Snow?

Was that snow?



Yes! Not as much as last year's snow in May, however. It was May 2d. And if you go to that link, you'll find a couple links to my other blog, which I had for a little while a year ago, not anonymously, just iBloggily.

Anyway, it was another one of those indoorsy days for me. But I'm in this Flickr "Day in the Life" group, that called today for a "Day in the Life" photoshoot. But my whole day pretty much looked like this:

"A University of Wisconsin-Madison tradition started by Vietnam War protesters in 1969."

It's come to this:

[Name omitted], a fifth-year senior who carried a beer bong in his shirt, complained that the police were stricter than ever this year. One of his friends had already been ticketed for an open container violation for walking from one house party to the next with a beer.

[Name omitted], who started drinking at 11 a.m., said that didn't stop him from having a good time. "I'm wasted," he said, adding that he planned to party all night.

Police spokesman Mike Hanson said the street party was considered to be over at 8 p.m., with officers going from house to house to warn the hosts to end the festivities or face citations.

While cooperation was good early in the day, by late afternoon he said "the alcohol has set in and people are getting less cooperative."

Hell, no, we won't go ... home from this party.

"The Wisconsin Quiz."

Here.

Anonymous You.

Do you think there are any well-known bloggers with anonymous side blogs? It strikes me as such a tempting thing to do. Once your blog has enough attention, there have to be some things you can think of saying that don't seem to belong on your official blog, burdening your actual name. And you've got to sometimes feel nostalgic for the days when you wrote for yourself, with just a twinge of excitement that somebody might be looking in. If you started such a blog, would Anonymous You link to your Official You, and, if so, would it be with approval or would you take pleasure in attacking yourself? Would Official You link to the anonymous blog, and, if so, would it because Anonymous You got traffic-envy or because -- Plato-like -- you enjoy writing dialogues? Just wondering!

Living together, having a big wedding.

Apropos of the runaway bride story:

Am I the only one who thinks a big wedding is inappropriate for two people who have been living together? I think it would be tasteful to have the wedding performed privately, down at City Hall some day, and then announce the news in an invitation to a big party that occurs on another day and that specifies no gifts. There is no new household being set up, and you should be glad people want to take the time and make the effort to attend a party celebrating an existing relationship.

It seems to me that the idea of a big wedding ought to be about the beginning of the couple's life together. In fact, the really cool thing about a wedding back in the old days or for traditionalists these days is that the couple has not yet consummated the relationship. When that is the situation, there is an excitement and the reception takes on a wonderful glow: look, they're finally able to have sex and yet they are hanging out, dancing here with us! If this is not the case, how can the couple imagine they're putting on a show that justifies everyone watching and celebrating them for hours?

UPDATE: Interesting comments section! Let me just quote something I wrote, somewhere down in the thread:

Do I seem like a "social con"? I guess I've got my own distinct mix. I'd say I respect the genuine traditionalists, that I don't seek a traditionalist life for myself, and I tend to scoff at the fence-straddlers. People who live together and then want a big traditional wedding are very conspicuous fence straddlers. Be something! Stand for something! Think! That's my message.

Let's spare her that detail.

Why do so many of the news stories about the runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks leave out the detail that she told the police that the man who abducted her was Hispanic? When you're making up a story about a crime, what motivates you to make the criminal a member of a minority group? I think leaving out this aspect of the story is an attempt to help her with her reputation. Why, we might associate this nice woman with Susan Smith, who drowned her children and then made up a story about a black man kidnapping them.

Newspapers that left out the detail: SF Chronicle, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, ABC News, Chicago Sun-Times, NY Daily News, Houston Chronicle, New York Times.

Newpapers that included the detail: NY Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a second piece, "One volunteer's perspective on Wilbanks: Charge her." The volunteer was especially angry that Wilbanks blamed a Hispanic man: "The Hispanic community has it tough enough. Some of them even volunteered with the search! Fliers were printed in Spanish."

Blaming a Hispanic man was an important fact that belonged in the report. Leaving it out was -- it seems to me -- an attempt to save Jennifer Wilbanks from additional harm to her reputation. I don't see how that sort of pity is part of journalism, and I don't see why someone who plays upon prejudice this way deserves pity.

UPDATE: WaPo's Howard Kurtz links to this post and agrees that the detail belongs in the article -- assuming you're going to cover this story at all, which is a questionable choice in the first place. Here's my critique of Nancy Grace's coverage of the show -- on Friday night, when she thought it was a new Scott-and-Laci.

Moves they're probably onto.

Jeffrey Rosen previews the battle over the next Chief Justice. Will Bush elevate Thomas or Scalia to Chief Justice in the hope of distracting attention from the new addition to the Court? The Rehnquist-Scalia sleight of hand worked back in the 80s. Or are the Democrats onto that move?