Ma'am: I think it's pretty cool if you're related to a president. That's more than I can say; I am just a bitter person with no family history. Please accept this as my apology. I hope you won't hold it against me.
powered by performancing firefox
Friday, September 29, 2006
Sincerest Apologies
Though I overestimate my readership, I wanted to apologize to a member of my class to whom I have spoken only once. When we met, she mentioned her last name. Someone asked if she was related to the president. She said, "Actually, yes." I, being a jerk, made a comment something like "Hey--he's ranked like 41st out of 43 presidents."
Ma'am: I think it's pretty cool if you're related to a president. That's more than I can say; I am just a bitter person with no family history. Please accept this as my apology. I hope you won't hold it against me.
Ma'am: I think it's pretty cool if you're related to a president. That's more than I can say; I am just a bitter person with no family history. Please accept this as my apology. I hope you won't hold it against me.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Echoing Sentiments
Although I feel sorry for the asinine questions asked in Property I (L-Z), and although I like Prof. Property very much, I want the Marine Corps. I want to be able to brag to my kids about walking barefoot uphill both ways in 110° heat through 18" of snow, only to be kicked out of class because my shoes are muddy. I signed up for bootcamp, not kindergarten.
Am I a masochist?
Today, a certain student (male or female) entered class at least fifteen minutes late. I feel bad for himmer; I'm glad it wasn't me; but if it had been me, I'd want Prof. Property to watch me unpack my things, ask me if I had my brief, then walk over and physically kick me out of class (whether or not I had my brief). That's what the Marine Corps is like. (Or so I imagine.) Instead, Prof. Property gave himmer what I call the "baby death penalty": no use of the computer during class. Whatever.
Then again--the laidback, easygoing nature of Property is rare thing in law school and something that shouldn't be thrown away for dumb pride. Keep on truckin', Prof. Property. You have my blessing.
Am I a masochist?
Today, a certain student (male or female) entered class at least fifteen minutes late. I feel bad for himmer; I'm glad it wasn't me; but if it had been me, I'd want Prof. Property to watch me unpack my things, ask me if I had my brief, then walk over and physically kick me out of class (whether or not I had my brief). That's what the Marine Corps is like. (Or so I imagine.) Instead, Prof. Property gave himmer what I call the "baby death penalty": no use of the computer during class. Whatever.
Then again--the laidback, easygoing nature of Property is rare thing in law school and something that shouldn't be thrown away for dumb pride. Keep on truckin', Prof. Property. You have my blessing.
powered by performancing firefox
Monday, September 25, 2006
Take that Smoo
So I'm reading Mark Gimenez's The Color of Law when I ran across this gem:
Now you don't go to Southern Methodist University School of Law if you plan on pursuing a legal career in New York or D.C. or L.A. or even Houston for that matter: it's not exactly the Harvard of the Southwest. In fact, they say it's a hell of a lot easier to get into the law school at SMU than it is one of the sororities or fraternities at SMU. You go to SMU law school if and only if you want to practice law in Dallas, Texas, because SMU lawyers have begotten SMU lawyers for so many decades now that the Dallas legal community is more incestuous than the Alabama backwoods of the fifties.
powered by performancing firefox
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Do I have Great Expectations?
Last night, I finally finished Charles Dickens's Great Expectations. If you're like me, you probably read it in high school, maybe 9th grade. You probably didn't like it. If you read it now (say, five or six years post-high school), you'll likely enjoy it much more. Or at least I did.
In case you forgot, this rite-of-passage story follows Phillip Pirrip (a.k.a. Pip) from about the age of 6 until something like 30. At first, Pip's sister is taking care of him, along with her husband, Joe Gargery. The story begins with Pip delivering "wittles" to an escaped convict. Next thing we know, the local rich and eccentric lady, Miss Havisham, invites Pip over to play. There, he meets Estella, a more innocent (but not much) version of Steinbeck's Cathy. Predictably, Pip's taste of the high-class world of wealth makes him jealous for it and discontented with his blacksmith's destiny.
Eventually, Pip receives news that he has "great expectations." Thence begins the story of Pip's spoliation, devastation, and eventual reincarnation as somebody worth spitting on.
Like I said, when I read it in 9th grade, I didn't like it. When I saw the movie a few years after, I still didn't like it. I read it now, and I can relate to Pip these days. I have had times in my life where I was as low as Pip got. It supports a theory of mine: that we only like stories (be they books, movies, magazines, whatever) where we can relate to a character or where we wish we could relate to one of the characters.
