Remains of the Day, 5-30-07

Didn’t I just write something about do the days seem like they are getting nuttier and nuttier? Because today would be yet another example of that. But mostly in a good way…I think.


1. Hypothetical: if someone you know goes to an event at which there are hundreds of people and the hosts tell you that what you’re about to hear is off the record and that someone who attended the event tells you what they heard, are you allowed to repeat the proclaimed off the record content of the event?

Just asking.

2. I hear that this event went down exactly as predicted. Lots of strategery going on, for sure.

3. Thank you thank you thank you everyone who has left a comment over the last two or three weeks. I read them all, I imagine that I will respond to them all and then, well, these nutty days. And I get carried away with writing about things that matter to me and I get asked to help with things that matter to me and then I don’t get to the comments – which DO matter to me. So my goal is to get through them all within the next week, and hopefully by the end of the weekend, if not earlier (I’m trying not to be too ambitious because that’s when I get in trouble). If anyone has some good time management where comments are concerned tips, let ’em rip.

Okay – that’s that. Now on to the Remains:

1. What the hell is this that Maria Sharapova was wearing at Roland Garos today? Sigh. Here’s an interview with her, and no one asked?? God.

2. From Cliff Schecter we get this post about the NH Supreme Court delineating between being incompetent to stand trial versus being mentally defective to the point where you cannot own a gun. Jerid, be very careful up there, eh?

3. Terry Gross interviewed Yanar Mohammed today. Please listen.

4. This ridiculousness is the kind of thing to fear when social agendas start to push logic: a dislike and repudiation of homosexuals leads to our country’s inability to communicate with the millions of Muslims whose lives we’re disrupting as we claim to attempt to make their lives better.

5. Who wants to explain this and this? I can tell you that I sure don’t want to be anyone implicated on that first timeline. Someone please tell me that someone is going to be examing the legally required risk assessment tool that Ohio mental health professionals are supposed to use, to help understand why said professionals felt that the man now under arrest was or was not a risk to himself or others. If you want to understand how the duty to warn works and how mental health professionals become immune from prosecution even if a patient acts violently, read that hyperlink.

6. Here I wrote about how I wouldn’t mind my school district allowing a retire-rehire with our superintendent. Here’s more evidence of why.

7. Not sure why I haven’t seen more about a new book out called The Rise of the Blogosphere. See Amazon listing here. But here’s an in-depth review of it, with a link to another review. Interesting or no? Note that the title of the post is Analysis of Journalism. 🙂

8. Legal Times publishes a piece about how the DOJ has made immigration judgeships political. Nooooo!?

9. ProBlogger has a free resource called Blog Profits Blueprint. Sounds like something I might make the time to check out, even knowing that I probably won’t bother.

10. A friend of ours just went into the hospital this week for three or so weeks to endure a stem cell transplant. We wish him the absolute best and are positive that all will go exceedingly well, as his treatment has so far. And today, in The Blog Herald, I read about how a blogger is broadcasting his bone marrow transplant on the blog. Our friend is keeping an online journal, but I don’t know that he wants to go that far.

That’s all folks.

3 thoughts on “Remains of the Day, 5-30-07

  1. As for #1 – depending on the circumstances. If possible have hearer #1 tell someone else that didn’t hear (wasn’t there) and then have that person tell you. Of course, it’s all hearsay but all the best rumours are any way, aren’t they? I mean, come on – the GOP makes up **** all the time.YMMV

  2. Shalom Jill,As a working journalist, I have to disagree with Scott. I attended last year’s AIPAC meeting and I didn’t hear the “off the record” statement until after I’d sat down.One of my Journalism professors told me, never let them change the rules. I entered the room without agreeing to off-the-record, I never agreed to off-the-record and I would have had no problems writing about what I heard.Proclaiming to a whole room that what I’m about to say is off the record, doesn’t make it so.And hearing about it second hand? Well if you trust your source, there’s not even an inkling of doubt.B’shalom,Jeff

  3. Re: Housekeeping. I’d say no. I look at it like something covered under a legal privilege. A person who spoke could tell you what he or she said, but everyone else is speaking under the promise that it is OTR and you violate that understanding if you repeat the information.

Comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s