Category: Columns

  • for the heart

    Of all the places I have ever lived, Minneapolis is the most confusing. One might have thought it would be otherwise. It was meant to be laid out, after all, on a Jeffersonian grid. Yet one cycles down the street, blithely confident that the 3800 block of Sheridan Avenue South will lead ineluctably into the 3700 block, only to find that an unkind providence has interposed a lake, a railroad, or a freeway. Reason, one feels, has been defeated by Nature, or at least by Life.
    Occasionally, it is true, Minneapolis gives inklings of the organic process of its growth to the hard-pressed cyclist trying to find the house where he has been invited to dinner. If he bumps and rattles his way over the monstrous potholes in the southeast quadrant of Lake Calhoun Parkway, he will come to Richfield Road, originally the wagon route from the infant Minneapolis to the neighboring township of Richfield (which originally included modern Edina). On a good day, the remains of the streetcar rails can be made out beneath the asphalt of broad old thoroughfares such as Portland Avenue. But in Edina the farms that defined the landscape in the late nineteenth century are gone. Only their names survive in Grimes and Browndale avenues.

    After trying to get the Minnesota landscape into larger perspective, I went to see the Jeffers Petroglyphs down beyond Mankato. These lively scribings are etched (by who knows what anonymous hand) onto rocks that slope and tilt like the bed of a prehistoric ocean. The wind passes through the prairie grass like cat’s-paws at sea. Here at last I found a sense of the size of the state.

    If these waves of prairie have the breadth of an ocean, Mont Ventoux in the South of France has the height of a tsunami. From its summit you can see for miles (all right, kilometers). The fourteenth-century poet Petrarch discovered this when he climbed it—possibly the earliest example of mountaineering, or at least hill walking, done for no other reason than the fun of it. Not that Petrarch was capable of anything so innocent as fun. He took with him a copy of Saint Augustine’s Confessions, which he duly opened on the summit (at random, he claims), and conveniently found a passage that assured him that landscape is less important than the soul: “Men go to admire the high mountains, the vast floods of the sea, the huge streams of the rivers, the circumference of the ocean, and the revolutions of the stars—and desert themselves.”
    The modern climber will descry on the southern slopes of Mont Ventoux gravel terraces planted with vineyards sheltered from northerly winds by the mountainous bulk behind them. One of the Côtes de Ventoux wineries that has had a remarkable run of good years recently is Château Pesquié. The red wine made here by the Chaudière family called Ch. Pesquié les Terrasses is a round fruity Rhône. It is composed of slightly less syrah, the grape variety most often associated with Rhône reds, and slightly more grenache, the variety familiar from the wines of Châteauneuf du Pape, about twenty miles to the west. One can confidently commend it for consumption with cheese and meat (including turkey).

    Claret, they say, is wine for the head; Burgundy and Rhône, wine for the heart. Even a poet as sententious and self-absorbed as Petrarch would, one feels, have been able to allow a wine as appealing as this one to penetrate the formidable defenses of his self-consciousness. Perhaps, too, it could have inspired him to appreciate the pleasures of landscape without his having to decide in advance what he was going to think about it.

  • Halloween or Christmas-Which Is Scarier?

    How many shopping days left until Christmas? Well, whatever it is, it’s not enough. Cry all you want during your next trip to Target about the Bleeding Skull Halloween costumes hanging next to the icicle lights and the faux-fir tree display. Do you hear what I hear? It’s the rat-a-tat-tat of mass merchants gunning for our rummy-tum-tums.

    Every year around this time I kick myself for not starting earlier. Like, oh, I don’t know: maybe in August? The idea would be to try to spread the financial strain over weeks and weeks rather than concentrate it into one hellish month of gorging and gouging. Like dental work, I put it off until it’s too late, or till it hurts. Forget credit card purchases and “deferred billing.” All over the department stores the cheery signs declare, “No payments until February 3rd!” What a good idea. I can see myself now, coming to in the aftermath of holiday parties and get-togethers with an extra layer of gelatinous chub quilting my jowls, and, surprise, about five hundred dollars in the hole. It won’t just seem like the darkest day of the year, it truly will be.

