I love me some trufe

Fareed Zakaria is one of my favorite columnists.  If you don't read him, you should.  (I'm talking to you, Justin Scott.)  Here's a great quote from this week's column:

The facts about [free] trade have been too well rehearsed to go into them in any great detail, but let me point out that NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy.

Here's the gist, something that countless history, economics, and political science professors have argued: People don't care about civil rights or even respect unless their stomachs are full.

I think Maslow said something similar . . .

Can she explain irony?

Three of my favorite things--irony, grammar, and Lost--come together in this from one of the many interpretive sites:

Explain the Lorentz Invariant for we English majors

Now, I don't want to get too technical, but I can tell you this: English majors modifies we, which is the object of the preposition for.  So the correct pronoun is the objective pronoun us.  I'd be willing to bet that she said "we English majors" because she thought it sounded right.

But between you and I, it's not.  I'm so bad.

The cartophile is never lost

For only the second time in my memory, a television show almost made me cry.  The first time it happened, my wife and I were watching Lost on DVD, catching up so that we could watch the new fourth season as it aired.  I think you know what I'm talking about.  Yep, that's right: Greatest Hits.  I don't want to ruin it for you, but when Charlie writes on his note to Claire that the greatest moment of his life was the night he met her . . . it sounds so sappy here, but man . . . in the moment--wow.  Excellent writing.  I told my wife that night that episodes like that make me want to write stories.

Then tonight, it happened again.  I think you know what I'm talking about.  That's right.  The Constant.  I don't want to ruin it for you, so I won't tell you about the ending.  But man . . . !  Imagine Romeo & Juliet, except that Juliet wakes up before Romeo kills himself.  And the episode itself was amazing.  I'll be honest.  I was afraid that making Desmond a time traveler would be really cheesy and destroy the integrity of the story.  But they pulled it off.  I won't tell you how, but it worked.

And now my piece of Lost theory.  I think that the Oceanic Six all work for Ben after they "escape," just like Sayyid.  I mean, after tonight's episode, it was all too clear that Ben's man-on-the-boat wanted Desmond to get to the radio.  I don't think it's too far out there to suggest that Desmond needed to get to the radio for the Oceanic Six to get off the Island.  I don't know how Ben could obtain that kind of power over the Original 48, but I don't put it past him.  Ben = awesome.  Lastly, I think Penny plays an important role in the long-term development of the storyline.*  At least I hope so.

P.S. -- I think that Penny's dad knows about the Island.

 

 

*I'm just spitballin' here, but maybe Penny's dad is connected to the Dharma Initiative and, for whatever reason, he is waging war on Ben and the Others.  The Oceanic 48 somehow got caught in the middle, and I think Penny plays a crucial long-term role in extricating the survivors from the conflict.

I demand a recount

Where are Osler's Razor and Civ Pro Prof Blog on this so-called fair ranking???

It's rigged, I tell ya.

Imagine the Family Picture Wall

This couple is amazing: they have been married for 83 years.  That's longer than almost anybody I know has been alive.  Think of it this way--when they got married, Calvin Coolidge was president; the NFL was three years old and featured teams like the Akron Pros, the Milwaukee Badgers, and the Oorang Indians; women had only voted in one presidential election; and the USSR had not yet begun teething.

But here's something else amazing.  The last paragraph of the article reads:

Their family includes six children, 39 grandchildren, 101 great-grandchildren and 40 great-great grandchildren.

So by my addition, that's 186 living, lineal descendants.  Sheesh.

Why Federal Statutes Are Terrible

In my five quarters of law school, I have become familiar with two basic legislative drafting styles: federal and state.  In my humble opinion, the States generally do a better job drafting legislation (and administrative rules, for that matter) than do either Congress or the federal agencies.  While I'm rather ashamed of the Texas Constitution, there are myriad federal laws equally as (uselessly) complex.  I'll name two biggies I've studied: the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the U.S. Code) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (part of Title 8 of the U.S. Code).

Wray Herbert may shed some light on this phenomenon through a recent post on his fascinating blog, "We're Only Human."  In it, he writes about an experiment recently performed at Indiana University where the researchers had various size groups try to solve problems.  (He describes the experiment in more detail.)  He notes that:

When the problems were easy, the [biggest] networks did best. . . . But as the problems became trickier, the small[er] networks tended to perform better. In other words, the truism that more information is always better proved untrue when life got a little messy. And as the problems became even more complex, the small[est] networks proved most clever.

Given that statutes try to resolve some of the most complex issues facing society, it's worth noting that a federal law must be approved by no fewer than 269 individuals (218 of 435 Representatives and 51 of 100 Senators).  The same law being passed by, for example, the Texas Legislature, would require the approval of only 92 individuals (76 of 150 Representatives and 16 of 31 Senators).  I did some quick research, and the average requisite majority among the state legislatures is 75, about 1/4 what Congress requires.  Only seven States require 100+ majorities: New Hampshire (214), Pennsylvania (128), Georgia (120), New York (108), Massachusetts (102), Minnesota (102), and Missouri (100).  Several States do not even have 100 legislators (most notably, Delaware (62) and Nevada (60)).

All this to say two things.  First, I like numbers.  Second, two heads may not always be better than one.  Or maybe I should say: 535 heads may not always be better than 60.

I Love Lucy--Adopt a Puppy

This past session, the Texas Legislature, or "The Lege" as my college prof called it, passed H.B. 2328.  This bill amended the animal cruelty statute.  I'm working on a paper about this new statute, so I'm trying to keep up with current events in animal law.  All that to justify this: I ran across an article from PETA entitled Uninvited Guests at the Westminster Dog Show.  In case you're lazy, the uninvited guests are holding up signs accusing breeders of destroying the chances of shelter animals.

I'm not going to tell you to go vegetarian or that animals have the same rights as humans.  But if you're in the market for a puppy or a kitten, give your local shelter a chance.  I did it a few years ago, and I haven't looked back.

What's in a name?

I stumbled across a rather interesting article theorizing about the significance of the names of several characters in Lost, particularly John Locke, Danielle Rousseau, and Mikhail Bakunin.  Even if you don't like philosophy, it's a pretty interesting and short article, and I recommend it.

A Life in Six Words: "Angry Guy Gets Law License, Sues"

Today, the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog posted an interesting article entitled, "A Life in Six Words: 'Angry Guy Gets Law License, Sues'."  To distill your life into six words requires you to boil your life to its essence.  What six words most convey who you are, where you've been, where you're going, why?

I challenge you--what's your life in six words?

UPDATE:  I'm thinking about these as my six words: "Masten: Why can't we be friends?"

This Just In: David Beats Goliath

My least favorite thing about football is that everybody leaves before the game is over. 

Tonight, we flipped over to the Super Bowl when there was only about a minute left.  We saw Eli Manning throw a pass straight into the hands of Plexico Burress in the end zone, and (with the extra point) the underdogs were ahead 17-14.  Tom Brady wasted the last 35 seconds trying to throw 864-yard passes.  Then, when the Patriots couldn't convert their fourth down, the Giants had to run a play to run out the one second remaining on the clock.

You know who didn't see that play?   Bill Belichick.  According to the announcers, he had already left the field and was walking up the tunnel.

I haven't felt this good about a world champion since the Marlins beat the Indians in 1997.

Beware the Fourth of March

I don't consider myself a "grammarian," but I appreciate good grammar and I try to cultivate it.  I'll admit that I bought and read Eats, Shoots, and Leaves; thoroughly enjoyed Tim O'Brien's Tomcat in Love; and even peruse Strunk & White when I get bored.  (Grammarians will note that I broke up the parallelism.  I think parallelism is a style issue rather than a grammar issue.  I want to emphasize that while I read and enjoyed the first two books (past tense), I continue to read and enjoy the third (present tense).  My stylistic choice has been made, grammar be damned.)  So I will take it as a personal birthday present that my 25th birthday has been proclaimed National Grammar Day by the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar.

So, between you and I me, let's talk right speak properly.

Justice John Edwards?

