The Faculty Lounge

Governor Paterson's Immigration Reform

Governor David Paterson did something very laudable on Friday: he pardoned hip-hop artist Ricky Walters who had previously been convicted (and served time) for attempted murder.  Under federal immigration law, Walters - who was born in the UK but moved the New York at age 11 - was subject to mandatory deportation for his offense.  He would be forced to leave his family and return to a country that has not been his home in 30 years.  As a result of this pardon, he is at least eligible for a deportation waiver; the decision to deport him is now discretionary.   

Why was this decision laudable?  Because I believe deportation decisions should always be made case-by-case, rather than under mandatory directives that strip officials of the ability to assess individual situations.

But here is the problem.  Walters is the tip of the iceberg, and a pretty famous tip at that.  Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of individuals are similarly situated.  These are adults (and even teenagers) who emigrated to the States as kids and have no identity other than as "Americans."  They have been convicted or various types of crimes - some more serious, some less.  Under federal law, however, they are often subject to mandatory deportation - and are returned to a place that simply is not their home.  I wonder if the Governor is prepared to do his small part to modify federal immigration law by pardoning each of these offenders, and allowing each person to make his or her case to immigration authorities.  Then I'd be seriously impressed.

I've blogged before about the collateral consequences of conviction, and this is one of the nastiest. Remarkably enough, there is no requirement that a lawyer or judge inform a defendant that a guilty plea might result in this punishment consequence.  You can bet that whatever immigration bill passes this winter, there will be no relief for convicted offenders.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the price of compromise is an even more draconian approach to the matter.

Electioneering in the Wild West

So Tuesday was an exciting day for Oregon—the MSM actually focused their flickering and fickle attentions on our Democratic primary. Obama’s win was a surprise to no one—but here are some more subtle points that were lost in the general coverage:

1. It’s pronounced Or-i-GUN, not Or-e-gone.* There’s nothing that marks you as a sissified Easterner more than mispronouncing the state name. I’m talking to you, Chris Matthews! 

2. How cool is it that our new Attorney General is a lawprof?! Congratulations to Lewis and Clark’s John Kroger, who won despite televised smear ads muttering about his very recent     admission to the Oregon bar.

3. All of Oregon’s ballots are mail-ins; there are no voting booths or polling places. This may be the way of the future, but it does take a little of the fun away. I miss that satisfying clunk of the lever in old-fashioned voting booths. On the other hand, you don’t have to worry about rain depressing turnout, a real issue in the Pacific Northwest. 

4. This being Oregon, where quirkiness is prized, there are still serious pockets of Ron Paul     supporters. For some reason they feel the best way to support their candidate is to march up and down themain thoroughfare, waving signs and ringing bells. Perhaps they’re trying to collect gold? I wouldn’t be surprised if Ron Paul got a few percentage points in November through a write-in campaign.

5. Finally, it’s only appropriate that Portland, home to a substantial microbrewing culture, has just elected none other than Sam Adams as its new mayor. As a new Portland resident, I’ll drink to that!

*nb:  Another oft-mispronounced word, Willamette (as in the Valley, the wine, and the law school) rhymes with “dammit.” We’re thinking of making it part of our official motto….

Spivack on Law in Hamlet

Thanks to Mary Dudziak, I see that Carla Spivack's new article on Law in Hamlet is up on ssrn.  It looks downright terrific.  Here's her abstract:

Many readers have noted the abundant references to law in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Indeed, a whole sub-genre of criticism has developed around the question of whether Shakespeare's knowledge of law, as reflected in this play and others, is detailed and extensive enough to indicate legal training. These critics, however, have so far lacked scholarly backgrounds in Early Modern English literature and culture, and thus fail to connect the legal language and themes of the play to its other concerns about gender and rule. By the same token, literature scholars writing about the play have lacked backgrounds in English legal history. Bringing both perspectives to bear, I show that the play's legal allusions are closely related to its other concerns about gender, and that these themes in turn partake of changes in the broader culture, namely, the end of the forty-year reign of Elizabeth, a woman ruler, and an ensuing backlash against female political power. In sum, I will show that placing the play's legal references in context reveals that they are part of a process of ejecting the feminine from the political realm.