    There’s also an intricate system of checks and balances involved in gift giving. Who to buy for? How much is too much? How little says, “This really is the least I could do?” It’s not the thought that counts anymore, but the deliberation. What you give says so much about what you think about the other person. Last year, my sister’s gift told me that she thought I was the kind of person who made her own doughnuts.

    Some couples give detailed “wish lists” to one another. This is wrong. The only acceptable time for a person over the age of twelve who is not a bride to request a specific gift is when they’re asking for bone marrow, a kidney, or primary custody of the children. Which is essentially a form of re-gifting.

    And then there’s the gift of gab. Some people just give till it hurts. You know you’ve been there. Office party: knocking back a styrofoam cup of warm, nutmeg-speckled sluice while eyeing the cutie-pie standing at the buffet table near the pumpkin squares. But before you can make your move, darkness descends in the form of a boring coworker. You try to escape, but the air around you is quickly converted to sleeping gas, and soon a coagulated topskin forms on your egg, milk, and booze treat. Initially you listen, then move on to presenting an outward show of listening (which is just as good to your captor) while your eyes glaze over like a holiday ham. Meanwhile the sugar plum over at the buffet has wandered out of flirting range.

    Among my extended group of friends, we try to have a little fun with tradition. This year, instead of “Secret Santa” gifts, we’re having “Surprised Santa.” We’ll meet for dinner and drinks at a lovely, expensively priced bistro. We will imbibe to our heart’s content, and at closing time, in ones and in pairs, stealthily sneak out of the cafe until there is only one of us left holding the check. Santa!

    Budgeting for a family during the holiday season can be tough. When I was a kid, my mom used to stuff our stockings with toiletries, things she was going to have to buy for us anyway. Years later, I imagine her raiding the medicine cabinet well past midnight on Christmas Eve: While her family sleeps, her vision clouded by exhaustion, she desperately tries to decide which one of us kids would appreciate the extra toothbrush versus the Doan’s Backache Pills.

    Bestowing gifts on family and friends now is more of a challenge. Most people I know have too much swag already. Our houses look like Pier One. The things we could all use, like patience, goodwill, and faith, are in short supply. Most of us wander through this time of year wound as tight as a spool of curling ribbon. Be sure to make time for yourself. Maybe do a little retail therapy.

  • Colorblind? Or Unaccountable?

    One of my oldest friends, actor Joseph C. Phillips (mayor on CBS’s The District), who grew up black, hopeful, and liberal, but is now African-American, angry, and conservative, recently asked me how I felt about the latest Ward Connerly initiative. Connerly, the black University of California regent who convinced voters to make affirmative action verboten in college admissions, now wants California to banish all racial references from official state records. Joseph liked the idea. I knew, or at least thought I knew, that I did not like the idea, but told him I needed to mull it over for a few days to figure out why.

    Meanwhile, I chanced across an article about Anatole Broyard, a New York Times book reviewer who spent forty years passing as a white man. Broyard, who died in 1990 without ever telling his children who he really was, left a rich legacy of literary criticism. According to one of Broyard’s close friends, Broyard believed he could not simultaneously be an “aesthete” and a Negro. Harvard scholar Henry Gates said that Broyard “did not want to write about black love, black passion, black suffering, black joy; he wanted to write about love and passion and suffering and joy. We give lip service to the idea of the writer who happens to be black, but…has anyone ever seen such a thing?”

    My musings about Connerly and Broyard took place against the backdrop of the March on Washington’s fortieth anniversary. I heard Martin Luther King’s classic words replayed many times that week: “…an America where my four little children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” What do King’s words mean now, in the context of Ward Connerly’s latest crusade? Do they place Broyard’s deceptions in a more sympathetic light?

    I think King envisioned an America where race would be acknowledged as part of who one is, not as a criterion by which to measure what someone is worth. But the America in which Martin Luther King and Anatole Broyard came to manhood contained many reminders of the direct correlation between race and value. Almost everything associated with black people—from the schools we attended to the jobs we held—was inferior. Remember the scene in the film Malcolm X, when a white teacher told him that being a lawyer was not a “proper job for a nigger”? “Now Malcolm,” he said in a very kind voice, “you are good with your hands… you should be a carpenter. After all, Jesus was a carpenter…”

    Broyard had, as we would say now, “trust issues” with America. He did not trust that the land of his birth would judge him solely by the “content of his character” and did not believe that he could transcend race. So he decided to hide his race to give his talent room to soar.

