OCTOBER 22 NEW YORK TIMES

Tough issue of the New York Times. First, some lawyer actually wrote to the so-called Ethicist because the lawyer had a client ask him what his responsibilities were to a client who asked him how suicide would impact the will he was writing for her. The Ethicist answered. Here's a clue, J.S. from Oak Park, Illinois: the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee has an "Ethics Inquiry Program" just for people like you, and unlike getting advice from a newspaper columnist, it might even help you keep your license!

Second, there was an article about the cleanliness of airplanes. Turns out they're filthy. Turns out that when you (a) stop serving food yourself, and (b) cut back on what you pay to have your planes cleaned, while (c) lessening the time to clean, you end up with food garbarge on airplanes. Who knew? Anyway, it just goes to show that commercial aviation is being turned into the same experience as taking mass transit in most big cities. Cheap, not very comfortable, and not as clean as you'd like.

Finally, the Christian Science Monitor has an article about an issue being raised in Boston right now. The issue is satellite dishes on the fronts of dwellings. The article talks about issues with Federal law that make this prolematic, as well as laws in York, PA dealing with the same issue. However, the article brought up an interesting issue. Have you ever noticed apartments that have three or four dishes in front of the windows and wondered what sort of service they have? It turns out that the issue may be that previous tenants abandoned their dishes when they moved out and "installers cannot remove old dishes because the original customer owns them." What? You mean, if the tenant before me left a microwave over in the kitchen I am stuck with two microwaves? Does the theory of abandoned property not apply to dishes? What the hell?