I'll be honest.  I like John Edwards.  As a person.  As a trial lawyer.  Maybe not so much as a candidate.  But does anybody really think he's Supreme Court material?  I don't know.  I guess he could join the ranks of odd people who left Congress for the Supreme Court, but that would go against recent trends in Supreme Court membership:

• Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.: practicing lawyer, then D.C. Circuit judge
• Justice John Paul Stevens: law professor, then 7th Circuit judge
• Justice Antonin Scalia: law professor
• Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: practicing lawyer and lobbyist, then 9th Circuit judge
• Justice David H. Souter: practicing lawyer, then New Hampshire AG, then a romp through the New Hampshire judiciary (including a few years on its Supreme Court), then 5 months on the 1st Circuit
• Justice Clarence Thomas: government lawyer and administrator, then D.C. Circuit judge
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: law professor and women's rights advocate, then D.C. Circuit judge
• Justice Stephen G. Breyer: government lawyer and administrator, then 1st Circuit judge
• Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.*: government lawyer, then 3rd Circuit judge

So--eight of the nine justices spent at least some time on a federal circuit court; the one who didn't was a committed law professor and highly respected as an academic.  The last Congressional justice was Sherman Minton, who represented Indiana in the Senate for six years during the Great Depression, just before he was nominated to the 7th Circuit.  Edwards--and Mr. Clinton, for that matter--has spent no time on any federal circuit, nor is he highly respected in academia.  Besides that, he's not nearly mysterious enough to even hope to get through confirmation.  So can we stop with this weird idea that popular politicians can be on the Supreme Court?

Then again--Chief Justice Earl Warren was the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 1948, only five years before he was appointed chief justice . . .

 

*Does anybody else think it's funny that George W. Bush, who has the same name as his father, nominated two justices for the Supreme Court who also share their names with their fathers?

So wait--Jacob is a Christian?

Here are my thoughts on the return of Lost.  There is a world of Lost blogs and web sites out there that are rife with commentary on the season premier, but I have to take these things one step at a time.  So I'm going to talk about the recap episode first, and, maybe later I'll delve into commentary on the season premier.

First--I think it's fascinating (and potentially important) that Ben narrated the recap episode.  I've seen a few of these (they remind me of those old checklist baseball cards), and they typically have non-characters narrating.  For example, back when I watched Grey's Anatomy, they had a no-name coma patient narrating.  Yet the Masters of Lost use Ben.  Hurley might have been entertaining.  We know that there are dozens of survivors and Others we don't know yet, so any of them could have worked.  But Ben.

Which leads to my second question: Why Ben?  Ben seems to have this uncanny ability to know everything.  He knows everything about all the survivors.  He knows about Jacob, Walt, and Locke.  He knows who Naomi is with.  He even knew how to deprogram the Invisible Fence of (Not Quite) Certain Death when he was only 12 years old.  He is the guy that I think most people look to for the answers about the Island.  Maybe that's why--Ben is the go-to guy when it comes to the Island, so we'll go to him for a recap.

Which leads to my third question: Did Ben tell us anything new in the flashback episode?  I think he did.  I definitely wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Finally, one quick thought about the season premier.  Is anybody else getting scared that everything is just in Hurley's head?

We Gotta Go Back

What is Your Fate on Lost?

Created by BuddyTV

The (Almost) Final Four

This just in--Mayor Giuliani is withdrawing his candidacy and throwing his support to McCain.  The battle lines are being drawn ever clearer: on the Left, you've got Clinton v. Obama and on the Right you've got McCain v. Romney.

I'm pretty sure whom I support on each side, but, oddly, it's much easier to articulate why I support which Republican than why I support which Democrat.  What do you think?  Will Huckabee come flying out of nowhere and take it away?  I also hear that Nader might run again . . .

For whom will the plaintiffs vote?

I majored in political science, but I'm not a political pundit.  In the last 20 minutes, two headlines surprised me.  First, America's mayor got trounced in the only state he's campaigned in.  Second, John Edwards is dropping out.  I didn't expect either of those.  I expected Giuliani to win the Republican nomination pretty easily, given his reputation as a law-and-order type and his smooth handling of 9/11.  But maybe Floridian Republicans didn't like his iffy stances on immigration and abortion.  He probably regrets limiting his campaign thus far to Florida . . . as Michael Scott says: Play to win, because you've got to win to play.

As for John Edwards: I didn't think he would snag the nomination, but I liked him in 2004, and he was the only realistic candidate who could continue the Southern Dynasty.*  It will be really interesting to see whether his supporters line up behind Clinton or Obama.  (Or maybe Huckabee.)

So there you have it.  Last year, I thought the 2008 election would surely be Giuliani v. Edwards.  I guess I was wrong.

 

*Interestingly, if you ignore California, there hasn't been an elected president not from the South since Kennedy.

Be Afraid---Be Very Afraid

I told somebody once that there are only a few people you never (ever) want to anger. I have an open-ended list, but near the top: bail bondsmen. Here's why:

The defendant [who jumped bond] is in Brazil now, but Mr. Spath [the bondsman] is very good at finding people, and he is not giving up. He is working travel records, phone companies and a former girlfriend, and he is getting closer.

So apparently The Partner tells the truth. The Nazis could escape the Nuremberg trials by hiding away in South America, but if you jump bond, you have no hope anywhere--not even in Brazil.

Sounds like an effective system to me.

Grim Reaper Wins Double Header

I don't like to make light of death, but this weekend was rather . . . productive . . . for the Grim Reaper.  Yesterday, two of the highest ranking religious leaders in the world died: President Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Archbishop Christodoulos of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  How very odd that the leaders of two of the largest denominations of Christianity should die on the same day.  As far as I know, Benedict is still with us.

Is it just me, or is the Grim Reaper being really productive lately?

Sometimes Goliath Wins

I've seen some blowouts in my day, but this is just plain insane.  The Lady Jackets smashed debilitated paralyzed vanquished conquered erased the Lady Bull Dogs of Texas Lutheran 102-22, including a 46-2 run to start the second half.  All-American Meia Daniels, one of the team leaders, could have beaten TLU on her own, scoring 23 points.  Sting'm Jackets.  Dang.

For those of keeping track, that puts HPU at #2 in the nation, 10-0 in the American Southwest Conference and 14-0 overall.  Sting'm Jackets indeed.

Red Flight

Some quotes are irresistibly good and must be passed on.  So here you go:

Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States.  Ask any Indian.

Robert Orben said that.

Whan that Apryll

And it's time for narcissism!  What I'm taking in the spring quarter and why.

Oral Advocacy -- With profs like this, who can ask for more?  Seriously, though, I love to speak in public (read: jeremy = ham).  Now I want to be good at it.

Alternative Dispute Resolution -- When I was little, I had two very close friends.  When we'd play, one would be Shredder and the other Michelangelo.  I liked Raphael, but I'd always try to get everybody to sit down and talk our problems out.  Born mediator?  Future ADR hero?  Maybe so . . .

Juvenile Justice -- I tend to believe that a lot of criminals get started young, and I'm very curious how our system deals with them.  Plus, the professor's name is pretty dadgum long and I want to learn how to pronounce it.

Secured Transactions -- My blog's "About Me" section used to list my profession as "Prof K's Dog."  Since Prof K teaches Secured Transactions . . .

Consumer Protection -- It was either this or Remedies.  They're offered at the same time this quarter.  This is 3 hours; Remedies is 4 hours.  If I take Consumer Protection, then I can take one more hour of something elective.  (Read: If Remedies, then no Oral Advocacy.)

Family Law -- I spent 18 months as a family law paralegal, and I loved it.  I don't know if I'll end up practicing family law, but I'm sure that at some point, I'll handle somebody's divorce or adoption, if only to pay the bills.  Besides that, the prof went to Purdue but loves the Cowboys.  I don't know why that intrigues me, but it does.

Imaginary Lines

Yesterday, President Scott and I were discussing the best Billy Joel song ever.  It's hard to pin down a single best one when you have to choose between such classics as The Stranger, Piano Man, New York State of Mind, Scenes from an Italian Restaurant, Tell Her About It, Goodnight, Saigon, Allentown, We Didn't Start the Fire, The Downeaster Alexa, Uptown Girl . . . OK, so I lost credibility with that last one.  We'll pretend it never happened. 

