedford, "I'll Fly Away"
25. Jonathan Wilk, "Compulsion"

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/the_25_greatest_fictional_lawyers

My changes?

Delete ten of the ABA picks: Perry Mason (too cardboard-y); Lawrence Preston (who?); Jack McCoy (too annoying); Rumpole (too bleah); Alan Shore (ridiculous); Lt. Kaffee (too wide-eyed); Mitchell Stephens, Forest Bedford and Jonathan Wilk (never heard of them); and Ally McBeal (OMG, seriously?)

I'd add ten other lawyers instead:
Tom Hagen,"The Godfather"(Robert Duvall's character)
Karen Crowder, "Michael Clayton"(Tilda Swinton's character)
Ellen Parsons, "Damages"(Rose Byrne's character
Gene Hackman as Jedediah Ward in "Class Action" and Avery Tolar in "The Firm"
Joe Miller,"Philadelphia" (Denzel Washington's character)
Reggie Love, "The Client"(Susan Sarandon's character)
Benjamin Stone, "Law and Order"(Michael Moriarty's character)
Alicia Florick,"The Good Wife" (Juliana Margulies' character)
Billy Flynn,"Chicago"

Time for more women lawyers...

Shaming the Divorce Bar in New Mexico- and Everywhere

The Huff Po often swipes the news from other media - usually with an uber-compelling, National Enquirer-type headline.

So when I saw a headline in Huff Po Divorce about a rogue lawyer caught on tape breaking and entering the home of his client's estranged husband, I figured it was the usual sensationalist, anti-lawyer nonsense. You know, where the questionable misdeeds of one crazy-bad guy are supposed to portray the theoretical reality of the rest of us members of the matrimonial bar. And because I've posted an occasional blog on Huff Po Divorce, and attracted the ire of lawyer-hating Internet surfers - I know from personal experience just how nasty lawyer-bashing can get on Huff Po Divorce.

But this time? OMG, the "target" lawyer managed to shame not only himself but the entire legal profession.

Despicable Lawyer Raymond Van Amam not only broke into and entered his client's estranged husband's home in a violent fashion, destroying and absconding with the personal property inside - INCLUDING the husband's personal legal papers!!- but embraced his female client in an uncomfortably intimate fashion for at least twenty seconds, after he insisted, "I want a hug, I need some relaxation!"

It made my skin crawl when I heard him murmur, "Shh shh shh shh shh, oh yeahhh, put it behind you, shh shh shh shh shh oh yeahhhhh." The client didn't seem to realize that his moves were absolutely improper.

Just wrong. I sincerely hope the New Mexico Bar does NOT allow Mr. Van Amam, who used to be president of the local bar association, to put any part of his disgusting conduct behind him. He was suspended from practice once before, for cocaine. For crying out loud, get rid of this man's law license!!

The Huff Po's story generated only six comments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/divorce-lawyer-break-in_n_1345334.html?ref=divorce

Versus the hundreds of comments generated in response to posts about Newt's infidelities and Susan Sarandon's divorce.

This is my comment (only the seventh comment in response to the story):

This is amazing - this story generated only SIX comments????

As a member of the matrimonial bar, I find the misconduct of Mr. Van Amam an absolute disgrace. I can't fathom his being permitted to continue to practice law after such egregious behavior, captured on videotape for heaven's sake.

Breaking and entering, destroying and absconding with personal property -- and to top it off, asking his female client for "relaxation" and tightly embracing. (His sarcastic comments to the estranged husband are despicable too...)

Appalling misconduct. I shudder to think of the damage this guy could cause to tarnish our reputation even more - that is, if the world of Internet surfers cared about something other than the latest celebrity train wreck.

I guess I should be relieved no one's paying attention to this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/divorce-lawyer-break-in_n_1345334.html?ref=divorce


All I can say to this is.. unbelievable.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2534896.shtml?cat=519

The Realm of Civil Discourse

Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, calling anyone, let alone a student with the temerity to testify in Congress, a "slut" and a "prostitute" for no reason whatsoever - other than your personal disagreement with the subject of the tesimony - goes beyond any semblance of public discourse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … _blog.html

I went to Georgetown Law, as well as to Georgetown for my undergraduate degree. We were always excited by politics on The Hill, a short trip downtown. A lot of students interned there - Republicans as well as Democrats.

Georgetown is a Jesuit institution.  Jebbie priests are all over the campus (not so much at the law school) and many of the theology and philosophy required courses are taught by them - or were, back when I was there.  While Jesuits are committed to excellence in education, as a Catholic institution, Georgetown has certain policies that are annoying or objectionable to many students, and lead to lively discourse among the students and professors.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh verbally assaulted Sandra Fluke, who is a third-year Georgetown Law student (she's in her final year, and is going to be looking for a job upon graduation thus spring unless she already landed one - Georgetown Law students are luckier than many) as a "slut"  and a "prostitute" merely for testifying on the Hill, before a House Democratic committee (the Republican House committee said her request to testify had come in too late to allow her to testify about Georgetown's restrictive contraception insurance policies). (I wonder what he would have called her if she were a male student... )

I just called the alumnae office at the law school.  They were extremely appreciative of my call, and said they are ensuring that this law student feels safe and supported. And they're protecting her from being bombarded with blasts from the outside as best they can. 

They have assured me in the strongest possible terms - and this is consistent with my experience with Georgetown- that they, as an institution, are proud of all Georgetown students, professors and alums who engage in any form of public service.

Ms. Fluke is being trained to be an advocate. As she proceeds with her law career, there will undoubtedly be times when invectives will fly because of a position she's taken. Lord knows I heard enough of it as a matrimonial lawyer... In a sense, I suppose this is good training for what she may face in the future, in the courtroom or at the negotiating table. Because nobody, at least in my experience, ever attacked me at that level, in such insulting terms, even in the matrimonial field. So if she can handle Rush Limbaugh's garbage, she can handle anything.

But that really begs the question: why should she, or anyone else, have to handle this offensive verbal barrage at all?

I feel better having taken SOME action - a simple phone call, leaving my contact info - to express my support for this student.

But my outrage remains, and it seems the law school is equally outraged at the sexist verbal abuse that's been hurled at one of their students.

As should we all, regardless of our political leanings.