Sherry Chandler today has a very insightful post about the use of first person narrative in poetry as well as approachable poetry in general. Go read it now: I’ll wait.

Debates such as this are why I do not call myself a poet. I just write poetry. A lot of what I have to say doesn’t belong in my novels. Prose and fiction demand an objectivity I sometimes can’t muster, as well as a structure beyond the moment. The same could be said of this blog. So I scribble poetry to release the thoughts onto paper; snippets of my past and the somewhat twisted reality I live.

While I’ve never published a novel, I published quite a bit of poetry in college. I was quite proud of it, and the compliments I received for it. Until I showed the clips to my professor in English Comp who informed me it was “just confessional” in a tone that implied it was one step lower than stripping in public. I stopped submitting my work and didn’t show it to anyone else for 25 years.

Is the label “confessional poetry” as big an insult as my professor implied? David Yezzi has this to say in “Confessional poetry & the artifice of honesty” in The New Criterion Online: There’s nothing particularly novel about placing the artist at the center of the starry universe (or about the artist placing himself there); it’s a vanity at least as old as Romanticism. It is this Romantic image of the poet as a personally suffering channeler for emotion and experience that clings to Plath and to her fellow confessional poets Sexton, W. D. Snodgrass, and Robert Lowell. That two of the four were suicides (all were analysands) cruelly adds to our fascination with them.

His title succinctly sums up his opinion. (Ironically, Romanticism is my favorite musical style, too.) Yet my favorite poets could be considered confessional in that they speak from deeply personal experiences: Marge Piercy, e.e. cummings, Alicia Ostriker. Each one is brilliant. I don’t feel like a voyeur reading them like I do with Sylvia Plath, the quintessential exhibitionist.

Is it really just the subject manner? Or is it something else? Sherry has this to say on the subject:

The first person pronoun seems to be blamed for everything from bad confessional poetry to arrogant language poetry. It’s a way to focus, I suppose. But I’ve always thought it’s easy enough to write “she” where you had written “I” and continue on being as egocentric as ever. In the end this seems to be an argument about the message of poetry and not about the language. Flaccid language makes bad poetry. Good poetry is made with vibrant language, regardless of pronouns. Great poetry? I wish I knew.

When Sherry speaks, I listen. The great ones are beyond labels, and the rest of us do the best we can to avoid what Yezzi calls “vanity.”

In yesterday’s legislative action, the House Republicans have launched another stealth attack against the federal judiciary. H.J. Res.62 is a proposed constitutional amendment which would effectively give the individual states delayed veto power over federal judges whose districts fall within their boundaries.

H.J.RES.62
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that Federal district court judges be reconfirmed every ten years by the executive and legislative authorities of the State in which they serve.
Sponsor: Rep Culberson, John Abney [R TX-7] (introduced 7/28/2005)

Cosponsors:

• Rep Akin, W. Todd [R MO-2]
• Rep Davis, Jo Ann [R VA-1]
• Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [R TN-2]
• Rep Foxx, Virginia [R NC-5]
• Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [R VA-5]
• Rep Hayworth, J. D. [R AZ-5]
• Rep Herger, Wally [R CA-2]
• Rep Johnson, Sam [R TX-3]
• Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R NC-3]
• Rep Lewis, Ron [R KY-2]
• Rep Marchant, Kenny [R TX-24]
• Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [R NC-10]
• Rep Poe, Ted [R TX-2]
• Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [R CO-6]
• Rep Wilson, Joe [R SC-2]

Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

This amendment would accomplish 2 things: it would eliminate the lifetime appointment of federal judges and it would give state governors and legislators the power to remove judges administering federal—not state–law. The role of the federal courts is often to rule on constitutionality of state laws as well as to hear trials of federal crimes. Giving the states the power to remove those federal judges would in affect remove the right of the federal courts to make state laws toe the constitutional line, allowing them to be removed for ruling against the state. Had this been in effect in the 1960s, states could have blocked desegregation orders and the federal dismantling of Jim Crow laws.

I don’t expect this bill to have legs, but the fact that it was introduced in the same session as H.R. 3073, another proposed constituional amendment which would give Congress the right to overturn Supreme Court decisions, is a signal to the public of how little respect the Republican Party has for the separation of powers.

For more information, go to Thomas and search H.J.RES.62.

In a study published in the August issue of Arthritis & Rheumatism, Pacific Rheumatology Associates in Renton, Washington has announced that Mirapex (pramipexole) reduced pain and fatigue and improved function in some patients with fibromyalgia. Pramipexole is a drug commonly used to treat Parkinson’s Disease and is in a class of drugs called dopamine3 receptor agonists.