All of this reminds me again how common references to law were in literature, at least through the middle of the nineteenth century.  You may recall that I wrote recently of Emerson talking of the warranty deeds and landscape.

As for inheritance law in Hamlet--soon I'll be talking about a paper that Stephen Davis and I are writing about inheritance in antebellum Greene County, Alabama--where some of the wealthiest people in our country lived--and its implications for our understanding of shifting attitudes towards inheritance.

Alfred Brophy

A DA Who Wants To Deport Crime Victims

Ron Wright, over at Prawfs, has flagged down an amazing letter from a DA explaining why he won't prosecute an assault case involving both a complainant and a defendant who were in the country illegally.  After suggesting that the two of them ought to have been grown up enough to avoid fighting, particularly given their improper immigration situation, and telling them he has referred both to ICE for deportation, he concludes:

Once deported to your country, you will be free to fight with each other on a daily basis, and since you both speak Spanish, you will be right at home in the court system of your native land.

Gay Marriage: John McCain's 2008 Confederate Flag Moment?

Take a look at John McCain's face during his interview with Ellen DeGeneres today.  She confronts him about his view on her right to marry the woman she loves.  His answer, fresh from a can, is that they have a respectful disagreement about whether gay people should be allowed to marry.  Except that when you watch him you can see he's squirming.  But why is he squirming?  Would Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee squirm?  No - because they feel good about their view on this issue.  Not only does McCain appear to realize that his comments diminish Ellen's humanity; it strikes me that he doesn't even seem to believe them.  And if he loses in November, I won't be at all suprised if he changes his position.  Who'd have thunk he'd later call his Confederate Flag flip-flop an "act of cowardice"?

I do know this.  McCain's presence on Ellen's show was designed to telegraph something.  Possible somethings include: a) I'm not so doctrinaire that I can't sit next to a lesbian who plans to get married and wish her well; b) I'm actually a liberal on this issue, but I can't admit it in words so I'll telegraph it through my actions; c) I'm going to show my conservative base that I can appear in Ellen's lair and stand up to her demand that I support gay marriage.  I frankly doubt (c); I think that McCain risks appearing like he is appeasing gay rights activists by even speaking with Ellen. 

I can't imagine that Obama wants any part of this conversation either because many of his supporters would gag at the sight of him parotting McCain - which is what he'd presumably be forced to do.  Or he'd say: "I think it's wonderful that you've chosen to live in a state that shares your view of marriage.  I respect California's decision."  And many of his supporters would think: "Dammit, Barack, can't you just say gay people should be allowed to get married?"

Alas, the Kabuki Theater which we all accept (because, really, there is no option) requires this expedience.  But for social conservatives, a chill wind blows.  A couple of years ago, I thought widespread gay marriage was still a generation into the future.  With California's Republican governor backing it, and McCain barely able to utter his opposition, I'm now betting that a bundle of large states will authorize it within a decade.  My hope, however, is that it will be legislators - not courts - that usher in this new era. 

What’s the World Coming To, Part II

In addition to gay marriage, gay soldiers and unisex bathrooms comes the fourth horseman: transgendered elementary school students. A recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer told of a school district in the suburbs that had called a school assembly to help third grade students understand and accept that one of their classmates would be wearing girls’ clothes and answering to a girl’s name. It was certainly heartening to hear that most of the children who knew the child in question received the information with a somewhat blasé shrug of the shoulders, but, not surprisingly, some of their parents were less accepting. I suppose that this means that many of the children will soon absorb their parents’ prejudices, which is a shame. Some parents posted outraged comments on the local blog and there was an editorial in the Inquirer in which the author said she would “pray” for the transgendered child, but also suggested that the transgendered child be home-schooled (yes, that’s right, alienate her and isolate her, that’s what Jesus would do).

I was pleasantly shocked that a suburban school district in Pennsylvania would take such a healthy, tolerant and informed approach, even happier that the child has parents who seem to care so deeply for her and are willing to accept her for who she is. I don’t think this would have happened 20 years ago, much to the detriment of the child in question. Apparently, the school district officials consulted psychologists and a transgender organization, TransYouth Family Allies, to help them devise the assembly. 