Anyway, my favorite Billy Joel song is Leningrad.  Born in 1949, Mr. Joel "was a Cold War kid in McCarthy times."  The Russians, for his generation, were evil personified.  Without the Russians, there never would have been a Korean Conflict War, a Cuban Missile Crisis, an American presence in Vietnam and the concomitant "civil unrest" over here.  The Russians were not only evil, they were the wellspring of evil.  Yet, in Leningrad, Mr. Joel tells us about his realization that Viktor, a consummate Russian soldier, is just another person.  The lines he thought divided him from Viktor were a lot thinner than he had ever supposed.

I love Leningrad because it gives me hope that one day the War on Terror will end, and we'll all realize that our brothers and sisters from the Fertile Crescent--or if you care about accuracy, a stretch of geography from Morocco to Malaysia--are really that: our brothers and sisters.  Despite our theological differences, we are all children of the same planet.  The lines that divide us are a lot thinner than some would have us believe.

Now, go watch The Kingdom and think about the lines that divide us.

Lost in Metaphors

Students at Baylor Law got an email just before the break explaining the school's reasoning in removing a couple of oak trees.  Yet, a casual perusal of the Baylor Law School Faculty Index page indicates that an oak of my class's legal education is mysteriously missing.  I have yet to receive an email.

I'm usually not a boat-rocker, a rumor-monger, or someone who goes searching for gossip, but does anybody know what happened?  She scared and intimidated me, but I also learned a lot in her class about legal thinking and writing.  It's a shame for her to disappear in the middle of the night.

Not My Role

When I was in college, people used to ask me, "How could you defend somebody you know is guilty?"  I used to dodge the question by saying, "Well, it'd be my job."  But I don't think that fully--or satisfactorily--explains it.

Our legal system works by assigning roles.  And it works best when the players assume those roles zealously.  The judge, for example, has to be zealous about the law, even when bad facts make it tough.  The jury, likewise, has to be zealous about figuring out what happened. 

Do you know who doesn't get to decide the facts?  The lawyers.  If you, as defense counsel, decide you're not going to represent Joe because you think he's guilty, then you're usurping the jury's job and short-circuiting the system.

And short circuits cause fires.

Just a thought.

No Sympathy

I will be secretly cheering (or publicly blogging) every time the Celtics lose--especially to a team like the Bobcats. 

Boston--you got the World Series, you pulled off a 16-0 season--what else do you want?  Let Texas have the NBA, aight?

New Hampsha

Everyone else has jumped into the fray, so too dive I.  I haven't decided whom I'm supporting in February much less November, but I have decided at least two people for whom I will not campaign:

• Romney -- It's really pretty simple: I like immigration, and he doesn't.  (I'm not a one-issue guy, but this is a big one for me.)
• Clinton -- I have a problem with presidential candidates who are arrogant members of the Good Ol' Boys Club and run on the coattails of former presidents with the same name.  For some reason, that sounds familiar . . .

That's all I know.  I hope you enjoyed the New Hampshire primary.  If you weren't a poli sci major like me, please don't be deceived by all these people who claim they know who will be nominated next summer.  If Iowa and New Hampshire told us anything, they told us that there's no telling who will be on each ticket come next November.

Dignity

Dignity is the personal ability to demand respect, even when that demand is ignored.  I don't care how you feel about Justice Thomas's politics or jurisprudence, he has dignity.  Read his autobiography.  I just finished it, and it is one of the best biographies I've ever read.  Maybe even the best.

I only have one comment.  During Justice Alito's confirmation hearings, I was struck by his background more than anything else.  Where else but in America could an immigrant's son find his way onto the highest court in the land?  After reading My Grandfather's Son, I ask again--where else but in America could a black child reared in the depths of poverty in the Jim Crow South find a seat on our Supreme Court?  There may be silver-spoon babies in the Capitol or the White House, but there are surprisingly few at One First Street, NE.

To tell you the truth, I am shamed.

How do you sting a Comet?

I don't often get the chance to root for my alma mater against my classmates' alma maters, so I take what I can get.  Last night, the Lady Jackets pounded the Lady Comets (?) of the University of Texas at Dallas, 83-40 in American Southwest Conference women's basketball action.  Now if only we could climb higher than #3 . . .

I Owe . . . Uh . . . Hawkeyes!

According to CNN, Barack Obama has won Iowa.  He took 38% of the delegates, with Edwards's 30% and Clinton's 29% far ahead of the pack.  Interestingly, Bill Richardson took 4th with 2% and--my favorite speaker at Alito's confirmation--Joe Biden finished 5th with 1%.  Dodd, Gravel (who??), and Kucinich tied for last with 0%.  Dodd's and Biden's campaigns have reportedly given up the ghost.  With only 49 states left, Obama has the early lead.

With only 93% of Republican precincts reporting as of 11:21 p.m., Huckabee (34%) has a 9-point lead over conceded runner-up Romney (25%).  Thompson and McCain are basically tied for third (13%), with Ron Paul taking fifth (10%) and Rudolph taking sixth (4%).  Hunter--another candidate whom I don't know--has so far gathered 499 votes and one delegate to finish seventh.

I don't know how important Iowa will be in the long run, but it's exciting that Primary Season is starting.  Can't wait to see what happens next week in New Hampshire!

The Case of the Missing Grades

I'm not usually the one to complain about this, so I'll let others vent.  Does anybody know where the Negotiable Instruments and Basic Tax grades are?  Has anybody heard anything?  Am I the only one who hasn't gotten either of those grades?

And for my reader or two who thinks I'm whining too soon, I'll remind you that we took these finals back in October and that the two grades I don't have seemed to be the easier two to grade.  [Makes frustrated sound.]  Law school.

It is what it is--no more, no less.

Each year, the English faculty at Michigan's Lake Superior State University publish a list of words that ought to be banished from English usage.  I hope you like it.  Here's a taste (the site gives more commentary):

• "post-9/11"
• "X is the new Y"
• "Black Friday" (used in reference to the Friday after Thanksgiving)
• "sweet"
• "decimate"

And last--and the title of this post--"It is what it is."  Said one commentator:

This pointless phrase, uttered initially by athletes on the losing side of a contest, is making its way into general use. It accomplishes the dual feat of adding nothing to the conversation while also being phonetically and thematically redundant.

And in light of my penchant for overusing jokes--it is what it is.

Pax.

I say I don't . . .

But I really do love quotes.  Take them out of context--I don't care, as long as you don't hold it against the person you're quoting.  This is a gem from Eugene McCarthy:

Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important.

As my post-college cynicalism develops, I believe this statement more and more.

2d Tier School = 1st Tier Life

A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog named an anonymous commenter known only as "Loyola 2L" as the Law Blog Lawyer of the Year.  Loyola 2L won because s/he has "brought to light" the general deceit of law schools and the media-at-large in conveying that lawyers will leave law school and immediately make lots of money.  The truth is, s/he contends, that most lawyers who don't graduate from 1st tier schools usually have trouble landing jobs at all, much less high-paying ones.  The comments were generally vitriolic, mostly criticizing Loyola 2L for being lazy.  I, in my narcissism and arrogance, think they all missed the point.

Baylor is currently ranked #53 by U.S. News & World Report, placing it close to the line demarcating the 1st and 2nd tiers.  Admittedly, though I had several on-campus interviews with Biglaw firms, I did not get so much as a callback from any of them.  I also know only a few classmates who actually landed jobs in Biglaw.  Am I bitter?  Should I be?

Well--I was.  But then I realized: at Biglaw, you work innumerable hours for a taskmaster boss with very little control over any aspect of your life, very little meaningful client interaction, and very little real-life lawyer experience.  My criteria for the ideal job: numerable hours, decent boss, control over most aspects of my life, meaningful client interaction, and real-life lawyer experience.  Funny how they don't match up at all.

Maybe that's why I didn't get any callbacks: my Biglaw interviewers could tell I didn't belong.  But I'll live.  I've secured two jobs for next summer, both of which I'm really excited about.  I'll be working for the Texas Attorney General's Child Support Division and the Federal Attorney General's Tax Division.  Maybe my paycheck won't be as fat as my private-sector classmates, but at least my wife will remember who I am.