    Reflecting on Anatole Broyard made it clear to me why I do not like Connerly’s idea. Quite simply, I do not trust that the people who run our bureaucracies—and let’s be real, it is still primarily white folks—will do the right thing.

    Collecting racial information provides the statistical firepower to know, for example, that African-American motorists are far more likely to be stopped by the police, for “driving while black.” Racial statistics have been the smoking gun in housing discrimination lawsuits, damning proof of funding disparities for all sorts of stuff, and the basis for just about every social service decision ever made. To stop collecting this information because the Ward Connerlys of the world believe that we have reached some racial utopia would be stupidity of nearly criminal proportions. Our society has yet to demonstrate that it can be trusted to treat all its citizens equally without the accountability that this information helps to provide.

    Sadly, Broyard felt that his only option for addressing this mistrust of the society white folks built was to fold himself into the very ranks of those who built the racist walls that trapped him. For better or worse, collecting racial data is another, less personally destructive way of doing the same thing. We simply cannot make the leap to the world King dreamed of on that bright summer day so full of hope forty years ago, without keeping track of who’s who.

  • Sustainable Wine

    One would have thought it was impossible to pay too much for food. Life, after all, is not the same without it. Yet all over the developed world, farmers are hard up. The English newspapers made hay some weeks ago with a story about farmers’ wives in the Hardy Country, one of the most picture-postcard parts of Britain, who are obliged to advertise their charms on the Internet for the enjoyment of foreign tourists (“Come and Pluck an English Rose”) in order—if you will permit the expression—to make ends meet.

    Government subsidies, meant to solve the conundrum of keeping food cheap without making farmers impossibly poorer than their fellow countrymen, do nothing for Third World farmers, who are thus excluded from markets. Farm subsidies are not, in the final analysis, for the long-suffering farmer; they are for eaters who would rather spend money on something else. God alone knows the solution to this—how many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    But one can hardly hold up for admiration the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union (or whatever the Common Market is being called this week), even though more than forty-six percent of the official expenditure of the European Union goes toward agriculture. The Common Market started as a deal by which German industry paid for the picturesque traditions of French farming. They put the European Parliament at Strasbourg in Alsace to symbolize this concord. Whatever the symbolism, the practicalities are truly remarkable. For one week each month, the 626 members, their staff (who otherwise work in Brussels), their secretariat (based in Luxembourg), and their translators (into and out of eleven official languages) decamp to Alsace. Imagine moving the Minnesota Legislature up to Duluth one week in four, all the year round.

    Strasbourg is certainly central to Old Europe. Caught between the river Rhine in Germany and the Vosges Mountains in France, it enjoys a relatively dry and continental climate. It has been fought over by armies from East and West at least since the neo-pagan Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate defeated a Germanic confederation there in 357. After the war of 1870, Alsace became German (Elsass); in 1918 it became French once again. Hence the old joke about Alsace wine being made of German grapes using French methods—which means they do, or do not, wash their feet (adjust joke according to prejudice).

    It is true that many of the Alsace grape varieties, such as riesling and sylvaner, are also widely grown in Germany. Alsace is in fact the only part of France producing first-rate wine where the grape variety rather than the region is the most prominent item on a wine label. The grape most readily associated with Alsace is the gewürztraminer, a variety actually related to muscat grapes and made into wine with a strong smell of elderflowers, melons, or lychees (pick your own comparison), tasting remarkably like its own fresh grapes.

    As in Germany, some growers leave the best grapes on the vines until they grow the “noble rot” and are made into sweeter wines labeled “Vendange Tardive” (German Spätlese). But most Alsace gewürztraminer is made into table wine, clean, dry and spicy, fermented in steel rather than in oak, until all the residual sugar has been absorbed and the wine has a fresh bright finish. This is perhaps the only wine that can stand up to curry.

    It is certainly good with turkey. As it costs a fraction of what you would pay for the fine wines of Burgundy, the wine region closest to the southwest of Alsace, you might want to stock up on it in anticipation of Thanksgiving. I would not answer for its compatibility with marshmallow dip or lime jelly. So buy a bottle now and practice.