On the local blog, one parent astutely pointed out that most people have no problem with girls wearing pants, which used to be considered “boys clothes.” Indeed, the word “tomboy” is becoming an arcane term as the accepted behavior for girls widens. But the same expansion of acceptable behavior hasn’t happened for boys – for some reason (hmmm, what could it be?) it doesn’t sit right with some parents to have a biological boy come to school in a dress.  Most parents who opposed the assembly seemed concerned that their children could not understand gender issues at such a tender age – an argument that seems to me to support the idea of an educational assembly, as opposed to looking the other way and hoping no one notices.

Overall, I believe that the tolerant and educational approach of the school district signals an evolution in our thinking about gender, a broadening of acceptable dress, behavior and naming for people of all genders, and a rejection of a rigid binary approach to gender. But it is pretty clear that some people will refuse to evolve.

A Crisis In Sexual Orientation And Gender? Or Just Bashful Bladder?

This has been one lousy week for social conservatives.  First the California Supreme Court decided to legalize gay marriage in America's largest state.  (For non-lawyers, note that this decision will not be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court because it involves California state law - for which the state's Supreme Court is the final arbiter.)  Then the Ninth Circuit slammed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, holding that the government must prove this policy "significantly furthers the government’s interest [in cohesion] and whether less intrusive means would achieve substantially the government’s interest. "

Paul Secunda, over at Workplace Prof, is "absolutely giddy" over the Ninth Circuit's ruling.  Bob Ellis, a Dakota blogger, says "apparently a full-court (literally) press against normal human sexuality is under way."  Art Leonard, commenting over at Secunda's place, provides a cautionary voice, noting that because the Ninth Circuit panel was a tad liberal, its decision may get crushed en banc.

Ever vigilant, Focus on the Family has bigger fish to fry: they worry that Colorado, in the name of transexual rights,  will soon adopt a new law prohibiting single sex restrooms.  (And well trained in the fear tactics so recently used before the Supreme Court, they argue that the demise of single sex restrooms would lead inexorably to the rise of sexual predators in these places.)  I actually think Team Dobson has a finger on the pulse of America.  If Americans had to rank these three horrors - gay marriages, gay soldiers, and co-ed potties - they'd definitely put co-ed potties number one.  It's difficult enough for many patriotic Americans to pee next to someone of their own sex.  (Note to Barack Obama: here is your small-ball strategy.  Standing tall for single sex restrooms could be your version of the Bill Clinton school uniform crusade.)

This leads me to wonder whether John McCain, who vacillates between being a straight shootin' moderate and a pander bear, will follow the traditional GOP "divide and conquer" strategy that has worked so well since Richard Nixon.  It's always nice - and so unexpected - to see consistency from anyone in politics. Bob Barr, the soon-to-be Libertarian presidential nominee, and ardent opponent of gay marriage, issued a  notable statement after the California Supreme Court's ruling.  It's after the jump:

Comparing Caffeine In Soda

Count this among the questions that I never thought to ask: does house brand soda - Publix Cola, Sam's Cola, Diet Dr. Thunder, and the like - have different caffeine levels than name brands?  I'd long assumed that coffees were dosed very differently - and my assumption was correct.    One study showed that Starbucks coffee contains 56% more caffeine than the drink you buy at a local gas station or donuteria.   But it turns out that the same is true - indeed more so - when you compare name-brands like Coke to house brands.  According to Caffeine Content of Prepackaged National-Brand and Private-Label Carbonated Beverages, some house brand sodas have less than half the caffeine of name brand products.  Others have far more.  IGA Cola came in at less than 5mg of caffeine in a 12 ounce serving; Big Fizz Cola, from Rite Aid, contained 46mg.  The big names?  Coke had 33 mg, Pepsi had 39 mg, and RC had 45 mg.  The Diet versions can be quite different from their parent product; Diet Coke, for example, has 46mg.  And yes, Mountain Dew really is stronger, coming in at 55mg per can. 

If you're a caffeine addict, these small differences could matter.  A person who drinks 4 Pepsis per day taps 156 mg of caffeine.  If you're in a cash crunch and go with Piggly Wiggly Cola, you'll only rack up about 50 mg.  Your punishment for poverty?  A whopping caffeine withdrawl headache. 

