"Conflicts Check" or "Being A Highly-Learned Treatise on the Law, Music, Suffering, Culture, Society, and Lap Dogs" is brought to you by Daniel J. Canon, Attorney-at-Law, who hopes you find it entertaining.
He also hopes that you do not find it to be legal advice, because it is not.
This fine internet publication was painstakingly handcrafted by the most pretentious creatures found in all of nature. Its content has been aged to perfection, then lovingly borne on the backs of trained first-year law students and delivered right to your internet service provider's doorstep in burlap sacks.
Please do not correct the author, as he is highly astute and never, ever wrong.
Please note that this blog is beta, and will be forever.
Despite the extreme, unprecedented adversity of the last couple of weeks, some cool things have happened. I’m not inclined to blog about deeply personal adversity (and let’s face it, there’s still LiveJournal and, you know, real literature for that), so I’ll blog about the cool stuff.
First, The Godard Group has invited me to be interviewed (or “twitterviewed,” because god knows you can’t refer to Twitter at all without making some hideous portmanteau) for 22 Tweets. That is set to happen (tentatively) on December 17. I’ll link it here when it gets done. It is a pretty cool concept, but I’m afraid I am not as interesting as most of the rest of the folks on there. I have an edge in that I am probably more vulgar, so we’ll see how that plays out. Definitely take a look at some of the past ones if you’re into that kind of thing. And who wouldn’t be? You’re not lawyer-averse…are you?
Second, it looks like I’ll be taking my first crack at arguing before the Kentucky Supreme Court on January 14. I don’t want to talk too much about the case here, but suffice it to say that I hope it’s going to make some good civil rights law, and I’m definitely excited for the opportunity. The link to the opinion from which the SCOKY* accepted discretionary review is here. Please let me know your thoughts, and good vibes are appreciated, too.
__________________________________
* – “SCOKY” means “Supreme Court Of KentuckY,” and is not to be confused with Skokie, IL.
Hi there. Yes, I know…in my last post I promised to write more. That was in July. But look, I’ve been busy since then. Busy enough to rack up about 300 unread comments on 5 posts, mostly consisting of – you guessed it – Russian porn ads, Nigerian scams, and nondescript gibberish. Let me give you a rundown of what me and mine have been up to the last few months:
1. Acting: A lot of acting. I never really did it before this year, but I am kinda hooked. After Elevator Plays 3, I was cast as a cross-dressing Nazi-captain in Bent, and then as Riff-Raff in Pandora’s Rocky Horror Show. Wow. Fun. Had I known how much fun I had been missing out on all these years…well, I’d probably be dead now. I’m in a four-person show called Dinner With Friends in Oldham County through next weekend, and in January I’ll be playing bass for Pandora’s Oh My Godmother. If you get a chance, come say hi.
2. Music: Not as much as any other time in my adult life, probably, but still a decent amount. Shine-Ola is still playing semi-regular Thursday nights at Ray’s Monkey House. The guitar teaching biz has amped up a bit (get it?), but I’m still only doing one day a week. I started playing with an original rock band called Blood Turns Brown. We don’t have any recordings yet, but if you want to check out the page, some of the singer/songwriter’s (Jon Harrod’s) material is there. I’ve known Jon for a long time, and his songs keep getting better and better. I’ve also resolved to write a little more frequently, but I resolve to do a lot of things. If and when I get some new material together, I’ll post it here.
3. Lawyering: A lot of lawyering. While the website (and for the most part, this blog) may be frozen in time, business is vibrant. Still practicing in the same place with the same folks, at least until the end of the year. We’ve gotten some press on a couple of cases. Here’s one we won. Here’s one we lost (for now). Here’s one we’re still waiting on. We also went to trial on a really bizarre dogbite case. I’ll tell you all about it someday. Suffice it to say, it is almost never dull.
After about a year of having more irons in the fire than I can count, it is perhaps natural that I have been thinking a lot about multiplicity. You know, serving more than one master, that kind of thing. Is it possible to do so competently? I tend to think so. People have a lot of flexibility, a lot of adaptive strategies that are rarely employed, and a capacity for learning that probably doesn’t get used nearly as much as it should. I think it’s a real shame when people get boxed into a particular routine and refuse to deviate from it. I’m terrified of that kind of existence, or anything even remotely resembling it. I realize that not everyone has a choice in the matter, and I’m grateful for what I’ve got.