  • Shameless Self-Demotion

    September 12, 2003, 1:37 p.m. Two days over deadline. Behind in not only this job, but all of the other part-time jobs that create this dubious, ever shifting “whole” of self-employment. OK, Colleen, get a grip. Don’t subdivide your anxiety; just concentrate on one thing at a time.

    3:41 p.m. Staring at the screen for hours won’t help. Must…finish…column.…Oh, for crying out loud. It’s only 750 words. It’s not rocket science.

    4:02 p.m. Friend calls. Says she’s sorry she didn’t “remember” to invite me to her birthday party. Well, take this one on the chin. Maybe she’s getting so old that she is having cognitive thought degeneration. Make note to send her flowers, an info packet from the Alzheimer’s Association, and a sample of Clinique’s total turnaround eye-repair serum.

    4:24 p.m. Why did I quit smoking?

    4:25 p.m. Maybe I should get my tongue pierced.

    4:29 p.m. Partial list of things I hate: The Madonna–Britney MTV French kiss. (She’s old enough to be her mother! Bad! Wrong!) George and Laura Bush. (Pay-per-view should get those two to French kiss.) George Sr. and Barbara. (She’s old enough to be his mother! Bad! Wrong!) The Denny Hecker ads on MTC buses. (Did Franco Columbo inflate Denny’s head?) Cell phones. (If you get mad at the person you’re talking to, you can’t slam the phone down into the cradle for dramatic effect.) Bennifer, Pilates, and Mary-Kate Olsen. (Ashley seems like she might be OK.) “Mean People Suck!” buttons. (Some of my best friends are mean.)

    4:49 p.m. My big show is coming up. Pantages Theatre, October 3, 4, and 5. Will anyone call for tickets? I think I remember the number. It’s (612) 673-0404. God, I hope they call now! (NOW!)

    4:53 p.m. Maybe I can just write about odd stuff in the news. Like that sad, freaky deal with the bank robber/pizza guy who had the bomb locked to his neck. No, that’s not funny for sure. The only way that could be funny is if it were a scene in a Coen Brothers movie. Who would be good to play the sad, freaky pizza guy? Steve Buscemi? It would be more fun to see him being played by Tom Cruise. Smug bastard. Boom.

    5:17 p.m. Maybe I should read The Rake for ideas. What are the other columnists up to? I wonder if they’re blowing the deadline too. What’s this—a new column? Sex & the Married Man? Dude. Men frequent any and all branches of the sex industry for one reason only. It’s business, baby. It’s a direct path to paradise that requires only an ID and a little cash. It does not require any outlay of personality, or social-emotional compromise that a relationship—even a one-night stand—would take. It is not for the sake of variety. If it were, there are plenty of social clubs for variety-lovin’ folk. Oh, but then a guy would have to go to the trouble of developing those relationships, huh? Or, more important, would have to admit to himself that what he really wants is not an exclusive relationship, but an all-you-can-eat trip to the booty buffet. Women aren’t frigid if they don’t condone this behavior. They aren’t necessarily threatened either. Think of it like business. Supply and demand.

    C’mere. I’ll let you in on a little secret. Women can have sex anytime they want. It’s true! I could cram fried chickens into my mouth until my can was the size of a papasan ottoman—walk out my front door, and, within fifteen minutes, have sexual intercourse with a man.

    Hell, there might even be a fetish site dedicated to papasan-sized rear ends. The point is, I could always be somebody’s prom queen. All women could. And we know this. Therefore we do not value sex above the other good things that life has to offer, like luxury hand towels, or artisan cheese. Or a hilarious one-woman show: (612) 673-0404.

    Men, on the other hand, never know when or if they will ever get to have sex again. The booty business exists so that men can purchase what they have never been able to achieve on their own. Sexual sovereignty. So, Tiger, don’t kid yourself that your rabid libido is blazing a path to Dream Girls. It’s your innate fear of being left high and dry. (Thanks, Stuart. I owe you one!)

    6:54 p.m. 742 words. Over and out.

  • To Honor All—or Just One

    What do the Episcopal Church and Kobe Bryant have in common? Both are being forced to face the consequences of earlier moral commitments that may take them to places they never wanted to go. For the Episcopal Church, the initial commitment was to social equality. For Kobe, it was marital fidelity. Next year at this time, the Episcopalians may be splintered into several factions, and Kobe could be on permanent loan to the Colorado penal system. Like most conundrums, by the time the shouting started, it really was too little too late, because the ending was ordained by the beginning.