Plus Greg gives us 17 state and national holidays.  Seventeen.

Marrying Up

That was my plan, and I've accomplished it.  Today, Ms. Avacado got the results of the fourth and final section of the CPA exam: straight A's, mis lectores.  I don't know what's left in the certification process, but I'm pretty sure it's coasting from here on out.

Lost? Use a map.

This is for President Scott, my fellow cartophile. This is awesome: an unofficial map of the Island from Lost.

Lance's Evil Twin

Beware this educated, internationally traveling, francophonic murderer--he is wicked fast on a mountain bike:

He allegedly shot and killed an armored car guard leaving a Phoenix movie theater three years ago, took about $56,000 in cash, and then sped away on a mountain bike.

(emphasis added)

Don't cops have cars?  Is Phoenix the kind of town where a mountain biker really could beat a car?

On a Role

In my college Ethics class, we studied existentialism and its influence on ethical thinking.  In particular, we talked about how some existentialists reject the concept of defining life through roles played.  At the time, I thought it was a beautiful way to live, and I've pretty much agreed with it without question ever since.

But the following from John Le Carré's The Constant Gardener gave me pause:

[S]omething was happening to Justin that, to his excitement and alarm, he was unable to control.  He had been drawn completely by accident into a beautiful play, and was captivated by it.  He was in a different element, acting a part, and the part was the one he had often wanted to play in life, but never till now quite brought off.

I've never heard so eloquent a defense (even if it may have been unintentional) for viewing life as a series of roles to be played, each with its own rough script.  Maybe a significant number of our decisions are made because of who we are--the role we're playing at the time--and for no other reason.

Just a thought.

Democratic Triumvirate

President Scott first posted about this test a few days ago. Kudos to him for paying a lot of attention. I promised my Democratic results, and here they are:

1. Barack Obama (18 points)
2. Chris Dodd (17 points) (very surprising to me)
3. Bill Richardson (16 points) (also very surprising)
4. John Edwards (10 points) (disappointing)
5. Hillary Clinton (5 points) (not surprising at all)

Come on President Scott--and my other faithful readers--where are your blue results?

OMG . . .

They killed Asok.

UPDATE: They brought him back . . . as part-Snickers bar.

UPDATE AGAIN: Thank goodness for the Indian Institute of Technology.

The Yankee Ticket

There's a cool quiz-type-thing you can take on the Washington Post's website to help you figure out which candidate(s) you support for president. Basically, they ask a question, you pick the statement you most agree with, then you rate how important that issue is to you. The trick is that you don't know which candidates are saying which statements. You should try it out, you might be surprised by the result. I know I was:

1. Rudy Giuliani (27 points)
2. Mitt Romney (25)
3. Mike Huckabee, John McCain (15 each)
4. Fred Thompson (13)
5. Ron Paul (10)

These are just my Republican results. Later, I plan to try the Democratic candidates and see whom I like. I'll let you know.

That was unexpected

Did you see Adam Sandler and Kevin James in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry? My wife and I rented it this weekend, and I was blown away. The story begins with Mr. James's character, a firefighter named Larry, saving Mr. Sandler's character's life (Sandler = Chuck). Thanking Larry, Chuck explains that he now owes Larry a life-debt: "Whatever, whenever." As it turns out, "whenever" = today. Larry learns that, because he did not act quickly enough after his wife died, he can no longer change the designated beneficiary of his pension to his kids. So, if Larry died tomorrow, his kids wouldn't get any of his pension. There is a loophole, however--if he marries again, he can designate his new spouse as his beneficiary. With no female offerors, he convinces Chuck to drive up to Canada and become his lawfully wedded husband. The City of New York, however, smells something fishy and assigns Steve Buscemi to investigate. The movie ends memorably, but my lips are sealed.

You know, I was a little surprised when Ms. Avacado suggested we watch it. You would think that if one of us had suggested, it would have been I. But--seriously--she wanted to watch it. (Heh--then she fell asleep halfway through.) As expected, it had scenes obviously targeted toward the male audience, but it was an amazingly sophisticated and complex story. Think John Howard Griffin's Black Like Me, but with straight guys pretending to be gay instead of a white guy pretending to be black. As the story develops, the viewer glimpses the strife of being a gay American through the eyes of characters who are just like us and have no obvious gay-rights agenda. Just like Griffin, Sandler and James show us how the other side lives.

As a law student, I am a student of argumentation. This movie argues very effectively in favor of gay marriage, or at least fighting sexual preference-based hatred. By the end of the movie, you find yourself asking "Why not?" to the question of gay marriage. Brangelina's reported refusal to marry until everybody can get married, on the other hand, only annoys me. I don't care if Mr. and Mrs. Smith ever get married--but Chuck and Larry made me think about how I think about homosexuals.

I recommend I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. (I just wish they had given it a shorter title.) Watch it, think about it, see if it inspires you. Black Like Me made me conscious of how I think about and interact with those who are visibly different from me. Chuck and Larry just may make you think about how you think about and interact with those who are not so visibly different.

Let's erase the hate. ¡Somos todos americanos!

W O W

Check out that linked story on the side. You won't, so I'll just tell you what happened. During the first half, the Lady Jackets went on a 46-2 run. At the end of the first half, they were up 48-6. They took a break in the second half and gave up 18 points to win only 88-24. What can I say about that? It's no wonder these girls are ranked #1 in the nation.

Sting'm Jackets

I don't usually comment on the goings-on of my alma mater, but this I had to share: HPU's women's basketball team is currently ranked #1 in the nation in the USA Today/ESPN/WBCA D-3 poll. According to the HPU press release (linked to your right), this is the first time since joining the NCAA that any HPU team has ranked #1 in the nation.

So I'm thinking to myself: you sure know how to pick schools that do well in women's sports. Growing up, girls in my classes always started school late because they were playing in the softball world series. A few years ago, Baylor's women's basketball team won the national championship. And now the Lady Jackets are #1 in the nation.

Now you know the rest of the story.

Say It Ain't So

Haiku for an Old Friend
Oh the Brazos Belle
Sinking in the (financial) mud
We had great times on you

Three-and-a-half years ago, my wife and I had our reception aboard the Brazos Belle. It was one of the funnest times of my life. We had dancing, cakes, friends, family, music. But the rains came down this past summer, flooding the Brazos River and the lower deck of the Brazos Belle. The Brazos Belle cancelled all its pending engagements, preventing hundreds of people from having the beautiful reception that we had. Nobody knows who owns it these days. The operator claims to have turned it over to his alleged lessor, who in turn is characterizing the transaction as a purchase rather than a lease. All I know is that it's sad.

I know a little about customer service and the food industry, and I love boats. If I had money, I'd buy the boat from whoever owns it, put it out on the River (the new dam is supposed to make that a workable proposition), and try to make that thing work. It really is a shame that it may end up floating down the River Styx instead of the Rio Brazos de los Dios. But the business of business is business (i.e., profit), and with the costs of repairing all that flood damage, making the Brazos Belle seaworthy probably is not very cost-effective.

As the French say: hélas.

Smart Cookie

One of life's great satisfactions is vindication in your belief that you (or someone you love) rock.

Today, Ms. Avacado got her score on one part of the CPA exam. It was a 98. Yeah, that's right--I married up.

Me to a T

What kind of lawyer are you? Your Result: Slick Defense Attorney You have a perfectly coiffed hairdo, $1000 shoes, and a smile that reminds people of a cat toying with a mouse. Juries hang on your every word, and the media loves you. Pro: Highly paid, famous, nice office. Con: You really don't know how that blood got there? Come on.
Transactions Nerd
Tax Junkie
Ambulance Chaser
What kind of lawyer are you? Make Your Own Quiz

Cry me a (Charles) River

When I was nine, my older brother was a big Wade Boggs fan. My brother's influence combined with Roger Clemens's as-yet-untainted dominance plus the Curse of the Bambino made me a bit of a Boston Red Sox fan. When they won the World Series in 2004, I was thrilled. I still like the Red Sox, but now I'm tired of Boston still pretending it's hard to love sports in Boston. Just like Boston dominated the American Revolution, the abolitionist movement, and legal scholarship, it is now dominating sports.