What I’m describing is part of what scared me away from doing the music thing full time. It’s strange that lawyering should be considered more mundane than music-teaching, or even being a professional musician. I always loved and will love teaching and playing, but I got to the point where I felt like 1) what I was doing didn’t make much difference in the grand scheme of things, and 2) I was basically doing the same thing over and over again, every day. Lawyering is not like that for me, at least not yet. You’re always doing different things all the time. And unlike the arts, which are almost necessarily self-serving and ego-inflating, being an attorney is necessarily focused on the needs of other people. What I have found to be interesting, though, is that on average, theater people and musicians are almost universally more accepting, more open, more empathetic, and more giving of themselves than the average attorney. I don’t get that. Not saying either way is wrong or right, I just don’t get it. It probably has something to do with wealth, privilege, the adversarial system, or something else that I’ll never fully understand.
But even if I don’t get it, it’s great to have a both a bird’s- and a snake’s-eye view of more than one piece of American culture. And not just culture, but subculture, and sub-subculture. It’s so easy to get comfortable in one little niche that you can easily forget what else is out there. And, especially in my 30’s, I’ve realized that there’s a lot out there. By being exceedingly capricious, I’ve had the good fortune to have a lot of experiences that I would never trade for anything.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the nigh-obsessive behaviors associated with multiplicity – for instance, never allowing yourself to do nothing – do more harm than good. There is little doubt that 80/90/100-hour weeks are not particularly healthy. And at a certain point, you have to question whether you will ever be satisfied with anything. For instance, I am a little bothered by the fact that I will likely never have firsthand knowledge of what it’s like to be a professional athlete, or an auto mechanic, or a chef (though one never knows).
I would like to hear from those of you that hang out in multiple spheres of existence. What are your coping strategies? I think most people have a primary “thing,” a character that they identify themselves as. For me it was a musician, now it’s an attorney. But the musician still nips at the attorney’s heels quite a bit. How do you reconcile your multiple selves? If you made a transition from one character to another, was it difficult for you to allow yourself to do that? And most importantly…
How in the hell did any of you have time to read this?
It has recently come to my attention that some people – and not just my wife and mom – are occasionally reading this thing. So, yeah, sorry about not posting since…uhm…March. If you posted a comment forever ago that wasn’t about Ambien or Russian porn, I probably didn’t approve it ’til just now. Sorry for that, too. I’ll try to make up for it over the next week or so with a few posts I’ve had brewing. At some point, I’ll work on the website too. Baby steps.
Part of the reason I can’t get into a groove with recreational writing is that I’ve been doing a lot of professional writing. I’m not complaining. I like research and writing better than any other aspect of lawyering. But after you crank out a couple of briefs right in a row, you don’t wanna write no mo’. It’s just like reading. After law school, recreational reading has basically become a thing of the past for me. It’s a shame; I still had a lot of books I wanted to read. But I digress.
Right now, employment discrimination cases are taking up the vast majority of my time. And a substantial percentage of the time I spend on those cases is occupied by telling people they don’t have a case. Most employment lawyers on the plaintiffs’ side will tell you: for every 20 people who want to sue their (former) employer, you might have one or two cases that will actually stand a chance at getting to a jury. That’s not to say those cases will get a lot of money, or even any money at all, for someone who’s been wronged. That’s just the nature of American employment law. Most people don’t understand it, and I can definitely see why. Turning someone away is the worst part of my job. After all, if someone does something wrong to you, you ought to have recourse, right? Not always.
So as a public service, both to you and to myself, I offer this tongue-in-cheek, (hopefully) plain-English FAQ to determine whether you have a case for employment discrimination. Take it for what it’s worth. I hope you find it edifying, enlightening, and entertaining.
Q: I was fired for being twenty minutes late. It’s the first time I’ve ever been late to work, and I told the manager I was sorry. Can I sue my employer for wrongful termination?
A: No. A maxim used by employment lawyers everywhere is: you can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all, but not for a wrong reason. So what’s a “wrong” reason? In a nutshell, your age, race, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. There are some exceptions to this, but not many. If you don’t think your termination was based on any of those factors, you probably don’t have a case.
Q: I was fired for being twenty minutes late. It’s the first time I’ve ever been late to work, and I told the manager I was sorry. I’m the only African-American at my workplace, and my White co-workers routinely show up twenty (or more) minutes late without any kind of punishment. Can I sue my employer for wrongful termination?