    The Episcopal Church has historically helped lead the spiritual charge for social change. When Martin Luther King Jr. marched on Selma, Episcopal clergy were right alongside him. When women demanded a more authoritative voice in mainstream churches, the Episcopal Church was among the first, albeit reluctantly, to hear their cry. It was not surprising that the Episcopalians were also among the first to accept openly gay people as leaders in their church.

    And so, in Minneapolis on August 6, the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. confirmed the openly gay Rev. Gene Robinson as a bishop. The historic vote, hailed variously as a “calling by God” or the beginning of the apocalypse (hey, in a metaphysical way, isn’t that the same thing?), the Episcopalians made the front page of every newspaper in America. Strangely enough, nearly everyone acted as though the vote caught them by surprise. Considering the past forty years of Episcopal commitment to equality and basic human nature, this decision was a foregone conclusion.

    Can an organization make a commitment to equality for all (as the Episcopalians say they do), and then deny equal access to its entry-level management position (priest)? Well, enough church members did not think so, and admitted openly gay people like Robinson into its divinity schools, knowing that eventually, they would want to be priests. And once they became priests, they would want all the perquisites that come with the job—including the chance to move up the food chain.

    How does this have any possible connection with hoopster Kobe Bryant? Think about it: Kobe, like the Episcopal Church, also made a commitment, one that involved the words “honor” and “forsaking all others.” Once he made that commitment, he certainly knew that most people, especially his wife and the companies who paid him millions to hawk their stuff, expected him to keep it. He’s not married to his sponsors, but they’re certainly married to a reputable image of him; that’s why they pay the big bucks.

    Yes, basketball made Kobe a prosperous sports star, but what made him really famous and really, really rich were his endorsements. The Nikes of the world realize that being tight with a clean-living good guy makes you look like a good guy, too. And Kobe, unlike the Dennis Rodmans of sportsdom, epitomized clean living. He spoke Italian, had a drop-dead-gorgeous wife, and boycotted the after-game parties where his teammates consumed booze and women with equal gusto.

    Therefore, once Kobe made his decision (or more likely, continued to make his decision) to trash his commitment, there were several possible consequences. Some were immediate, such as sexual gratification. Others—for example, disease, pregnancy, divorce, scandal, loss of endorsements—were only possibilities and, Kobe apparently thought, worth the risk.

    What is the lesson learned from these two summer headline grabbers? First, publicly committing to high ideals creates the entirely reasonable expectation that one will live by them, too. In other words, when the Episcopal Church says, as it does on its official website, that its mission is to “restore all people to unity with God,” then does it have any choice but to make its priesthood (and higher positions such as bishop) accessible without regard to how gay is too gay? And when Kobe promised to forsake all others, and then made that commitment an integral part of a public image worth millions, can he honestly be surprised when his fans and his corporate sponsors drop him like a used jock strap?

    This brings us to the most important lesson of the past six weeks. One should never forget when making a commitment—either to treating every person the same or being intimate with just one—that keeping it can be just as costly as breaking it.

  • Wine, wine, wine! Dreams and Responsibilities

    I hope you are enjoying the new Harry Potter. Such a wealth of invention. And so witty. No profound psychological penetration, I suppose, but who ever expected that in a school story or a murder mystery? J.K. Rowling may not be Jane Austen, but then neither is Dorothy Sayers (who made the error of falling in love with her detective) or P.D. James (so much blood, such clever use of the Book of Common Prayer), Edmund Crispin (the thinking man’s Dorothy Sayers), or Agatha Christie (of whom to say that she has cardboard characters is to attribute to cardboard an excess of sensation).

    Even without psychological subtlety, Rowling has conjured up wonderful characters. Anyone employed in education will recognize Professor Umbridge, an administrator from the Ministry of Magic who cannot herself teach her way out of a paper bag but is sent in to reform Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. “She drafted a bit of anti-werewolf legislation two years ago that makes it almost impossible for him to get a job,” says one professor about a brilliant colleague. The enemy of the Umbridges of this world is imagination.