For coffee drinkers, this is all child's play.  One tall cup of Starbucks drip coffee will earn you 260mg of caffeine.   Indeed, one cup of Seattle's Best decaf tested by Consumer Reports contained 29 mg of caffeine - almost the same as a Coke.

Faith Based Prisoner Re-entry

Alabama has a problem.  Its prison system releases 11,000 prisoners each year and there's no money to help them with the challenges of re-entry.  If you're a governor who has already been severely chastised once over proposed tax increases, how do you solve this problem?  Bob Riley has an idea: ask churches to provide the services.  This, according to the Birmingham News:

Leaders from churches and charitable groups were asked to provide a wide range of services to former inmates, including employment assistance, housing, clothing, health care and cash.... "If we can motivate the faith-based community in the state the way we do during an emergency, then we can make a difference," Riley said.. Bill Johnson, director of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, said the state releases 11,000 inmates a year and isn't capable of providing the services necessary to help them readjust. Even if the state had the funds, such programs aren't popular with taxpayers, he said.   The state will provide no direct funds to the program, called the Community Partnership for Recovery and Re-entry, but will coordinate the efforts of the churches and other volunteer groups.   "We're admitting we can't solve the problem," Johnson said.  At a meeting that vacillated between policy seminar and revival, state officials outlined their needs to religious leaders, who said they view the program as an opportunity to spread the word of God.

I suppose the state should be commended for recognizing, at the very least, that such transition programs are essential.  But outsourcing them to churches is at best a band-aid.  And here (unlike in the national Faith Based Initiative conversation), religious leaders are quite explicit that their interest in these programs is tied to an opportunity to evangelize. 

As unpopular as these programs may be, policy makers must recognize that the cost of (effective and non-criminogenic) incarceration includes pricey re-entry assistance.  Without it, the state will have to bear the expense of sky-high recidivism rates.  In my view, if you can't afford re-entry, you can't afford prisons. 

Pack 'n Pay: American Airlines Ends Free Checked Baggage

American Airlines announced today that it will begin implementing a $15 charge for checked baggage on its flights.  I'm sure this will generate some fresh revenues for the airline (as would pay-per-sheet toilet paper), but it will also make the cabin an even less pleasant place.  Now we can safely assume that almost every passenger will carry both a roller bag and a second tote on board.  But not to worry; it can't be long before the airlines begin measuring these bags, and charging for oversized models.  (By the way, will customers be charged when the overhead racks fill and they are required to check bags at the plane's door?)

A la carte pricing of flights - from food, to seat location, to baggage - makes a smidgen of sense.  There are some customers willing to save $15 in exchange for giving up the right to checked bags.  But I fear that a more likely explanation for what is occuring is poor information flow.  Prospective customers buying tickets at Orbitz may not know the comparative costs of add-ons for the various airlines they're considering.  They probably purchase based solely on the listed airfare.  So airlines have every incentive to minimize that sticker price and instead introduce other charges at the airport - when customers have little choice but to pony up the cash.  Perhaps this is just good business practice.  The smart shoppers will always find the best value; those who haven't done extensive research pay the surcharges.  Sounds a lot like shopping for a car.  And we all know how satisfying an experience that is.

Encyclopedia of Southern Culture: The Law Volume

I'm absurdly--and I do mean absurdly--busy with the move and whatnot.  So I hadn't planned on putting up much. 

However, this morning's mail brought a very important and much-anticipated volume, the tenth volume of the New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture--on Law and Politics, published by the University of North Carolina Press.  Jim Ely and Bradley Bonds edited it.  These sorts of volumes are absurdly difficult to conceptualize: how can you capture something so sprawling as southern law--to say nothing of politics--in a few hundred pages.  So they're necessarily selective.  But that's the fun it is, isn't it?  Seeing what you can put together--what cast of a few dozen characters can be made to speak for a region and many centuries?  Reminds me of Richard Wightman Fox and James Kloppenberg's fantastic  Companion of American Thought.  Back in the day, it was a great present for almost all occasions.

Of course, it invites comparison with the law section of the Encyclopedia of New England, published a few years back by Yale University Press.

Peggy Orenstein on Gender and Power

This past Sunday, Peggy Orenstein published a column in the New York Times magazine about what the many personal, gender-based attacks on Hillary Clinton say about how American society views powerful women. Orenstein laments the double-edged message that Hillary’s candidacy gives to young women, stating that Hillary’s “bid for the White House has embodied both the possibilities we never imagined for our daughters…and the vitriol that attaining them can provoke. Both are real; so Godspeed, girls.”