Does anybody remember the last time that a major professional Boston sports team lost a game? The Red Sox finished the 2007 postseason with seven wins in a row. They haven't lost since October 16. The Patriots haven't lost a real game since January 21, although they did lose a preseason game on August 17. The Boston Celtics haven't lost a real game since April 18, and they haven't lost a game at all since October 23 (preseason). Granted, the Boston Bruins' last loss was November 8, but they're the exception that proves the rule. Even in soccer, the New England Revolution haven't lost a game since October 13.

What's happening? By my count, Boston's last meaningful loss (excluding the Bruins) was October 16, exactly 30 days ago today. I'm not sure if that's a record, but it's pretty crazy. I think maybe Bostonians will forget how to lose.

So don't tell me it's hard to be a sports fan in Boston right now.

Go Spurs go!

Stultifying English

My mother-in-law asked me recently about how a job offer lined up with what I want to do. I told her, "I want to try cases, and this will give me that opportunity." Typically, I would have said "I want to litigate," but I coincidentally used the $5 word instead of the $250 word. Most of the time, I use the $250 word, stultifying [Q.E.D.] my writing. Then, today, I got this:

Ouch.

The goal of all communication is to convey a message. Using the $250 word rarely conveys exactly the message you are trying to convey. If I had told her I wanted to litigate, it would have conveyed the message that I'm a law student reminding her that I'm a law student--and she's not--and that we speak different languages. Instead, plain English conveys the message I really wanted to convey: yes, this job lines up with what I want to do. Most of the time, $250 English probably conveys the message, but with a lot of elitist overtones. The elitism drowns out your intended message, and your attempt at communication fails. Maybe that's what Plain English is about: ensuring that your message gets heard.

This is what I love about blogging: I can practice my writing skills, and you, my faithful readers, can tell your children that you read our generation's Scott Turow when he was just a law student writing a blog.

End of an Era II

Back in June, my car of seven years blew a head gasket. Today, I finally sold it.

It kinda makes me wistful. I put 70,000 miles on that car. In high school, I tested the governor and learned what it was like to drive 107 mph. In college, I drove it back and forth to Brownwood about 96 times. When I first got it, I didn't like it much. During its tenure as my car, I was constantly trying to get rid of it. But now that it's gone, I'm kinda sad. I guess that's how it goes.

My new car . . . . . . already has 120,000 miles on it. I hope it lasts another 70,000.

Quarterly Narcissism

I'm always interested in what other people are studying. I think it says a lot about a person (even beyond their interests). So I wonder what this tells you about me--

• Business Organizations II -- The sequel to the thrilling Bizzorg I. Actually, I really enjoyed Bizzorg I, which culminated fittingly enough with perhaps the funnest exam since Torts I. I left feeling like a boxer who leaves the ring after the 12th round not entirely sure how the judges will score but glad he wasn't knocked out. Unfortunately, that also means you didn't knock out your opponent.
• Federal Courts -- Taught by an eminent blogger, I thought this would be a helpful class, especially the more I get to know myself and what I want to do. Unlike most of my blogging comrades, I am growing more and more interested in business-type litigation: tax, bankruptcy, corporate issues. The fed courts do tax and bankruptcy (though I don't think we cover them specifically in this class), so it should help in the long run.
• Corporate Tax -- I don't think I even have to explain myself on this one. Why wouldn't you take Corporate Tax? What? You think corporate law is the most boring possible use of time and tax somehow exceeds that? Well, I think you're wrong.*
• Constitutional Law -- Because it's required. And because the prof has been teaching it since before the major leagues got divisions, before the Super Bowl, almost before major professional sports came to Texas. If that's not amazing, nothing is.
• Immigration Law -- ¡Somos todos Americanos!

Who's with me?

*Maybe after finals I'll blog about why business law is the best out there.

Who names these things

Ever since I read about the Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act, I've been singing "Hakuna UTATA."

Oh well. I won't worry about it--I'll just eat some grubs. Or maybe some TUUNAA.

I need a young priest and an old priest

I never understand how these work. If somebody can figure it out, let me know.

Freaky number guessing website

where the rubber meets the road

One of my favorite things about law school is that you learn a lot about how the world actually works. For example, I used to wonder how exactly corporations do business. Now, after nearly completing Bizzorg, I understand. I have a lot of respect now for transactional lawyers and that special kind of practical creativity they possess. Another example: just last year, I helped my wife resolve a dispute with a seller on eBay who did not want to give a refund after she offered to return a purse that he had described as navy and cream but was actually plain old black and white. We pulled out the UCC, and I explained to him that § 2-711(2)(a) is pretty clear that she gets her money back or we go to court (for the $50 she paid for the purse). He was pretty scared, so we settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Well, it has happened again. Recently, my wife's PayPal account got hacked into, and the villain charged up $200 worth of stuff. No biggie . . . except that the bank account tied to the PayPal account did not have $200 in it. So we got charged the $200 plus an NSF fee.* We easily got the money back from PayPal (they actually told us about the hacking in the first place), but the bank was a little tougher to deal with. At first, they said, "You don't get your NSF fee back because it wasn't our fault." My wife's a tough cookie, so she played hardball and we got our money back. Tonight, we were talking about it, and suddenly the mysteries of Article 4 came clear to me. Under § 4-401, we're not liable for the PayPal charges because they weren't authorized. If we're not liable for the PayPal charges, how can we be liable for the resulting NSF fees? It was beautiful.

Did I really just say that?






*Can you imagine that a bank she worked at in college tried to cover the entirety of its overhead from NSF fees? And they were pretty close, too.

See these bags under my eyes?

This is downright amazing. Baylor is ranked number 3 in the nation for most hours spent preparing for class on average. We are highest in Texas, and the only one in the top 25. More interesting, though, perhaps, is a look at the bottom 25, which includes Virginia (147), Harvard (151), UCLA (157), NYU (158), Yale (162), and U of Texas (169!*). But let's look at the real numbers:

• Baylor = 5.68 hours per day spent studying.
• Virginia = 3.77
• Harvard = 3.74
• UCLA = 3.58
• NYU = 3.56
• Yale = 3.50
• U of Texas = 3.23

Wow. I'm really not sure what to think about this.

*Only North Carolina Central is lower, with a paltry 2.52 hours per day.

Fratority of Wet Squishy Shoes

Since when does Waco have monsoons? I left the house this morning dry. By chance, as I walked out the door, I grabbed my umbrella ("it's rather cloudy--rain? Nah--but just in case."). Near the 8th Street exit, it started sprinkling. By the time I was turning right on 5th Street, my windshield wipers were at an ironically ineffective high speed. After pulling into my parking spot, I decided to try to wait out the rain. To my growing dread, the rain started coming down harder and in greater volume and the wind started blowing more violently. If campus had palm trees, it would have felt like Isla Nublar minus the dinosaurs. But resistance is futile; so after a few minutes, I opened my umbrella, slipped on my backpack, and stuck my foot out into Tropical Storm Bizzorg.

As I walked through the parking lot, I held my umbrella perpendicular to my body. Yes. Perpendicular. By the time I reached the building, my head and torso were dry, but my legs below the knees were soppin wet. I've never been in a monsoon before, but apparently the effect on your clothing (if you have an umbrella) is more like wading through knee-deep water than standing in the rain. Putting on dry socks tonight at home was like . . . I don't know. Maybe flying back home in a helicopter after narrowly escaping ingestion by supposed-to-be-extinct reptiles.

Since I don't like to complain without offering a solution, I suggest that BLS convert a room into a giant oven so that the victims of Tropical Storm Bizzorg can dry off, relax, and avoid pneumonia.

Sting'm Jackets

I have been informed that the University of Texas does not claim to have invented football. Rather, the Universities of Oklahoma and Southern California lay this claim. Oklahoma (where the wind comes sweepin' o'er the plain) is one of those unfortunate public schools that got its mascot from some obscure aspect of the state's history. The Sooners? That's right up there with the Hoosiers. Does anybody know if there are more?* As for USC, I've already made my comment. (Incidentally, if HPU could learn the Pythagorean defense and maybe base our offense more on something like Einstein's theory of relativity, we wouldn't have games like this.)