    And that is what Rowling has in superabundance. This is not teenybopper novelty-shop witchcraft. Still less is it the nasty world of black masses and witches’ sabbaths. I have never heard anyone miss a point so comprehensively as the earnest, amiable, and literal-minded evangelist on NPR who objected to the Harry Potter tales as promoters of the black arts by quoting sentences out of context, treating the novels in fact in the way that some people treat their Bibles—as if they were instruction manuals for lawn mowers. The bishop of London caught the spirit of the thing when he said he would happily appoint a chaplain for Hogwarts any day Professor Dumbledore requested one.

    Of course, not every exercise of the imagination is good. Films like The Patriot propagate a view of the American Revolution that fails to acknowledge it as a civil war between two sets of American colonists, and so perpetuates hostility toward foreigners (and lobsters) that the world might be better off without. Braveheart irresponsibly fomented political hatred within the United Kingdom (think how well it did at the box office).

    Yet Harry Potter generates sheer eutrapelia (handy word, that). It recalls the playful Roman poet Ovid. Scarcely surprising, seeing that Rowling (like The Rake himself) was a Latin major in college. Now she is the richest woman in England, richer than the Queen, God bless her (both of them).

    Which just shows that imagination has practical consequences. In dreams begin responsibilities. Byron dreamed that Greece might yet be free. His dream formed part of the Grand Design or Big Idea that made Greece, in 1829, the first independent nation to be carved out of the old Ottoman Empire. The consequences of the long, slow disintegration of that Empire we are still living with, not least in Iraq.

    Half a century after Greek independence, in Thessaloniki, then an Ottoman city, Yiannis Boutari founded the wine concern that still bears his name. Of course, Greeks have been making wine ever since Homer’s heroes sailed the wine-dark sea. But only recently did it become commercially available in glass bottles like Boutari’s.

    There is something of the smell of a wooded Greek hillside about the red wine they make in the Naoussa in northern Greece, fifty miles from Thessaloniki. The grape is called xinomauro, which is Greek for acid black. Ancient and modern Greeks alike call red wine black—after all, it only looks red in a glass. Sure enough Boutari Naoussa is a good dark-ruby color. The taste is robust, not unlike cabernet, and the price, about $12, is a good value.

    No need to clutter your appreciation by recalling that this comes from the same area as Alexander the Great—the man with the grandest designs in all the ancient world. Taste is its own idea. The taste buds are, after all, the swiftest messengers on the royal road from reality to the imagination.

  • Faithful Friends

    1972. I don’t remember the month, but it was warm enough for me not to be wearing a jacket, just my head-to- toe Garanimals red outfit. A T-shirt and jeans in my signature color. I was four years old. I could dress myself, and when I put on that outfit, baby, I meant business.

    Everybody in my family was busy moving their stuff into our new house. I was told to stay in the yard, but the hell with that. I started knocking on doors up and down the block as soon as I could slip away, determined not to waste an instant of the first day in the new neighborhood.

    I saw a likely place right at the end of the block; white stucco with pretty purple flowers and a front yard littered with toys. The big front door was open, and through the screen door, you could hear a TV on too loud (just the way I liked it) and kids yelling.

    I marched right up to the screen and because you can’t knock on a screen, I mashed my face right up against it and yelled, “Hey!”

    Instantly, a big boy and girl and a littler boy and girl appeared at the door. We all stared at each other for a second, and I pointed at the littler girl (because she was closest to my size) and said, “I’m here to talk to her.” The others shrugged and went back to the TV, and the little one opened the door and came outside.

    She had long, dark-brown hair and black, glittery eyes that were shaped like crescents. We stood looking at each other, and the excitement was almost more than I could bear. “Well, what do you want?” she asked me.

    “My name is Colleen.” I told her. “Today, I moved into the yellow house over there.” I pointed, and then turning back to her with a wide baby-toothed grin, “I’m here to be your friend.” And so we were.

    At that age, I guess, it can be that easy. During my school years, my friendships were largely based on who I had classes with, and later on, who had a cigarette. At work in the foodservice industry, I have met and served alongside a revolving mélange of people who I sometimes have very little in common with, other than the task at hand. What turns an acquaintanceship into a full-blown friendship is the sharing, of course. Whether that comes in the form of a favorite (or abhorrent) teacher, a smoky treat, or marrying the ketchups while griping about the craptacular tippers at table twenty.