A: Getting closer. If workplace rules are applied to one race, sex, religion, etc. differently than another, it’s discrimination. It can be tough to prove, though. When you break an employer’s rules, the deck is stacked against you.
Q: I am a Mexican-American. I recently complained to my supervisor that the Mexican employees in the workplace were being being discriminated against. My supervisor told me that was none of my business and fired me on the spot. Can I sue my employer for wrongful termination?
A: BINGO. This is by far the most common scenario we see nowadays. If you make a good-faith complaint of discrimination, you can’t be sacked for that. In fact, you can’t be terminated for making such a complaint even if you belong to a different group than the one you’re complaining about. For example, if I complain about Company X discriminating against Black employees, and I’m White, I can’t be terminated for making that complaint.
Q: I have worked at Corporation X making clown shoes for 35 years. It’s a deeply unfulfilling job, but I was a loyal employee. Last month, a new supervisor was hired. This person made my life a living hell. She berated me in front of my co-workers every day, nitpicked my work, and called me horrible names. It was obvious that she was trying to make me quit, and eventually I did. Can I sue the company for creating a hostile work environment?
A: No. These are the worst cases to turn down. This kind of thing happens all the time, and it absolutely breaks my heart. But the law doesn’t prohibit your supervisor’s assholishness. A hostile work environment is only a “hostile work environment” in a legal sense if it is based on race, sex, etc. One of the unfortunate features of our ultra-capitalist system of employment is that you can put in 35 years making clown shoes, and then be fired just because some slick new supervisor doesn’t like the look on your face.
Q: I live and work in rural Kentucky. My boss fired me when he found out I’m a lesbian. He called me every name in the book, and he even admits that he hates homosexuals and doesn’t want them anywhere near his business. Can I sue the employer for wrongful termination?
A: No. There is no specific protection under the state or federal civil rights acts for sexual orientation. A lot of people are shocked to learn this, and rightly so. It is high time for Congress to get off its collective ass and extend some real protections to the LGBT community. Now, I hasten to add that there are some pretty big exceptions to this one. First, if you are in Louisville, or any of a growing number of cities in Kentucky, you’ve got the Fairness Ordinance. This gives you the right to sue for discrimination based on “sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.” And fortunately, federal courts seem to be trending toward allowing protections for the LGBT community based on “sex” if a plaintiff can prove that s/he was discriminated against for not conforming to traditional gender roles.
Q: I am the only Jewish person out of a total of six employees in my workplace. My new supervisor told me I was fired because he didn’t like Jews. He used anti-semitic slurs against me and sent me home. Can I sue my employer for wrongful termination?
A: Believe it or not, no. At least not in Kentucky. I know, I know, this one’s crazy. The problem is that according to Kentucky’s civil rights laws, an employer with fewer than eight employees is not an “employer” at all. In the federal system, an “employer” has to have twelve employees or more. Thankfully, we don’t see this kind of thing happening too much in 2009. If it happens to you, you should talk to an attorney anyway, because there may be some other course of action you can take. For example, Louisville’s local anti-discrimination ordinance defines an “employer” as having only two or more employees.
Q: I work for a private corporation. I recently discovered that the owner murdered a whole troop of girl scouts and hid their bodies under Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium. I reported it to the police. As they dragged the guy away in chains, he yelled at me: “YOU’RE FIRED!” Surely I can sue the company for wrongful termination, right?
A: Wrong. The rule still applies: you can be fired for any reason except race, sex, etc. That includes reporting criminal activities of the employer under many circumstances. There are some big exceptions to this one, too. An employer can’t fire you because you refuse to commit a crime, for example. And if you work for the government, you might qualify as a whistleblower.
Q: Okay then, let’s say I work for local or state government. And let’s say I report that my supervisor is taking bribes, and HR fires me the next day. Game on?
A: You bet. You’re a whistleblower (at least in Kentucky). In fact, you don’t even have to be fired. If they diminish your job duties, suspend you, or discipline you in any way, you’ve got a potential cause of action.
Q: Good! But what if I’m a federal employee?
A: Oooh, that one’s tricky. It’s going to depend on the specific facts of your situation. Better talk to a lawyer. Before the Roberts-era Supreme Court, you would have had a pretty clear cause of action under the U.S. Constitution. Now, not so much.
