According to ESPN’s coverage of today’s Spain-Portugal match, the two former colonial powers stand to gain more than just a ticket to the quarterfinals with a victory:

Here’s a closer look:

So much for the Treaty of Tordesillas.

In the course of searching for a precise definition of the word “lewd” as it appears in Connecticut statutes (for work, of course), I came upon the case of State v. Dallaire, a Connecticut Superior Court decision from 1962, which I reproduce below for you, dear reader. The second paragraph, which relays the most important facts, is, well, rather something:

The defendants were found guilty of lascivious carriage (General Statutes, ยง 53-219) and have appealed from the judgments rendered. The only question for determination is whether the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

The male defendant, a married man, visited the apartment of the female defendant, a single woman, early one afternoon with a group of people. He left and returned about twelve o’clock midnight with a large pizza pie, expecting to find the group of people there. His wife came screaming out of the bedroom, hit him over the head with the pizza pie and with a telephone receiver, ripped his gold cross off his neck and took his wrist watch. She tried to gouge his eyes.

The wife left after the melee and her husband remained to clean the apartment. When he went looking for his car, it was gone. He concluded that his wife took it. It was raining. He returned to the apartment and, with the permission of the female defendant, retired on the sofa in the parlor. The female defendant retired to her bedroom in another part of the house.

At about 1:30 a.m., the male defendant, Dallaire, heard a rap on the door. He was fully dressed, except for his shoes and stockings. He picked up his shoes and stockings and went to the bedroom to ask the female defendant what he should do. She stated that her sister and a friend were expected and they [*213] knew how to get in. The light was turned on, and a police officer and the defendant Dallaire’s wife and nephew were in the room.

The police officer testified that on May 28, 1961, at about 1:30 a.m., he went to the apartment with the male defendant’s wife. He gained entrance via the rear door, which was open about an inch. A divorce action on the grounds of adultery was instituted following the arrests.

The word “lascivious,” as employed in the statute, signifies conduct which is wanton, lewd and lustful, and tending to produce voluptuous or lewd emotions. Zeiner v. Zeiner, 120 Conn. 161, 166. The word “lascivious” includes wanton acts between persons of different sexes flowing from lustful passion, which are grossly indecent and unchaste, which are lewd and lustful, and which tend to produce lustful emotions and desires. “Lustful” means gross immorality. “Lewd” means given to unlawful indulgence of lust, eager for sexual indulgence. “Unchaste” means impurity of mind with reference to sexual relations.

The trier was entitled to draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the facts established by the evidence, but the conclusions based on them must not be the result of speculation and conjecture. HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.An accused may not be convicted upon mere suspicion. The state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, by such proof as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it tends to support. It is proof wholly consistent with the guilt of the defendants and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. Our law is settled that the proof of guilt must exclude, not every possible, but every reasonable supposition of the innocence of the accused. State v. DeCoster, 147 Conn. 502, 505.

At the time of the arrests, the defendants were not engaged in conduct which meets the standards set forth in the Zeiner case, supra. No one had seen any such conduct, and there was no evidence of any such conduct. In the absence of any such evidence, the conclusion of the trial court that the defendants violated the statute was unwarranted and invaded the realm of speculation and conjecture. In the present case, the evidence does not exclude every reasonable supposition of the innocence of the defendants and fails to support the conclusion that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This opinion is limited to the facts of this particular case, and even a very slight variation in the facts could have resulted in a different decision.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment that the defendants are not guilty and ordering that they both be discharged.

Thank God for E-mail

June 18, 2010

It allows my friends to amuse me from remote locations:

Seth: So here where I am contracting there is a woman who is from Mexico. I get in just now, and I see that she’s wearing a France jacket. I query her, confused.

“Every time I want something to happen good for Mexico,” she says in a slight accent, “it doesn’t. And so I thought this time I will wear the other team’s jacket. And it worked! It worked!”

Anyone know where I can find a Slovakia jacket?

Dave: Now I feel like a jackass for wearing my BP jacket.

Oh, Courant! Again!

June 16, 2010

Last week, the Hartford Courant’s online asked whether the “interent” is making us stupid. Today’s edition once again suggests that, at the very least, it is making us disregard the need for copy editing:

And no, the story is not about a kid who grew up in Morningside Heights.

Oh, Courant!

June 15, 2010

Every weekday, the venerable, almost-bankrupt Hartford Courant asks its online readers to weigh in on some important question drawn from the news. Today, for example, we are asked whether Hartford’s mayor, Eddie Perez, is “Innocent or Guilty” (never mind the fact that a more pertinent question would be “guilty or not guilty,” but I suppose that’s a concern for lawyers). Perusing the editorial page, I noticed that Friday’s question was cleverly posed in a way that strongly suggested the answer (click on the picture to see a larger view):

Carnival!

June 15, 2010

OK, not a full-blown carnival, exactly, but the Celebrate West Hartford fair:

Celebrate West Hartford, 2010

Carney, West Hartford, Conn.

Max in Bouncy House

Water Fun

Reuben in the Bouncy House, time lapse

Toy City

June 14, 2010

Ah the discontents of bourgeois parenthood: Toys just accumulate and accumulate. Globalization and overseas labor exploitation have made shiny, articulated, plastic masterpieces frighteningly accessible; Television and billboards and ingenious cross-platform cereal marketing have made them irresistibly desirable; and fawning relatives make sure that these toys find their way to our house.

As parents, we try to resist. We tell the relatives to ease up, to no avail. We limit television and other sources of advertising, but that tactic is effectively defeated once our kids begin kindergarten. Mostly, we just throw up our hands, conducting periodic, ineffective purges as our homes are more and more given over to an army of small, semi-disposable playthings.

And then, one day, we set about cleaning up the basement, and inspiration strikes. Suddenly, all these dinosaurs and farm animals and trains and knights errant, which had once seemed but a hodge-podge of mismatched junk, find a home together in a perfect world – anachronistic and not-to-scale, but somehow marvelously harmonious. Behold, the mighty melting pot that is TOY CITY:

Toy City

Overnight in New York

June 5, 2010

My best friend Glen was back in Brooklyn for a week, so Anna and I headed down Friday night to chill with him and his soon-to-be wife Carolyn. It was so nice – nice to be back in my home town, and nice to have quality time with the four of us. After dinner, we sat on Glen’s mom’s stoop with beer and cookies, something he and I and sundry others have been doing on warm nights for the last fifteen years. Life is good.

I didn’t take pictures of Glen and Carolyn, preferring instead just to bask in the pleasure of their company. Here are some things I did take pictures of:

The Captain, 125th Street

Hennessey bottle, Brooklyn

Meaningful graffiti, Brooklyn

Stoop sale acquisitions, Brooklyn

From the today’s Hartford Courant, concerning the facts surrounding a murder:

Hill said that, while drinking and sniffing cocaine one day during the summer of 2005, another man, Ed Canterbury, told him he was angry at D’Antonio because D’Antonio had stolen some clams from him. Hill said he and Canterbury went to D’Antonio’s forest campsite in East Hampton where D’Antonio was beaten to death with a steel rebar.

What can I add? Cocaine, stolen clams, and MURDER MOST FOUL.