    2003. I watch my new friendships like an anxious gambler. I’ve only got so much to put on the table. Now that I have a husband and children, the time I spend on my established friendships is usually relegated to a hurried, misspelled Instant Messenger paragraph or a weekly session of voicemail tag.

    When I talk to my friend Roxanne, who moved to New York City three years ago, I cradle the cordless phone between my ear and shoulder while conquering Mt. St. Laundry. By the time I make it from the base camp where the unmatched socks live to the summit of unfolded bath towels, both of us are out of oxygen. She’s cleaning too, doing her dishes. (In a tiny Manhattan apartment, doing laundry means scraping the gunk out of your panties in the sink and drying them in the microwave. Ah, big-city livin’.) We’re staying in touch, but we’re not giving it our full attention the way we used to before life filled up with priorities. Chris, who just moved to New Orleans, has vanished after a single magnolia-scented email gloating about the sensuous pleasures of his new home. It’s warm there. I don’t expect to hear from him again.

    Now I’m bombarded by popup ads from Classmates.com and it seems friendship has evolved into something artificial and pushy and strained, like a Pampered Chef party.

    Whenever I meet somebody who’s new to the Twin Cities, they tell me how hard it is to make friends. They blame the frigid weather or the families that have lived here forever or Scandinavian reserve. Even if you’ve been here all your life, it can be daunting.

    So take it from me. Don’t be afraid to knock on some doors. But don’t come to my house. I’m busy.

  • More Equal Than Others

    “Equal justice under law.” These words, emblazoned over the entrance to the United States Supreme Court in Washington, really represent the “bottom line” of our court system. No matter who you are—Joe Blow or Joe Biernat—if you do the crime, you should get the same time.

    In unguarded moments, however, lawyers will tell you what they want is not equal justice but justice for their client. They want to win. And the good trial lawyers know that trials are won or lost during jury selection. If you don’t believe them, just ask O.J. Simpson. His “Dream Team” spent big money to figure out what the ideal jury would look like and did everything they possibly could to get it.

    The preemptory challenge or “strike” is the weapon lawyers use to terminate jurors they do not want. Lawyers can strike a juror for almost any reason—except race. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, racially based juror strikes are unconstitutional because they violate a defendant’s right to a bias-free jury and also violate a prospective juror’s right to participate in jury service. If a judge suspects that a lawyer is trying to get rid of a potential juror because of race, then the judge must give the lawyer a chance to produce a “race-neutral” reason for canning the juror. If the judge thinks the reason is bogus, the juror stays.

    This is precisely what Judge Harry Crump did in The State of Minnesota v. Reiners. Judge Crump, who quickly realized that the lawyers defending a white man accused of assaulting a Latino man were trying to keep a black woman off the jury simply because she was black, refused to be duped by their flimsy subterfuge. He kept her on the jury. Unfortunately, five of the seven Minnesota Supremes said Judge Crump was wrong, even though they tacitly conceded that the defendant’s “race-neutral” reason was bunk. Justice Alan Page, the court’s lone African-American, offered a well-reasoned dissent (in which he was courageously joined by Justice Russell Anderson), bitterly explaining why, for people of color, “equal justice under law” remains an elusive goal in our justice system.

    Cecil John Reiners was charged with first-degree assault after he fractured Jose Padilla’s skull with a two-by-four because he spoke Spanish to one of Reiners’s employees. Reiners’s defense counsel quickly struck an African-American woman whose dad was a former cop. The prosecutors argued that Reiners’s defense lawyers were simply trying to camouflage the real reason for removing her—the color of her skin. Judge Crump was not bamboozled and told the lawyers, “I am going to deny the strike. Keep her on.” Reiners was convicted and sentenced to 91 months in prison.

    Normally, appellate courts accept the trial judge’s decision (or in judgespeak, give them “great deference”) on matters such as jury selection, because, after all, he or she is the person who saw the show and knows where the bodies are buried. Instead, the Minnesota Supreme Court, sitting miles and months removed from the Reiners trial, and ignoring reams of judicial precedent, dissed Judge Crump. The court said that once Reiners’s lawyers gave a so-called race-neutral reason for striking the African-American juror, it did not matter if the reason was not “persuasive or even plausible.” In other words, as long as Reiners made up some excuse, even if everyone knew it was bull, that was good enough for Minnesota’s highest court. From there, it was easy for the court to throw out his conviction, because a “tainted” jury rendered it, and to grant Reiners a new trial.