There was also a recent post on this topic on the feminist law profs blog that recounted some of the uglier attacks on Clinton, which included everything from comparing Clinton to the Fatal Attraction bunny-killer to merchandising her as a stainless steel nutcracker to an anti-Hillary group with the acronym C.U.N.T.

Like Orenstein, I’m not a Hillary supporter. And, like her, I agree (certainly) that these attacks are misogynist and should be condemned by thinking people everywhere. And I understand that it is difficult to explain the venom of them to young girls. But I like to view this kind of ridiculous ad hominem (feminem?) garbage as the last, gasping death rattle of a worldview that simply couldn’t hold its own in rational discourse.  I mean, C.U.N.T? Are these people kidding? That isn’t political punditry, it’s Beavis and Butthead, only less intelligent. As we say in South Jersey, is that all you got? I try never to forget that, at least in reasoned argument, the ad hominem is usually the best, most telling sign that the other side has simply run out of ammunition (or intellect). It’s what gets trotted out by the losing side when the real argument is over. And I hope that’s what Peggy Orenstein tells her daughter, when her daughter is old enough to get it.

On the other hand, I do wish that some of the commentary would focus on the more insidious ways in which gender -- and race – infiltrated this election. Much more worrisome, and less easily ridiculed, are those comments that don’t have the overt, obvious stench of racism or misogyny (an obviousness that I think makes them ultimately unpersuasive), but are, not-so-far below the surface, really about a fear of powerful women and African Americans.  More so than the Hillary nutcracker, which I can’t believe changed many minds (at least not against Hillary), I worry about how many otherwise thoughtful people’s attitudes changed as a result of coverage like this.

Kathy S.

Elemore Morgan

Kathryn Bettis brings the sad news that Elemore Morgan, a Louisiana landscape painter, has passed away.  Morgan was for many years a professor at the University of Southwestern Louisiana.   

The Louisiana Indepedent Weekly recalls, he "changed the way we see the south Louisiana horizon - where the prairies and the sky meet."   An image of  his signature work Embarkment is available here.

Lots to do with the image of humans using and occupying the land.  And all of this reminds me that I need to talk about the prairie soon, too.

Alfred Brophy

Most Creative Moments in American Legal History

Thanks to Mary Dudziak's always fabulous legalhistoryblog, I see that Robert Blomquist has an article up on ssrn about the most creative moments in American legal history.  Robert polled legal historians back in 2005 about our opinions on the most creative moments in American legal history.  Much, much fun. 

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that both Calvin and I made Robert's discussion of the responses he found "to be unusually insightful."  Perhaps that's a kind way of saying, uh, rather odd and outside of the mainstream!  Of course, perhaps that's what we want in a list of creative moments.  Reading through the paper, it strikes me that a lot of the responders find (perhaps no surprise here) that whatever they work on are among the most creative moments....  And perhaps that is as it should be--I'd be disinclined to work on something I found not creative.

The paper's well worth a read.  The list is pretty cool--well worth a look and fun for discussion for your friends.

Alfred Brophy

Mistreatment Of Iraq Vets: One Wife Just Said No

I have heard few more powerful or upsetting stories as Military Wives Fight Army to Help Husbands, a twelve minute in-depth piece on NPR last Friday.  Ryan LeCompte returned from Iraq with a clear case of PTSD, that fully ripened into major depressive disorder with catatonic features.  His wife fought for services; the military dismissed the claims.  Meanwhile, as LeCompte's condition worsened, as he entered a near vegetative state, his superiors responded by punishing him.    In the end, his wife would deliver him to morning formation in wheelchair. 

It required  the intervention of two Senate staffers to push the Army to send him to Walter Reed Hospital - where he was properly diagnosed and given treatment.  Thankfully, LeCompte might just be on the road to partial salvation.  I fear that many other soldiers who lack a fighting wife or the luck of an NPR story will fall through the cracks.  But every war leaves a trail of soldier victims.  If we are not prepared to make the well-being of returning soldiers a top national priority, we are not morally entitled to seek their services on the battlefield. 