In case you forgot, this rite-of-passage story follows Phillip Pirrip (a.k.a. Pip) from about the age of 6 until something like 30. At first, Pip's sister is taking care of him, along with her husband, Joe Gargery. The story begins with Pip delivering "wittles" to an escaped convict. Next thing we know, the local rich and eccentric lady, Miss Havisham, invites Pip over to play. There, he meets Estella, a more innocent (but not much) version of Steinbeck's Cathy. Predictably, Pip's taste of the high-class world of wealth makes him jealous for it and discontented with his blacksmith's destiny.
Eventually, Pip receives news that he has "great expectations." Thence begins the story of Pip's spoliation, devastation, and eventual reincarnation as somebody worth spitting on.
Like I said, when I read it in 9th grade, I didn't like it. When I saw the movie a few years after, I still didn't like it. I read it now, and I can relate to Pip these days. I have had times in my life where I was as low as Pip got. It supports a theory of mine: that we only like stories (be they books, movies, magazines, whatever) where we can relate to a character or where we wish we could relate to one of the characters.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Venus in Waco
I just wanted to let everybody know that the weather today is beautiful. I discovered that I left two books I have to read at school, drove up I-35 to get them, and on my way home, the bottom dropped out. It was beautiful. I want to steal Bono's metaphor, and call it a "black belly of cloud in the rain." (I don't really know what that means, but it's in the middle of his classic "Running to Stand Still," which is what law school is all about. Very pertinent as I begin to read about future interests in transferees.) Anyway, if you haven't read Ray Bradbury's The Illustrated Man, I highly suggest you go out and borrow it from your library right now and read the story about rain in Venus. I can't remember what it's called, but I know it's definitely not "The Veldt."
Yes, I am encouraging you to read Ray Bradbury rather than your Property homework. It's OK. She'll understand. (Prof. Godzilla, or as some people would rather, Prof. Kasparov or Prof. Big Blue, however, will not understand. Read your Civ Pro first.)
Yes, I am encouraging you to read Ray Bradbury rather than your Property homework. It's OK. She'll understand. (Prof. Godzilla, or as some people would rather, Prof. Kasparov or Prof. Big Blue, however, will not understand. Read your Civ Pro first.)
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
I smiled while Tokyo was Burning
I have been absent for sometime. I no longer work in the ALICO building. Now, I'm a lowly 1Q at fun's morgue (I think U.S. News & World Report has us as "Baylor Law." Like they know anything). Anyway, I thought it'd be fun to pull this out and act like I'm going to make a habit of posting. We'll see.
Today, Tokyo burned. I hear from reliable sources that there are several 1Q blogs, so I won't go into the details, but Prof. Civ Pro (whom I'll call "Prof. Godzilla" for now) gave the fall starters an earful today. I'll just share my ridiculous problem because, in my egomania and narcissism, I think you care.
It all started when Prof. Godzilla called on Ms. Brown (a clever nickname that, for her sake, I hope no one figures out) to talk about the case. She was obviously struggling. We all cringed inwardly. Prof. Godzilla's first burst of radiation: "Brown, if this is the best you can do, you seriously need to consider something else." What he was really saying, though, was "1Qs, if this is the best you can do, you seriously need to consider doing something else." We all cringed. Except me.
I smiled.
Then, when Ms. Brown was sufficiently humiliated, Prof. Godzilla decided to play Wittgenstein and burn down our favorite philosopher, Mr. Grifom (for "guy right in front of me"). Poor Grifom, Prof. Godzilla can't even pronounce his name,* but he can devastate better than King Kong. Now, as I said Grifom sits right in front of me, so when Prof. Godzilla is radiating Grifom, I'm catching the stuff that misses Grifom. My arm hair is singeing. We all cringe in humiliation when Prof. Godzilla asks Grifom if he's proud of his incompetence. What do you say? But the best was when Prof. Godzilla asks: "Griffum, is Chicago smarter than you?" [Grifom hesitates] "Because I sure hope not." While Tokyo burns, let's burn down the Second City, too. Everyone's eyes bore into the desks below them as they cringe.
I don't. I smile.
Ever since I was little, I have had this ridiculous problem: I smile when I'm in trouble. I giggle uncontrollably like a little fat girl in a candy shop with her crush (who doesn't know her name). I bite my tongue, I pull down the corners of my mouth, I stare like an idiot at my papers, I imagine horribly depressing things. Nothing worked when I was six; nothing works today. Conclusion: I am a masochist who thrives on humiliation. I guess law school is perfect for me.
*(I stole the footnote idea from Poseur.) Prof. Godzilla: "Grighfum or Greefum?" Grifom: "Greefum." Godzilla: "OK. Griffum, tell us about the case."
Today, Tokyo burned. I hear from reliable sources that there are several 1Q blogs, so I won't go into the details, but Prof. Civ Pro (whom I'll call "Prof. Godzilla" for now) gave the fall starters an earful today. I'll just share my ridiculous problem because, in my egomania and narcissism, I think you care.