I hope you're still with me. I've been thinking a lot lately about how Texas elects our judges. I used to think it wasn't such a bad idea, but I'm starting to wonder--especially after the episode last week with the Presiding Judge Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refusing to accept a ten-minute-late petition, with death on the line. I hesitate to align myself with either side of the capital punishment issue, but come on--we're talking about death. There is no appeal from that. Let's at least make sure that we've covered all our bases.




*Note--I do know where the Sooners got their mascot. But what is a "hoosier"?

What a beautiful world

There's a song they're playing on my radio station called "Underdog." The chorus says, "You have no fear of the underdog--that's why you will not survive." This is the weekend of the underdog.

The Yankees are getting smashed by the Indians. UT lost to Oklahoma. USC lost to Stanford (you just can't beat the Pythagorean defense). Call me whatever you like, but I love it when the giants are shaken.

I guess it is a big deal

Listen to this:

Both these [checks] were forged by one Lee, who has been since hanged for forgery.

- Lord Mansfield, Price v. Neal, 3 Burr. 1354, 97 Eng. Rep. 871 (K.B. 1762).

Wow. Sometimes I'm reminded why I'm glad I live in America in 2007 and not in England in 1762. Dang.

Cultural sensitivity

Dadgummit. It's Myanmar and has been since 1989.

Disappointed but not destroyed

Following Poseur's lead, I picked an NL backup team . . . and now I'm lumped with the fans of the Mets, the Tigers, the Brewers, the Dodgers, and the Cardinals--teams that should be in the playoffs but aren't. My backup team was the Padres, and they lost tonight to the Rockies, 9-8 after 13 grueling innings. That means that the once-great Padres, who have everything the Rangers don't*, have stumbled into third place in the NL West and yet another season of what-almost-was. So, please, pity me.

My picks for playoffs (or at least how they should turn out based on relative evilness):

Angels v. Red Sox --> Angels in 6
Yankees v. Indians --> Indians in 6

Phillies v. Rockies --> Phillies in 7
Cubs v. Diamondbacks --> Cubs in 5

Angels v. Indians --> Indians in 6
Phillies v. Cubs --> Phillies in 7

Angels v. Phillies --> Phillies in 4





*Namely, offense and defense, but I prefer pitching so I'll focus on that. Triple-crown winner Jake Peavy, plus two of the (arguably) greatest pitchers alive--Greg Maddux and Trevor Hoffman.

I can see clearly now

A long time ago, I lost that youthful enthusiasm for law school. I think maybe it was September of 1L. But hard work is doing something you don't want to do . . . and keeping on doing it even after it becomes an anti-thrill. In a sense, law school is just that: learning what it means to keep on keeping on.

But I regained a shadow of that former enthusiasm yesterday after Negotiable Instruments. All through 1L, you study cases and learn doctrines that are so abstract and basic that you think either (a) they don't really happen in real life and so are utterly useless or (b) you will never have any grasp on the law as it really is--vast and complex. After a few weeks, 2L has changed those thoughts for me. I'm reading the UCC* and it starts talking about consequential damages, and that means something to me. Or I'm reading the BOC** for Bizzorg*** and LAPP starts bubbling to the surface and I realize that corporate directors are liable only for actual damages and not punitive damages because (1) the rule of implied exclusion and (2) the director relationship is kinda contract-y, and contracts only lead to actual damages, not punitive. Then, the cherry on top of this pedagogical sundae, I have an intelligent discussion by the coffee machine about whether a Marylander can use promissory estoppel to recover damages when we beat him up after promising not to beat him up.****

So I guess the point of this post is twofold. First, if there are any 1Ls who read this, rest assured that it does get better and things will cohere--just not for a long time. Second, to my fellow 2Ls: we're making progress and I can actually start seeing lawyers in each of us. Shame on us.




*If we call the TUPA "toopa," the TRPA "trippa," and the TUUNAA "tuna," then why don't we call the UCC "uck"?

**Most people pronounce this "beeyoSEE," but I propose we change it to "bach."

***Resistance is futile, yo.

****The answer is "Why not just sue for assault and battery and get the punitives p/e blocks?"

From law school dropout . . .

. . . to justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. If you get a chance, read about Stanley Forman Reed, law school transfer who then dropped out but somehow clawed his way to the Supreme Court.

Interesting Thoughts

I've been collecting a few quotes that I wanted to post and comment on, but they stand pretty well on their own. Let me know what you think.

[I]t is much easier for an active mind to acquire the virtues of patience, than for a passive one to assume those of energy.

- John Stuart Mill

El amor no es sólo un sentimiento. Es también un arte.

- Balzac

What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure.

- Samuel Johnson

I'll let you decide whether I read the likes of Mill, Balzac, and Johnson for pleasure.

Go Rangers

Sometimes you just want to hit somebody. Usually you don't.

But sometimes you do.

No stinkin' way

I had to share this. It's a Slate article about a recent study completed that suggests that liberals are more likely to respond to new stimuli in new ways than are conservatives. Anyway--it's an interest read. I don't know how valid his critique of the study is, but I'd be interested if anybody has any comments about it.

Oh--and I'd like to know if you're surprised that liberals are readier to change than conservatives . . .

wOw

Some people say that Texas has one of the most complicated court systems in the world. My limited experience with the Texas judiciary tends to confirm that thesis. I learned something today that doesn't really confirm the superlative-complexity theory, but I think it's pretty amazing: 506 main, trial-level courts of record. And of course, that doesn't include the 254 county courts, the at least 254 JP courts, the numerous county courts-at-law, the occasional county probate court, the occasional county criminal court, the municipal courts, the 14 appellate courts, or the two courts of last resort. So, I guess Texas probably has around 1,000 courts.

wOw

Good laugh

Having had braces and trying to get a job, I thought this was pretty funny:

courtesy of http://indexed.blogspot.com/

Oy vey

My dad is an accountant. Let me just say I'm not surprised. From tax homework:

A taxpayer's attempt to create some black letter law (bathed perhaps in red light) failed when the Tax Court said, in effect: Madame, the wages of sin are not exempt from taxation!

James J. Freeland, et al., Fundamentals of Federal Income Taxation: Cases and Materials, 14th Edition 62 (2006).

How real do you feel, Mrs. Peel?

Over on the Civ Pro Prof Blog, they have an anonymous student blogging about his/her experience as a first-year student in Civil Procedure. Unfortunately, Crash McAvoy (the anonymous 1L) thinks that Civ Pro is about learning to "accept procedural fairness as a substitute for finding the *truth[.]*" (Stars are his/hers.)

As the French say: hélas. Too many people think that procedural fairness and finding the truth are competing values. But the goal of our procedural system is not to be procedurally fair for the sake of procedural fairness. Rather, procedural fairness maximizes the probability of finding the truth. As my hero, John Steed, says so pithily, "Play by the rules or the game is nothing." The game of the legal system is resolving disputes. Finding the truth--and rightly resolving the dispute--when you have two opponents screaming is not an easy task. Civil (and criminal for that matter) procedure attempts to maximize the likelihood that the right party wins and that justice is done.

My (unsolicited) advice: think about civ pro like you think about logic: without it, you might get the right answer, but just because you're lucky.

I can't believe they killed Eko

Wow. First week of classes finished yesterday. Dang. So here's basically how my week went: Get up. Eat breakfast while I read yesterday's Houston Chronicle. (Note--Always tip the delivery guy after he's delivered for awhile.) Go to class. After class. After class. Come home and read. And read. And read. Go to sleep. I thought year 2 was supposed to be easier.

But in e x c e l l e n t news, Madam Registrar sent out a copy of the proposed schedule for this year, and it looks like they're offering Immigration Law in the Winter Quarter, when I can take it. Sometimes you love Baylor Law, sometimes you like it.

That's all I got.

Oh, and today, Poseur's O's were aptly named: their R-H-E line read: "0 0 0." First you lose 30-3. Then you get no-hit by a guy on his second start ever. Ouch.