Q: I was fired from my job for smoking half a pound of weed and driving the company dumptruck right into a giant trampoline full of nuns at a church picnic. I was high as a kite, but they can’t prove it. Also, uh…I think I was discriminated against. Yeah.
A: PLEASE STOP CALLING ME.
Let me be perfectly clear that THIS POST IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. If you’re seriously thinking about taking legal action, you should definitely talk to a living, breathing attorney about the particulars of your situation. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT take the internet’s advice on legal matters. The internet is not a lawyer. This stuff is waaaaaay too nuanced to rely on some yahoo’s WordPress post. But hopefully this will give you an idea of how this stuff works.
And lawyers: please chime in with your thoughts in the comment section. I promise I’ll be a better moderator.
For those of you that don’t know, I’m more than a little interested in legal issues facing cancer patients and survivors. In fact, you might say I have a vested interest in the subject. Last month, I gave an informal lecture (to a whopping three people) at Gilda’s Club on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
The newly-enacted law makes it illegal for health insurers to raise your premiums based on genetic information, or to treat that info as a preexisting condition. It also makes people with less-than-desirable genes into a protected class. This means you can’t be discriminated against by your employer for having those genes, just like you can’t be discriminated against for being female, or African-American or Gay.
In terms of practical application, the law is intended to cover folks who test positive for genes associated with a particular disorder. For example, if my hypothetical sister gets a test that says she has the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, and therefore has “potential cancer” in her hypothetical breasts but is otherwise healthy, insurers and employers are prohibited from giving her the hypothetical boot. In fact, most employers are not allowed to ask for genetic info without jumping through a series of flaming legal hoops (although I predict that they’ll find ways around this pretty quickly – call me crazy).
It’s not really as impressive as it sounds, for several reasons. First and foremost, the law hasn’t taken effect quite yet. Insurers who know this is coming can jack up your rates based on your genetic info until May. Employers can still discriminate on the basis of genetic info until November. (So get that discrimination in while you still can, am I right?)
Second, for the people I am most concerned with – the already-diagnosed – the law basically does diddly/squat. If you have already been diagnosed with, say, breast cancer, insurance companies can (and will) still fuck with you. (You’re still protected from your employer because of the ADA and similar state statutes, but I digress.)
However, there’s some good stuff here, too. For example, if everyone in your immediate family is diagnosed with cancer, your insurer/employer can’t act against you. Believe it or not, that’s a new thing. As it stands now, if an employer perceives you as a risk to the company because of the potential that you’ll get cancer, they probably can fire you. (Unless the employer is self-insured, which might get you an ERISA claim. But I’m not touching that with a thousand-foot pole.)
The biggest nightmare I foresee with this thing is basically a technological one. As science starts to discover genes that, like BRCA1 and BRCA2 are more than just one-trick ponies, the line between genetic info and manifestation of a disease will likely become less clear. Scientists already know that the presence of BRCA1 & 2 both indicate a higher risk of ovarian and other cancers. So let’s say a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, has a genetic test, and tests positive for BRCA1. Does she then have a cause of action against an insurer who might be inclined to charge her a higher rate? Couldn’t she argue that the insurer based the rate in part on her manifestation of breast cancer, but also in part on her increased risk for ovarian cancer? I think the answer is likely “yes.” It’s also likely that hapless insurance reps, when asked that very question in a deposition, would also answer “yes.” At least for the first year of two after GINA goes into effect.
That’s just the tip of the malignant mass, though. What if someone has a damaged TP53 gene? This basically makes the carrier into a cancer time-bomb by turning off the stuff that fixes your DNA and suppresses tumor growth. Is this going to be treated as a “manifestation” of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, or taken for what it is: a genetic disorder which manifests itself in various ways at various times?
I should confess that I have not read any of GINA’s proposed regulations and, of course, there is no case law yet. However, I don’t see how federal regs are going to be able to keep pace with genetics, or how judicial precedent is going to be meaningful at all in this context. It’s easier with sex, race, and religion; we know what those categories basically mean. But the law is notorious for its enormous following distance behind science.