It all started when Prof. Godzilla called on Ms. Brown (a clever nickname that, for her sake, I hope no one figures out) to talk about the case. She was obviously struggling. We all cringed inwardly. Prof. Godzilla's first burst of radiation: "Brown, if this is the best you can do, you seriously need to consider something else." What he was really saying, though, was "1Qs, if this is the best you can do, you seriously need to consider doing something else." We all cringed. Except me.
I smiled.
Then, when Ms. Brown was sufficiently humiliated, Prof. Godzilla decided to play Wittgenstein and burn down our favorite philosopher, Mr. Grifom (for "guy right in front of me"). Poor Grifom, Prof. Godzilla can't even pronounce his name,* but he can devastate better than King Kong. Now, as I said Grifom sits right in front of me, so when Prof. Godzilla is radiating Grifom, I'm catching the stuff that misses Grifom. My arm hair is singeing. We all cringe in humiliation when Prof. Godzilla asks Grifom if he's proud of his incompetence. What do you say? But the best was when Prof. Godzilla asks: "Griffum, is Chicago smarter than you?" [Grifom hesitates] "Because I sure hope not." While Tokyo burns, let's burn down the Second City, too. Everyone's eyes bore into the desks below them as they cringe.
I don't. I smile.
Ever since I was little, I have had this ridiculous problem: I smile when I'm in trouble. I giggle uncontrollably like a little fat girl in a candy shop with her crush (who doesn't know her name). I bite my tongue, I pull down the corners of my mouth, I stare like an idiot at my papers, I imagine horribly depressing things. Nothing worked when I was six; nothing works today. Conclusion: I am a masochist who thrives on humiliation. I guess law school is perfect for me.
*(I stole the footnote idea from Poseur.) Prof. Godzilla: "Grighfum or Greefum?" Grifom: "Greefum." Godzilla: "OK. Griffum, tell us about the case."
Friday, August 11, 2006
National Databases, or You May Say That I'm a Dreamer
I am usually a states' rights kinda guy, but I ran across this interesting article in the New York Times dealing with a recent report approved by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The report discusses what the Commission thinks "institutions of higher education" should be doing to improve how themselves. An intriguing idea toward the bottom of the article suggests:
Of course, this is a trade-off between convenience and privacy. It also represents more evolution toward Big Brother, so the idea would have to be refined in order to protect freedom and privacy. But imagine the possibilities!
develop[ing] a national database to follow individual students’ progress asAs a states'-righter, I generally oppose national databases like this, but I think it might be a good idea in the fields of higher education and health administration. If you're like me and recently applied to grad school, you've gone through the trouble of obtaining transcripts from all the colleges you've previously attended. All of us have sat in a doctor's office trying to remember whether anybody in our family has had pneumonia and when it was. How easy would it be if there were a database dedicated to keeping track of that information for you?
a way of holding colleges accountable for students’ success.
Of course, this is a trade-off between convenience and privacy. It also represents more evolution toward Big Brother, so the idea would have to be refined in order to protect freedom and privacy. But imagine the possibilities!
powered by performancing firefox
powered by performancing firefox
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Moral Integrity
From last night's Law & Order:
- "I bet your father is real proud of you today."
- "That's not what wakes me up in the morning, detective."
- "I bet your father is real proud of you today."
- "That's not what wakes me up in the morning, detective."
Sunday, July 16, 2006
A Christian Lawyer: ACLJ or ACLU?
As a Christian and as a future lawyer, I have spent some time thinking about what it means to be a Christian lawyer. I have some relatives and some other people I know who tell me that the only place a Christian has in the Bar is in the ACLJ. But what about the ACLU?
I don't have much to say but this, just a bunch of jumbled thoughts. Isaiah 1:17 says "Learn to do good; seek justice. Reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow." In other words: everybody needs help, so help those who don't have anybody to help them; that is seeking justice and doing good. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 32:35-36 says "Vengeance is [God's], and retribution . . . the Lord will vindicate His people." Maybe it isn't the place of humans to decree justice. Maybe we ought to defend those who are attacked by their fellow humans, regardless of the reason.
The more I struggle with this, the less clear the answer becomes.
I don't have much to say but this, just a bunch of jumbled thoughts. Isaiah 1:17 says "Learn to do good; seek justice. Reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow." In other words: everybody needs help, so help those who don't have anybody to help them; that is seeking justice and doing good. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 32:35-36 says "Vengeance is [God's], and retribution . . . the Lord will vindicate His people." Maybe it isn't the place of humans to decree justice. Maybe we ought to defend those who are attacked by their fellow humans, regardless of the reason.
