Saturday, April 25, 2015

"MY KINGDOM FOR A HEARSE"...KING RICHARD III RIDES AGAIN


England's King Richard III, or at least his bones, has received royal treatment at last. You may recall that his bones allegedly were unearthed from underneath a parking lot ("car park") in 2012. How Richard, who died in battle in 1485 in Bosworth. traveled to a municipal parking lot in Leicester is probably as improbable as his journey 530 years later from the car park to Leicester's cathedral.

It is said that the bones most assuredly are bone-fide those of Richard, based on carbon dating and DNA analysis of a remote great nephew. However, despite all the pomp and circumstance of the re-interrment, one author argues that the evidence in inconclusive. To enable carbon dating results of the bones to include 1485, the findings had to be adjusted for a so-called fish factor--Richard ate a lot of fish, which must have increased the scale. DNA findings also were challenged. "So, as we prepare for a week of royal spectacle, the sort England always does stirringly well, it is worth pausing during the pageantry to wonder if it is indeed King Richard III being given such a glittering reburial, or whether his cold, battle-scarred Plantagenet bones still lie out there, undiscovered and unrecognized."*

Regardless, the bones traveled in a cortege to Leicester's cathedral, to lie in state and to be re-interred with much ceremony on March 26. It was reported that one pub served a Plantagenet dinner of pottage and mead while another offered King Richard ales served by wenches. A gift shop near the cathedral was selling Plantagenet refrigerator magnets.** As one author summarized it, "To judge by the brouhaha, the re-interrment of Richard is the most exciting thing to have happened in Leicester since the king's death at the nearby Battle of Bosworth over 500 years ago." *** On the other hand, a retired vicar put it this way: "It's all faintly idolatrous, as if monarch bone worship had come into fashion."**

Despite all the pomp, there apparently remains much controversy over whether Richard was a good guy. One author believes he was much maligned by Shakespeare's play. The author states that Richard was an innovative king who instituted legal reforms and "had a genuine commitment to fair play in the judicial system, his actions and proclamations stressing that his laws were to be administered impartially without delay or favour."****

On the other hand, another author has stated that Richard "was, in modern terms, a psychopathic serial killer who eliminated his imagined enemies: friend and foe, adult and child." "Next week we may be burying a King in Leicester, but we are also interring a common criminal."*****

Whatever, Richard will be celebrated in a new musical expected to open in October in London. It is called "RichardRocks." According to its website (rechardrocks.com), the show is "a rock opera based on Shakespeare's most infamous villain." Therefore, if you missed the funeral, you can still catch the music.

So, Richard III may be buried again away from your eyes, but he still can be music for your ears.

___________________________________________________

* Selwood, Daily Telegraph, March 21,2015,p.25

** Mills, Sunday Times, March 22,2015,p.17

*** Symons, Daily Telegraph, March 21,2015,p.T16

**** Stone, Daily Telegraph, March 21,2015,p.25

***** Jones, Daily Telegraph, March 21,2015,p.25


Sunday, April 19, 2015

BATHROOM PUZZLEMENTS


"If a chap can't compose an epic poem while he's weaving a tapestry, he had better shut up; he'll never do any good at all." William Morris

In recent travels in Europe, I again encountered bathroom operation issues. For example, the above photo illustrates shower controls found in a bathroom in England. The panel of valves reminded me of an engine room in a submarine, with a captain barking "down scope." As seems common, no instructions were provided as to how the controls are to be used. One must learn from a freeze/scald, flood/drought experience.

Also as common, the so-called shower was part of a bathtub with walls about three feet high requiring a leap in and out of the tub with youthful dexterity not found in advancing age and/or skin scraping and chin bruising. The tub was enclosed by two glass panels, one of which moved inward only to let the bather seek cleanliness. Unfortunately, the moving panel extended so far along the tub that a bather had to climb the back wall of the tub to enable the panel to open and close. Otherwise the bather would remain a permanent captive of the bathtub until a maid came by to clean. And, of course, there never seem to be any bars within the tub area to grasp as one falls.

The moving shower heads also should be mentioned, as they tend to have lives of their own. Raise the device, and it immediately falls to provide ample spray on one's navel and parts below. Or, it moves from side to side, overshooting the glass panels to flood the room.

In Italy, two unique examples arose. In one hotel, a "proper" free standing glass enclosed shower stall was in the bathroom. However, there was no shelf or soap dish in the shower stall to hold soap, shampoo and whatever else one takes into a shower. In order to lather, one has to open the shower door, reach for soap or shampoo on a nearby counter, reenter the stall, apply the soap or shampoo, reopen the door, put back the item, reenter the stall, rinse and repeat as necessary. By the end of it all, the bathroom floor is a river. Moreover, since the towels hang from a bar on the far wall, one must wade through the floor river to get a towel, by the time of which one has dried naturally by the gush of air from the ventilation which smells of the kitchen.

Perhaps the most aggravating bathroom issue was the hotel room that did not have a toilet paper roll holder. It was necessary to locate a loose toilet roll on a nearby bidet, providing some use for the appliance which some people thought was for washing one's hair.

When traveling,I am not concerned about writing a poem and weaving at the same time. I just want to use a bathroom easily and safely. No wonder there are those who sometimes yearn for an old fashioned water hand pump and an outhouse.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

A RIVER RUNS THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT


Not all decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court make headlines in newspapers or excite panels of talking heads on television or in social media. However, this does not mean that such decisions have no importance.

One such "quiet" ruling was issued by the Court in February.* It involves the Republican River Compact, a contract between the states of Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado to allocate the "virgin water" originating in the Republican River basin Congress approved the Compact in 1943.

However, as can be the case with any contract, disputes arose. In 1998, Kansas sued in the Supreme Court ** asserting that Nebraska's increased groundwater pumping was regulated under the Compact to the extent that the pumping reduced stream flow in the basin. The Supreme Court agreed with Kansas, resulting in a settlement producing certain accounting protocols.

In 2007, Kansas sued again, alleging that Nebraska had exceeded its allowed allocation of water. In turn, Nebraska alleged that the accounting protocols under the Compact improperly charged it for using imported seater. The Supreme Court appointed a special master to hear the matter. The master's report concluded that Nebraska knowingly failed to comply with the Compact and recommended that Nebraska disgorge part of its gains and pay damages to Kansas. The Supreme Court agreed with these recommendations. It found that Nebraska knowingly exposed Kansas to a risk of receiving less water than its entitlement.

Interestingly, the Court stated that an award of damages in a case involving compact rights may be an inadequate remedy to deter an offending state from disregarding its obligations when it is advantageous to do so. Therefore, it stated, the additional remedy of disgorgement is appropriate to stabilize the Compact and to deter future breaches.

Water is a valuable resource and, when it runs though several jurisdictions, it must be shared in some structured manner. When states enter into contracts with each other, they, as is the case of contracts between people, must comply with their obligations or consequences follow. In this case, the consequences flowed through the Supreme Court.

___________________________________________

*Kansas v. Nebraska,574 U.S.__(2015)

**The Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction in controversies
between states