Go Rangers

I'm sorry Poseur. This is just unbelievable. The Rangers beat the Orioles . . . 30-3. Yes. Thirty runs to three. According to the article, that's the most runs in a major league game . . . in modern history. The last time somebody got that many was in 1897 between teams called the Chicago Colts and the Louisville Something-or-others. Wow. And--the Rangers have only scored 28 runs in their last nine games . . . total.

Mikearoni--you were right. Texas did need another catcher. Jarrod Saltalamacchia got 2 HR and 7 RBI. Rock on. Who'd have thought the Rangers GM could make a good call?

F Q, man.

The fall quarter is nigh upon us. It should be an interesting quarter for me. I'll find out if I have any business acumen. I think not--this quarter should confirm that. Here's my schedule for the interested:

• Basic Tax & Accounting--I have some background in this area. I wrote my bachelor's thesis on the flat tax. And my dad and wife are both accountants. You guys better watch out for me when we hit the flat tax chapter.
• Business Organizations I--I have some background in this area, too. I helped an old boss of mine set up an LLP owned by an LLC (or maybe it was the other way around) so she could rent property to the state. When I say "helped," I mean that I notarized her signature and drove the papers down to Austin. Watch out, J-Fish.
• Jurisprudence--Once again, my educational history helps me out. I once took Modern Political Theory from a guy who was simultaneously running for Congress. (Can I get a witness, Mr. Robertson?) You guys better watch out when we hit the chapter about the jurisprudential nuances of running for Congress in rural quasi-west Texas.
• Negotiable Instruments--Yet again: I have written countless checks. (Or is it cheques?) Dang, J-Fish. This'll be the quarter everybody hates Alico.
• Trusts & Estates (I?)--I know all about trust. I've done both trust walks and trust falls. And I can tell you the capitals of all 50 states if I think about it for a minute. (Don't believe me? Boise, Idaho. Bam. Betcha didn't even know Idaho had a capital.*)

I'm betting on a 4.0 this quarter. Any takers?

*Ed. Note--By far, the funniest thing in Napoleon Dynamite is the travel agency: "Idago Travels."

18 states, eh?

These are the states I've visited (even if just for a few hours or just driving through). New York looks weird, doesn't it? All separate like that . . . that's because I flew there, via Charlotte. And because of the weird "great circle" phenomenon, I have no idea what states I flew over, except that I always seem to fly over the Mighty Mississippi.

Where have you been?

They don't call him "King" for nothin'

Books don't usually make me cry. Not even The Notebook or A Walk to Remember. So why does Stephen King make me tear up in Taco Bueno? This is why:

Maybe he was as mad as he said he was, but she could see only a species of miserable fright. Suddenly, like the thud of a boxing glove on her mouth, she saw how close to the edge of everything he was. The agency was tottering, that was bad enough, and now, on top of that, like a grisly dessert following a putrid main course, his marriage was tottering too. She felt a rush of warmth for him, for this man she had sometimes hated and had, for the last three hours, at least, feared. A kind of epiphany filled her. Most of all, she hoped he would always think he had been as mad as hell, and not . . . not the way his face said he felt.

Stephen King, Cujo 88 (1981). It got me thinking: maybe the most beautiful images, the most spectacularly, stunningly, disarmingly awe-inspiring images, are hidden away in stories that seem to have nothing beautiful about them. Maybe it's the juxtaposition itself that draws out the beauty so richly.

Stephen King isn't the best-selling author since Jesus because of his backcover mugshot.

All because of you, I haven't slept for so long . . .

. . . and when I do, I dream I'm drowning in the ocean.

Not really, but I thought those were pretty neat lyrics. The kind of lyrics you build a song around.

The Missus is taking me to watch my beloved Rangers get trounced by the Mariners this weekend, so I'm getting a headstart on some of my homework. Today, I was reading for Tax and came across this little gem of psychology:

Every man is likely to overemphasize and treat as fundamental those aspects of life which are his peculiar daily concern.

Lawrence A. Cunningham, Sharing Accounting's Burden: Business Lawyers in Enron's Dark Shadows, 57 Bus. Lawyer 1421 (2002), quoting Jerome N. Frank, Accounting for Investors, The Fundamental Importance of Corporate Earning Power, 68 J. Accountancy 295, 295, 300-01 (1939).

Quoth I the former SEC chairman not because of the truth of his statement (tho it bears out in my experience) but because . . . who would have thought you'd find good psychological truth in tax homework?

This is why I love law . . .

Tax Free Weekend + New Content

I have two things I've been wanting to say for a few days. First, I hope you'll notice my new content over there on the right. I call it "The Metablog." Google Reader (my new aggregator) lets me share articles and posts them right there, easy as pie. I hope you enjoy it.

And number 2. Let me tell you what tax-free weekend means to me: running out of ice. The first tax-free weekend that I worked, I was the lead closer at the Subway in the Mall. We were so dadgum busy that we ran out of ice. I had to run to the store on 19th Street to get some (and they would only let me take two ice chests full). That was about 4 o'clock. Then we ran out again, but thankfully, it was closer to closing. I've heard of restaurants running out of ice because the machine was broken, but that's the only time I've ever heard of an operational and fully functionining ice machine running out just because the restaurant was so dang busy.

I made sure to ask that day off the next year.

Well that was unexpected

A few weeks ago, Ms. Avacado and I saw our first James Bond movie all the way through: Goldeneye. I enjoyed it enough that I decided to give Ian Fleming's books a chance. Let me tell you: at least in Casino Royale (the first in the series and the only one I've read so far), Mr. Bond is unexpectedly round. He does not always have the cool and calm demeanor he is known for, though there is enough that 007 is recognizable. In my opinion, the increased complexity makes him more believable and likeable. I recommend reading the book, even if you don't think you like James Bond. It's a fast reader and highly entertaining.

No adventures para mi

The sorting hat says that I belong in Ravenclaw!

<

Said Ravenclaw, "We'll teach those whose intelligence is surest."

Ravenclaw students tend to be clever, witty, intelligent, and knowledgeable.
Notable residents include Cho Chang and Padma Patil (objects of Harry and Ron's affections), and Luna Lovegood (daughter of The Quibbler magazine's editor).

Take the most scientific Harry Potter Quiz ever created.

Get Sorted Now!

Too much comfort?

Mrs. Avacado and I ate with my parents tonight at Logan's. I'm stuft. Miserably stuft. My parents have told me for years that life was so much better when they didn't have any money and you really were entertained with the fridge box somebody got you for Christmas. People are far more prosperous these days, but are they any happier? And if not, what's the point of all our prosperity? I'm not saying that I'm willing to give up all the blessings of middle class American life, but I just wonder about it. Would I be happier if I had to scrape by?

¿¿¿

Do the Rangers need another catcher?

Mas new content

On the sidebar, I've added two new features. The first feature is called "Bedside Table" and lists books that I'm currently reading. The second feature is called "Back on the Shelf" and lists the books I've read since I moved into my new house. I'm not sure if anybody cares about that kinda stuff, but it gives me the opportunity to look back in a few months and say "dadgum, I've read a buncha books. Maybe I should spend more time working on law school . . . "

. . . and yes, I really have just read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for the first time. I was highly impressed.

The Little Tramp

Did you know that Charlie Chaplin was an immigrant?

Happy for whom?

I can't believe it. Kenny Lofton for a class-A catcher? I know Kenny's old, but he's batting .300+ and has 20+ steals. This is why the Rangers are in last . . . again.

All 6 yo

In happy news, this site has finally been visited by someone on each of the six permanently populated continents. Woohoo! By far, I'm most popular in North America, with Europe a distant second. Asia, surprisingly, comes in third, followed by South America. It appears I have had two visitors from Africa and one from Australia.

I just thought you guys would like a non-immigration post. (:

Real criminals belong in a real jail

. . . and those we pretend are criminals belong in a pretend-jail. Kinda like in prison dodgeball. Anti-immigration rhetoric is rife with statements like, "I don't mind immigration, but they have to do it legally," which is really just a boringly polite way to say that you prefer law-abiding people to criminals. But the fact is--illegal presence in the United States is not the kind of crime that we think of when we label someone a criminal. The wrong done when you illegally enter the United States is that of disrespect, not the kind of moral wrong that underscores penal statutes regarding murder, robbery, assault, rape, and fraud. Those are bad things and have always been illegal. Crossing an imaginary line so you can feed your kids without getting the permission of the people on the other side of the line . . . well, I'm not advocating illegal immigration, I'm just saying it's not the same thing as rape. Let's keep rapists and illegal immigrants in separate categories.