It's worth investing the 12 minutes listening to this story.   

Road Double Stuffed With Oreos

Oh the horror!  Folks are stumbling into work today, in Morris, Illinois, after an Oreo truck driver fell asleep at the wheel.  The vehicle rolled over, spilling 28,000 pounds of the double stuffed treats onto I-80.  Don't be surpised if we see a short-term spike in Oreo prices, as parents scramble  to meet their children's dessert needs.  This only underscores the necessity of developing alternative sources of sweets, such as parfait,  fruitcake, and of course spotted dick. 

Photo: definitely not Oreos, no matter what the package says.  Wish they had spilled onto the highway.

Landsberg Reviewed in Yale Law Journal

When the discussion was afoot about the changes in the size (and focus) of the Michigan Law Review's annual book review issue, I meant to weigh in with comments on their decline in reviews in legal history.  I think that's unfortunate; there're a ton of great works in legal history (Law and History Review usually reviews about fifty a year and we have to pass on a lot of good books).  This year Michigan reviewed only one legal history book.  They picked a good one, though.  I was thankful for Sam Erman's review of Austin Allen's Origins of the Dred Scott Case: Jacksonian Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court.

So I'm particularly thankful for Cristina M. Rodríguez' review in the Yale Law Journal of Brian Landsberg's Free At Last to Vote.  I had the pleasure of seeing Brian's presentation of an early version of this back on September 10, 2001, at an Alabama colloquium.  Alabama looms large in American and legal history, for sure.

Anderson Revisits the Imperial Scholar

How, how could Rachel Anderson's important new article "Revisiting the Imperial Scholar: Market Failure on Law Review?" have escaped my reading until now?  I love talk of law reviews (rankings, ways to improve them, the whole deal).  Anderson revisits Richard Delgado's indictment of legal scholarship for focusing on the writings of a group of elite scholars.  This time, though, her focus is on why the elite journals publish the work of (seemingly) so few women and racial minorities, as well as (again seemingly) so little critical race scholarship.  (There are some other theories in circulation on this, of course.)

Anderson discusses reasons, drawn from the socio-economics literature, why law review editors may by-pass good articles that ask non-traditional questions or employ non-traditional methods.   She also suggests some ways law reviews might correct for these biases.  Her abstract is as follows:

This article argues for reforms in the institution of student-run law reviews. Specifically, it calls for an increased understanding of the potential for bias in the article-selection process. Further it calls for institutional retraining to support the implementation of new article-selection criteria and standards and facilitate more accurate evaluation of scholarship.

Student editors often evaluate legal scholarship based on assumptions stemming from socio-cultural understandings of law and society that do not address or incorporate the breadth of American society across lines of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. This should not be surprising. No one scholarly norm or standard can rigorously analyze the full range and extent of the breadth and depth of American society. This inherent inability demands a plurality of ideologies, methodologies, norms, and standards to facilitate and ensure a complex and rigorous intellectual debate. The reforms I suggest are intended to address the hurdles that law review editors must overcome to effectuate a more intellectually rigorous and informationally valuable article-selection process.

This article uses a hybrid methodology employing the tools and insights of both critical race theory and law and economics. It begins with issues of bias in legal scholarship raised in the two preceding decades by Richard Delgado, a leading critical race theorist, and Edward Rubin, a former Chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Socio-Economics. Then, it follows in the tradition of law and economics scholars and Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker utilizing the tools of economic analysis in non-market contexts. Specifically, this article utilizes economic theories and concepts such as market failure, informational asymmetry, switching costs, and network effects to develop a deeper understanding of institutional bias on law reviews. Finally, it employs scholarship on rhetoric and critical reading skills to identify opportunities for reform.

The task of reforming law reviews is a difficult and important one, for sure.   I wonder if the reasons that Anderson identifies for why students are skeptical of innovative work (such as it's not familiar to them), will also make them skeptical of her suggestions for reform.  This article might have been called the imperial law review student.  All of which reminds me that I really need to finish off that little essay I've had on my hard drive for going on a decade now, "Law Review Editorship As Training for Hierarchy."

This article brings a whole new level of precision to the problems of article selection by law reviews.  We're going to be hearing a lot about it.

Alfred Brophy