Fibromyalgia is a widespread musculoskeletal pain and fatigue disorder. It is often a diagnosis by elimination, after other diseases have been ruled out. The cause of the condition is unknown. Until now, treatment has consisted mainly of antidepressants, anti-inflammatories and pain medication.

I’ve had it for about 6 years.

From Eurkealert:

The pramipexole group noted significantly decreased pain compared to the placebo group at the end of the study: at least a 50% decrease in pain was achieved by 42% of this group compared with 14% of the placebo group, as measured by the pain score on the visual analog scale (VAS). Overall, 82% of the patients taking pramipexole noted some improvement in pain, compared with 57% of the placebo group. In addition, other scales measuring fibromyalgia symptoms and mental status showed an improvement in the group taking the drug. Pramipexole was well tolerated, with the most common side effect being weight loss and nausea.

This seems to explain the big improvement I’ve had with my fibro since switching psych drugs. What I take now are also dopamine receptor drugs, and I’ve had better mobility and less pain–as well as less confusion–since I’ve been on them.

This is study signals there may actually be a treatment for fibromyalgia itself, instead of medicating the symptoms. Watch this space for more information as it becomes available.

**cough, cough** It’s grass-burning season again. I don’t mean the neighbor’s lawn clippings; I mean acres and acres of fields, planted for the production of bluegrass seed to beautify lawns and golf courses. For years that meant keeping my 2 asthmatic kids indoors most of the month of August while the clouds of smoke rolled in from the south and the west, blanketing the valley with fumes and particulates. Thankfully, the states of Washington and Oregon responded to the recommendations of the medical profession and outlawed most field burning several years ago.

But the state of Idaho did not follow suit. In fact, in 2002 the Idaho legislature passed a law protecting grass farmers from damage lawsuits brought by people injured by the smoke. In February, the US Supreme Court declined to review the law. Opponents of burning had wanted the Idaho law declared unconstitutional, saying it violated property rights because smoke from burning grass diminished owners’ enjoyment of their homes.

The Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture maintains a hotline and website for notification of burns, but despite an EPA directive to provide more information, the department has decided to give less. The hotline now lists only the counties containing burns, and the estimated acreage of the burn sites has been removed from the web.

Because the acres burned is an industry “trade secret.”

From the Spokesman-Review:

“That is what the statute says, and so far we have not been given a reason to believe the law ought to be amended,” Hoffman said. “We’re trying to balance what the law says with the public’s need to know about where a burn is taking place, and so far we think we’ve struck that balance.”

[snip]

The public records exemption was enacted a decade before the department took on the smoke-management program, and was proposed by southern Idaho seed-crop growers who were concerned that when they submitted crop samples to a state lab for disease testing, competitors might be able to find out what varieties they were developing by requesting public records. In addition to field locations, the law exempts the names and addresses of seed crop growers, varieties and acreage by variety.

The bill’s statement of purpose says it was intended to exempt “proprietary information contained in the forms generated by seed testing labs.”

Now people with asthma, emphysema, heart problems and other health conditions adversely affected by the grass smoke won’t even have enough information to decide if they need to leave the area.

Legal action has provided no relief. On Monday the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by Safe Air For Everyone (SAFE), letting stand a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that burning straw that is left on bluegrass fields after harvest is part of the production process, and not subject to federal solid waste disposal laws that could curtail the practice.

So the smoke rolls on.

There’s some great things around the links this week. Check them out.

1. Decrepit Old Fool’s Edison, Tesla and a Really Stupid Woman in Iowa
2. Have Coffee Will Write’s Revolution For The Privileged
3. I’m Dr. Laura’s Worst Nightmare’s John Roberts and the Threat To Roe
4. Informed Comment’s Draft Constitution Enshrines Islamic Law
5. Sherry Chandler’s Jessie Stewart On Heroism
6. Sour Duck’s “The turtles will never willingly relinquish power.”

Enjoy!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, legal mouthpiece for the Bush administration, gave an interview to AP yesterday (printed in the Seattle PI), laying out his opinion on things from Roe v. Wade to “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo, to the proposed Reporter Shield law.

Gonzales said that the administration opposes a federal reporter shield law, claiming that the government has been “very, very careful,” issuing only a dozen subpoenas since 1991 seeking reporters’ confidential sources. If its so rare, why then do they oppose the law? There’s plenty of outs in it for national security and criminal prosecution.