I’m afraid this whole wernal* thing is off to a slow start. Part of the reason is the trial I had in family court last week. Another part is the other (bigger) cases that are coming up for trial in the next few months, and another is just general day-to-day lawyering stuff. Thankfully, I’ve been busy. I’m pleased to report that part of the reason for my weblag is because of a wide variety of creative endeavors, some of which are finally coming to fruition this month. As I said in the first post, I don’t really know what the focus of this wernal** is going to end up being, so I suppose there’s no harm writing a little bit about what’s been happening. Maybe I’ll make this a monthly thing. That way, when the big blog bucks start rolling in, I can start featuring centerfolds.
First, my rock band, Parade of Horribles, is finally starting to produce some recorded material. Here’s our first rough mix:
If any of you music-savvy types have any feedback about the mix, I would like to hear it. I’m not too sure about the effects on my vocals at the beginning, or about the levels overall (can’t really hear the bass too well), but I haven’t gotten to listen to it on any decent speakers yet. As for you non-musical types, just let me know what you think. Hopefully we’ll have more in the next month or so.
Second, my wife Laura and I have been working like crazy for the Specific Gravity Ensemble. She has dragged me into this acting thing under false pretenses.*** She’s really good at it, and I’m really not, but it’s a lot of fun. This particular group is unique, because all the plays are under a minute and a half, and they almost all take place in moving elevators. The promo doesn’t do it justice.
To the extent that I can summarize my part, I’ll be playing a Republican, a super villain, and a British scientist in the 1940’s. I, along with the rest of a pretty good-sized cast, will be playing each part eight times a night. Two, sometimes three, actors are crammed into a 4′x6′ elevator along with five audience members who are unconcerned with their own safety. Promises to be a funny, sweaty, smelly, violently good time. We open this weekend.
And finally, the Shine-Ola site is up and running. Well, sort of. There’s a skeleton of a WordPress site there, but it is limited by my incompetence. The fact that it redirects, inexplicably, to laverneandmark.com will probably have to be fixed too. We do, however, have a video snippet from our performance at this year’s Lawlapalooza.
Sorry about this one being a cover tune, and an overplayed cover tune at that, but it’s the best quality recording we’ve got for the time being. Plus, Laura rocks it out. Also, you can see U of L Dean Jim Chen, a devoted Shine-Ola fan, thrashing about like an epileptic superhero in the front.
That’s about it for now. Back to the boring lawyer crap next post, I promise.
______________________________________
*I’m still struggling for a word to replace “blog.” I’ll try this one (web+journal=wernal) and see if it sticks.
**Upon reflection, I’ve decided that I hate this word. I will never use it again. I deeply apologize to all of you.
***Specifically, she has lured me into a couple of shows now by telling me “they need guys” because “no dudes are auditioning.” I fall for it every time. She’s the Lucy Van Pelt of the Louisville theatre community.
It is a rare occasion that I get to catch NPR’s moribund Day to Day. It’s not the best NPR has to offer, and it’s at an awkward time in the afternoon; a time when I am usually researching, arguing, drafting, deposing, napping, or some combination thereof. It’s just as well – the show is scheduled for execution in March. I’ll miss the ol’ gal when she’s gone, but not as much as News and Notes. However, I did manage to hear a short D2D piece last week entitled “Monster Companies Settle Name Differences.” It’s a harrowing tale of mini-golf, cable, and litigators.
I’ll summarize for those of you that don’t have 3 minutes and 53 seconds to listen. Monster Mini-Golf opens in California. Unfortunately, Monster Cable is already there. The latter had a business model that can basically be summed up as “sue anything else in America that calls itself ‘Monster.’” According to NPR, Monster sued hundreds of businesses last year for this peccadillo. Cable company is Goliath, Mini-Golf is…well, mini. The two sides try to settle it. Then, as Alex Cohen reports it:
“Both of you were on the phone, with your lawyers, and you guys weren’t getting anywhere. And then you kicked the attorneys off the line. How did that change the flow of the conversation?”
To which the mini-golf lady replies: “I think, all of a sudden he [Monster Cable's CEO] becomes human. It’s as simple as that.”
Cohen’s characterization is disturbing. Not only because it portrays the lawyers as a barricade to a peaceful resolution, but because there’s a mustard seed of truth to that portrayal. Probably more than a mustard seed. Probably a peach pit or something. While I do not like to think of lawyers as a buffer zone between the peace pipe and the parties, nothing can derail a negotiation like a zealous advocate.