    Justice Page’s blistering words cleanly exposed the racist hypocrisy of the supreme court’s decision. “Today’s decision highlights an extremely troublesome trend emerging from this court, one that evinces a hostility towards jurors of color.” Page noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court never second-guessed a trial judge’s call on racially tainted jury strikes until the defendant was white and the victim was not. “It is beyond ironic that, in this case with its Caucasian defendant…we decline to give the trial court any deference whatsoever.”

    Justice Page said from the bench what most black and brown folks in the streets have always known—that when it comes to justice, there are two flavors. White people are far more likely to get one and the rest of us get another. And, as long the our state’s highest court issues decisions like State v. Reiners, that ain’t gonna change anytime soon.

  • Hands Across the Ocean

    Though it is nearly 20 years ago now, some of us are old enough to remember the Official Preppy Handbook. It told girls called Muffy how to adjust their pearls, push pennies into their penny loafers and pursue men in tartan trousers (which they called plaid pants).

    The other day I came across the British equivalent, the Sloane Ranger Handbook (Sloane Square is a smart part of London, near Harrod’s grand emporium). From it, Caroline and Henry Sloane discover how to get green Wellington boots, where to study Cordon Bleu cookery, and which pack of hounds to hunt foxes with. For Americans, it offers a rare chance to consider whether our two great nations are divided by more than a common language.

    They are. What the great Augustine would call the “loves” of Sloanes and Preppies are quite distinct. Consider attitudes to the land; in England rural is smart, in America it means hick. Or think of smell. Caroline and Henry think it sad that Americans do not smell of anything. All those showers kill smell dead; far better to wallow in a steamy bath. Caroline married Henry largely on account of his smell, a delicious amalgam of pipe smoke, Labradors, and old leather.

    The English simmer (where I write) is ripe with aromas. I do not refer to the overpowering stench of prevarication emerging from a government that persuaded many Members of Parliament to vote for its war in Iraq by announcing we could all be blown up at 45 minutes notice by Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. The public has a strong sense that if Her Majesty’s ministers were so sure these large but elusive weapons existed, they ought at least to be able to say where they are. This is a smell that will not go away anytime soon.

    Thank God there are pleasanter airs abroad. Freshness rises from the pale green grass of the aftermath, where the crows are pecking among the bales of new-mown hay. The sweet peas are flowering, as powerful as brandy, as honeyed as Sauternes. But perhaps the most characteristic smell comes from the black currants—not blackberries, the autumn fruit that looks like raspberries dipped in ink, but black currants, Ribes nigrum, like small cranberries, growing on thornless bushes with leaves like vines.

    In the sunshine, they are as pungent as skunks but a whole pile pleasanter, slightly oily (reminiscent, in fact, of the oil boys used to drip onto their electric trains), sweet, sour, and fruity all at the same time. Wine made from the sauvignon blanc grape, especially Pouilly-Fumé from the Loire in western France, is often said to smell of black currants.

    The black currant is the most widely grown fruit in Europe. John Tradescant the Elder brought it to England from Central Europe in the early 17th century, in time for it to be transported to the American colonies. It has never been widely grown in America.

    Forestedge Winery in Laporte, Minnesota, however, is said to be adding black currant to its range of wines made from local soft fruit and berries. Look out for it.

    In the meantime, try a summer aperitif called Kir. Quarter-fill a wine glass with crème de cassis, the liqueur made in Burgundy from black currants and far too sticky to drink on its own. Top it with dry white wine. In Burgundy, they use aligoti (the name of a grape), but you could try anything white, dry, and light. With champagne it becomes Kir Royale. Watch the pretty pink swirls, like marble in motion, then sip judiciously as the sun sinks, the loon calls, and the dog falls into the lake for the nth time (where n is a large whole number).

    Kir is named after a priest from Burgundy, Canon Kir, a hero of the resistance and then for many years, in the Fourth Republic, mayor of Dijon. The good canon’s name may be seen on the bottles of the premixed version of Kir, but if you cannot find them, it is easy to mix your own. There are few fruitier ways of keeping down the bill for preprandial libation. Besides, it stretches a hand of friendship across the Atlantic, and that cannot be bad.