On reported abuses at Guantanamo Bay detention facility, he had this to say:

“I take issue with folks who say people are being mistreated in Guantanamo,” he said, adding, “I don’t know what I say to Mom and Dad if their son or daughter is killed by someone we once held at Guantanamo.”

But that was not his most revealing statement. In what appears to be an attempt to pacify the Far Right, Gonzales said that although John Roberts (the nominee to fill Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court) did say in his 2003 US Court of Appeals confirmation hearing that he considered Roe v. Wade “settled law,” Roberts should not be considered to be bound by those statements if confirmed to the high court.

“If you’re asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you’re bound by the precedent,” Gonzales said.

“If you’re a Supreme Court justice, that’s a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it’s wrong,” Gonzales said.

So the big question is this: is Gonzales shoring up support for Roberts, or is he proving his own orthodoxy should he be nominated were Reinquist to retire? Scary.

If you’re within driving distance of Spokane, mark your calendars for September 17, 2005. My friends in Baharat!! Middle Eastern dance company are sponsoring a show featuring Jennet, Nick Despopoulos, Farasha of Montana and Janine, along with performances by the troupe itself.

Join us at Sri Prasert Bar and Grille at 7:00 pm for this night of Middle Eastern festivity. Come early for dinner at this fine Thai restaurant and stay to enjoy the show. Tickets are $12 in advance, $15 at the door.

Hanging on the curtain rod by my back door, I have a set of beautiful windchimes that I received as a birthday present. When the slider is open, the least amount of breeze sets them tinkling.

Last night at 9:10 pm, I was sitting on the floor in the living room playing Dr. Mario on NES (it’s sad when my claim to fame is being an expert at a game which was obsolete 10 15 years ago) when my windchimes started playing. I looked to see if Edgar had opened the door; the glass slider was firmly latched and locked. The chimes played for about a minute then stopped, as mysteriously as they had started.

This morning I found out that at 10:08 Mountain Time, a 5.6 magnitude earthquake hit Dillon, MT, about 300 miles away as the crow flies. 2 minutes later, the shock wave passed through Spokane, just enough to trigger my windchimes.

Cool.

Back on March 25, 2005 I wrote about the case of Jessica Gonzales who was suing the town of Castle Rock, Colorado for not enforcing a protection order against her ex-husband, who abducted and murdered her three daughters while she pleaded for assistance. On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that she did not have a “property interest” in police protection, as her lawyers had contended, because the police have wide discretion in what to do and “a benefit is not a protected entitlement if officials have discretion to grant or to deny it.”

While I cannot fault the logic behind it, this ruling was a blow to domestic violence programs which have stressed restraining orders as the first line of defense for abused women and men.

Now the US House Of Representatives may get involved.

H.RES.382
Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the enforcement of restraining orders.
Sponsor: Rep Capps, Lois [Dem., CA-23] (introduced 7/25/2005)
Cosponsors (1) Rep Nadler, Jerrold [Dem., NY-8]
Latest Major Action: 7/25/2005 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

This is not a proposed change in law. Rather, it is a resolution of opinion stating that the House disapproves of the Supreme Court ruling and suggests that the law be changed. Kudos to Representatives Capps and Nadler for bringing it to the attention of the legislature.

We’ll know more about it when the full text of the bill is released in the next week. Watch this space for updates.

UPDATE: the full text of the legislation is now available.

HRES 382 IH
109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 382
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the enforcement of restraining orders.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 25, 2005
Mrs. CAPPS (for herself and Mr. NADLER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the enforcement of restraining orders.

Whereas nearly one-third of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a boyfriend or husband at some point in their lives;

Whereas intimate partner violence tends to be a pattern, rather than a one-time occurrence;

Whereas domestic homicide is often the result of continuing abuse;

Whereas restraining orders are necessary to protect victims of violence from further abuse and decrease the risk of continuing abuse or homicide;

Whereas nearly half of all victims who obtain restraining orders are abused again;

Whereas restraining orders exist to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence and include explicit instructions that violation of such orders are cause for arrest;

Whereas law enforcement officials are directed to use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order;

Whereas the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales narrowed individuals’ Federal court recourse against police for failing to enforce a restraining order; and

Whereas this decision highlights the need to better protect victims of domestic violence from violators of restraining orders: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should act and encourage States to act–

(1) to ensure that restraining orders are uniformly enforced; and

(2) to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence from perpetrators.