Take for example a custody/divorce mediation. A fine opportunity for the litigants to work it out themselves. And many times, they can do it with nary any bloodshed. But inject too much zealous advocacy, and you run the risk of killing the patient:
Respondent: I’d be willing to pay $500 a month in child support.
Petitioner: That sounds good.
Petitioner’s Zealous Advocate: Hold on. Actually, Petitioner is entitled to $528.00 per month under the guidelines, and due to the disparity in their incomes, Respondent should pay $1000 in attorneys fees.
Respondent: OMG I’M NOT PAYING ANYTHING AND I WANT FULL CUSTODY AND SHE’S A CHEATING BITCH ETC.
On the whole, this kind of thing may be the exception to the rule. Obviously, an effective advocate provides an important wall of civility between these who might otherwise uncivilly pluck out each others’ eyes and teeth. But it’s equally obvious that there are instances in which advocates distort communication between parties more than they foster it, and that can have equally disastrous results. I worry about this. Not just in mediations, but in conflict resolution (in the broadest sense) on the whole. Israel’s not giving up any parenting time with Junior because Palestine is seeking an unreasonable sum in child support. Palestine is entitled to more parenting time because everyone says so, and because, by God, Israel isn’t paying enough child support. Of course, each side has the most zealous of advocates. But there can be little doubt that they are more problematic than prophylactic.
On this topic, the comments of Monster Cable’s CEO are telling: “Our intention was never to hurt any other businesses, just to protect the mark. And when I learned of the hardship the lawsuit had placed on them financially, I thought the right thing to do was to [voluntarily dismiss the suit and pay the golf co.'s legal fees].”
It is often the case between litigants that there is some mustard seed of affection. Parties used to be co-workers, friends, lovers, spouses, etc. Even simple commonalities of human existence can, and often do, bring people together. But I think it’s difficult – perhaps impossible – to be mindful of this while striving to be a zealous (or even worse, “aggressive”) advocate.
If anyone’s reading this, I’m interested to know how you lawyers out there identify and deal with cases that might be solved quickly if the parties had a face-to-face meeting and a couple of pints of ale. Is this even a lawyer’s business? If not, should it be? Any of you have your own harrowing tales to tell?
It seems to me that even if the case is a sure-fire winner from a legal perspective, it may still be better in many cases to discourage litigation and be a peacemaker. Unfortunately, I (and I suspect most attorneys) have not yet developed the ability to recognize these cases before they become monsters which, if not created, then at least are prodded by zealous advocacy.
So now I have one of these things. One of these…well, I don’t like the word. I’m looking for a new word. Gabe Bullard suggests “wagazine” (web magazine). I like it better than “blog,” so I’m stealing it for now. However, I don’t think I like the idea of being a “wagger” any more than a “blogger.” I take some comfort in knowing that this is not a problem I have to solve in my first post.
I’ll admit to being behind the curve a bit, but I did have a Live Journal before (although I’ve been told that LJ doesn’t count as a real wagazine). In my defense, I was busy trying to keep my head above water in law school, and then in law practice, while this whole blog thing was really catching on amongst layfolk and lawyers alike. So I missed the boat, but now I’m on it. Thanks for keeping my seat warm, internet.
The question is: what will this wagazine be about?
I think I read somewhere in the thousands upon thousands of social media/marketing tips that bombard me daily via Twitter and/or Google Reader that you should keep the focus of your wagazine very narrow.
Here, in no particular order, are some topics I’ve been kicking around:
- Religion and capital punishment;
- Legal issues that affect cancer patients and survivors;
- Poverty, its causes, and its culture;
- Lawyer culture and behavior;
- LGBT rights and legal issues;
- The problem of suffering in general, and what can be done to alleviate it (especially by lawyers);
- Animal welfare and rights;
- Anything having anything to do with the intersection of music, law, and/or religion; and
- Early Mesopotamian zoology (specifically, early developments in avian scatology).
Some of this stuff is already covered so well that I would have little to offer, at least on a regular basis, without being duplicative or engaging in some serious modern-jackassery. I have decided to drop the last item because I know nothing about it and really am not all that interested in it. I don’t even know if it makes sense. Sorry about that. Other than that, I am having trouble whittling down my list.
Anyway, since I can’t really decide on a narrow topic that would hold my attention for more than a couple of posts, I’m just going to set aside some time to write in here every week and see what happens. I hope you find it entertaining, and I welcome your feedback.