Contrary to what you may have thought, the Bible speaks out against anti-immigration laws: Exodus 22:1 and 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34*, Deuteronomy 24:17 and 27:19, and Zechariah 7:10 all command the people of God (at that time Israel, now the Christian catholic** Church) to love foreigners/aliens/strangers and treat them as if they were natives. Sure, there are verses that tell us that, as Christians, we are to obey the law of the land . . . but only when it does not conflict with God's commands. God clearly commands that his own due process clause (Matthew 22:39: Love your neighbor as yourself, without meaningless distinctions (cf. Romans 10:12)) applies to all persons, regardless of where they were born or who they are. Again, I'm not advocating illegal immigration, but let's at least be honest in the debate and not lump illegal immigrants in the same box as rapists and murderers (whom we should love as ourselves, anyway).

All this as preface so that I can say "amen" to this Slate article: The Pardon Pander, by Bruce Fein. If the guys obstructed justice, then they need to be punished appropriately.

I'm sad to report that I cannot determine how any of my Congresspeople voted. If anybody can find a vote list, please put a link in the comments.




*This verse is my favorite one of those listed, so I'll spell it out for you here, from the NASB: "The [immigrant] who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt."

**The little c in catholic was intentional. Look it up, you bum.

Well, if Al Sharpton can agree with Wal*Mart on something . . .

Then he must be right. Check it out.

Also--check out this article on nj.com explaining why the argument that "my ancestors came here legally" is probably wrong.

Los Inmigrantes del Día

About every day or so, one of the blogs I read has a post entitled "Immigrant of the Day." The posts serve two purposes for me: (1) They remind me that there is something about being American that doesn't come from where you're born; and (2) They surprise with me who all has migrated. Surprising immigrants (at least to me) include Felix Frankfurter, Madeleine Albright, and Andrew Carnegie. America has been built on the shoulders of immigrants. When I think that the immigrant of the day is particularly interesting, I'll go ahead and post a link here. I encourage you, of course, to read up on immigration. The more you know, the angrier you'll get at our system.

Enjoy!

Supreme Bears?

There's an interesting post at SCOTUSblog about potential nominees by a Republican president for the Supreme Court. I don't know much about politics and who's who among potential Supreme Court nominees, but I have this to say about that: out of 14 listed possibles, only 1 came from the greatest law school in America. Interesting numbers below.

Law schools represented:

• Baylor (1)
• U of Chicago (1)
• Hahvahd (6)
• South Texas College of Law** (1)
• St. Mary's** (1)
• Tulane (1)
• U of the Pacific (McGeorge School of Law)* (1)
• UVa (1)
• Yalie (1)

And the following undergrads represented:

• Baylor (1)
• Columbia (1)
• Florida State U (1)
• Georgetown (1)
• Michigan State (1)
• Northeast Louisiana State (1)
• Princeton (2)
• (Southwest) Texas State** (1)
• Stanford (1)
• U of Texas (1)
• Trinity in San Antonio (1)
• Washington & Lee (1)
• Yale (1)

Hmm. Out of 14 short-listed people, 6 are Hahvahd lawyers. Deep sociological question: are they nominated because they went to Hahvahd or did they go to Hahvahd because the kind of people who get nominated to the Supreme Court go to Hahvahd?

*Interestingly, this guy went to Stanford. Weird, huh?

**I know, I know. How did they get on the "short list"?

I always say: flip a coin . . .

. . . and if you don't like the answer you get, go with your gut. Turns out that's not a bad idea.

I've been running behind on my blog reading, so tonight while Mrs. Avacado does a take-home final, I'm reading all about psychology. Very interesting stuff, generally, but this article in particular struck me. In agreement with information overload theories, I've thought for awhile that we just can't consciously handle all the information we get, especially for big decisions. Example: My 18 months in family law were great, but there's a lot of emotional wear & tear from that, plus I really want to learn Spanish (which can apparently help you live longer: ¡Viva español!) and I work better in a rules-oriented environment than a personality-oriented environment, so maybe immigration law is my meal ticket, but I like to philosophize about the deeper issues and help people make really tough decisions plus I'm good with numbers, so maybe estate planning. Argh.

See? Too much information, too many factors to weigh. But apparently my subconscious doesn't care about all that. It makes a shortcut decision based on factors I may not realize I'm thinking about. Does that mean that it always gets the answer right? Not necessarily. But, as the author points out (and as some studies recently have shown*), it does about as well as thinking it through thoroughly.

So tonight, I'm going to bracketologize my life choices, flip coins, and go with my gut.



This just in: Slate published an article entitled: Should you trust your "gut feeling"? It's worth a read.




*The details are all fuzzy, but I seem to remember that they did a study recently comparing the results of an intentionally managed hedge fund with one managed based on the results of hockey games, and the hockey game fund did better. Weird, huh?

Gary Johnson: Fence border? You're joking

This editorial in the Trib is one of the best essays I've seen about why building a fence along the Mexican border is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I haven't been able to articulate why it's such a bad idea, but he takes some good swings at it. Let me know what you think. (It's not too long.)

Madness, I tell you

Apparently, there are too many lawyers in Wisconsin. The solution? Shut down the public law school by cutting off funding. That is pure madness.

New Content

My frequent readers will realize that I have added some new content on the right side of this site. It's called "Cruisin' USA" (yes, in honor of the classic arcade game), and it has links to some dream road trips I have. Right now--as I'm typing this--there is only one link (West Coast Trip), but I plan to add more. Please feel free to make your own trip and put it in the comments. I'm interested to see where everybody would want to go.

My dream West Coast Trip has the following key destinations:
- Roswell, NM
- the Grand Canyon
- the Hoover Dam
- Death Valley
- Sequoia National Park
- the Golden Gate Bridge
- the Salinas Valley (the setting for East of Eden).

Where would you go?

Desperate for Why

Stephen King gets a bit of a bad rap, but he's an incredible writer. There's a reason that he is the best-selling of all time, except for maybe Shakespeare and God. Right now, I'm reading Desperation. Check this quote:

"Why didn't you kill me like you did that guy back there? Billy? Or does it even make any sense to ask? Are you beyond why?"

"Oh s***, we're all beyond why, you know that."

My friend Mark tells me that economics is based on the idea that people act rationally given the information they have. I tend to agree. What do you think? Do we tend to make rational, if mis- or ill-informed, decisions? Or is it foolish even to try to explain why people act as they do?

NO F***ING FREEDOM OF SPEECH

I ran across this post today. Apparently, in some parts of America, you can't walk into the courthouse wearing shirts talking about f***ing. Talk about selective reporting. This is a perfect example of civil rights being violated without a thought by those who actually have power: the enforcer. This should be front page news, but my paper hasn't reported on it yet.*




* I don't have any idea whether this actually violates the First Amendment since I haven't taken Con Law or Civ Lib. I really only posted about this because I thought the T-shirt was funny.

Question fo' my peeps

Osler and Poseur have both listed these rules for being a good blogger. One of the rules is to update regularly. Should I update if I don't have anything interesting to say? Should I just blog about some other blog? I'm curious what my loyal readers would prefer. I guess I'm asking: would you rather have something interesting to read about once a week (what I shoot for) or just something to read every day?

MSM: right or left?

I grew up in a relatively conservative community, and I attended a relatively conservative college. So it's no surprise that I generally view the mainstream media as being relatively liberally biased. But today I ran across an interesting post. Apparently, the mainstream media are really in the pocket of the ultraconservatives, who ask them not to investigate the reality of the American health care system.

But isn't the media really a business? Don't they just report on what they think (in their well-researched opinions) their clientele want to hear? What I'm saying is: the mainstream media reflects what the market wants, which is what newswatchers want.

So if the mainstream media isn't reporting on something, doesn't it suggest that the mainstream doesn't care about it?