The more I struggle with this, the less clear the answer becomes.
powered by performancing firefox
Disclosure
The watchdog group Texans for Public Justice (TPJ) released a report recently in which they graded Texas's state representatives and senators on their compliance with Chapter 254 of the Texas Election Code. This chapter requires the reporting of big donors' occupations and employers. "Big donors" are identified as those who donate greater than $500 in the aggregate during a single reporting period. TPJ graded the legislators as follows:
- adequate disclosure of both occupation and employer = full credit
- adequate disclosure of either occupation or employer but not both = half credit
- inadequate disclosure of both occupation and employer = no credit.
The importance of disclosure requirements for campaign finance lies in the economics of politics. Money is always traded for something of value, at least of value to the person trading the money. Usually, this occurs in the context of a purchase (e.g., food, cars, lands, etc.). Occasionally, as with the wealthy, someone trades money for influence or recognition (e.g., donating to build a library). In the context of campaign finance, what is the trader receiving in return for his/her donation? The fear is that the donor is buying influence. Since not everybody can donate to campaigns, an unfair advantage is given to those with enough money that they can donate to campaigns. Thence comes 2003's HB 1606.
For those of you who are wondering how your legislators did, check this report out. Waco's legislators did as follows:
- Kip Averitt (Sen.) - B - 83.0 on value of donations and 77.8 on number of donations.
- Jim Dunnam (H.R. 57th) - C - 77.8 on value and 76.1 on number.
- Charles "Doc" Anderson (H.R. 56th) - F - 31.8 on value and 28.8 on number.
Let me tell you what this means. Doc Anderson received $85,948 in statutorily defined big donations in 66 parts. Of these donations, the Good Doc adequately disclosed the occupation and employer of only 28.8 percent of these donors, who gave 31.8 percent of the funds. In straight numbers, 19 of his donors are virtually unknown except by name. Here's a copy of his most recent report. You can find Kip Averitt's here and Jim Dunnam's here.
When you hold public office and especially in your role as a public office holder, your privacy is significantly reduced. It's time for the Lege to stop paying lip service to public accountability and accomplish real public accountability. Kip and Jim--you have done well, but you can do better. Doc--this is unacceptable; let us know who's giving you money so we can know about what (might) influence you while in Austin.
Democracy only works when we have real choices, and real choices are based on real information.
- adequate disclosure of both occupation and employer = full credit
- adequate disclosure of either occupation or employer but not both = half credit
- inadequate disclosure of both occupation and employer = no credit.
The importance of disclosure requirements for campaign finance lies in the economics of politics. Money is always traded for something of value, at least of value to the person trading the money. Usually, this occurs in the context of a purchase (e.g., food, cars, lands, etc.). Occasionally, as with the wealthy, someone trades money for influence or recognition (e.g., donating to build a library). In the context of campaign finance, what is the trader receiving in return for his/her donation? The fear is that the donor is buying influence. Since not everybody can donate to campaigns, an unfair advantage is given to those with enough money that they can donate to campaigns. Thence comes 2003's HB 1606.
For those of you who are wondering how your legislators did, check this report out. Waco's legislators did as follows:
- Kip Averitt (Sen.) - B - 83.0 on value of donations and 77.8 on number of donations.
- Jim Dunnam (H.R. 57th) - C - 77.8 on value and 76.1 on number.
- Charles "Doc" Anderson (H.R. 56th) - F - 31.8 on value and 28.8 on number.
Let me tell you what this means. Doc Anderson received $85,948 in statutorily defined big donations in 66 parts. Of these donations, the Good Doc adequately disclosed the occupation and employer of only 28.8 percent of these donors, who gave 31.8 percent of the funds. In straight numbers, 19 of his donors are virtually unknown except by name. Here's a copy of his most recent report. You can find Kip Averitt's here and Jim Dunnam's here.
When you hold public office and especially in your role as a public office holder, your privacy is significantly reduced. It's time for the Lege to stop paying lip service to public accountability and accomplish real public accountability. Kip and Jim--you have done well, but you can do better. Doc--this is unacceptable; let us know who's giving you money so we can know about what (might) influence you while in Austin.
Democracy only works when we have real choices, and real choices are based on real information.
powered by performancing firefox
Saturday, July 15, 2006
I'm Comin Out
Why can't we all just get along?
To me, one of the most sickening things about politics is the team competition nature of it. It's always Team A vs. Team B. Screw what's good for America; what's good for me and my team?
Check out this story about the 2006 congressional race between incumbent Chet Edwards, a Democrat in Republican territory, and Van Taylor, some punk businessman from Dallas. To give you a bit of a summary, Mr. Taylor is looking for ways to connect Mr. Edwards to a vicious campaign ad hoping to inspire Democrats who oppose the Iraq war. Mr. Edwards, however, is well-known for his support of veterans. Mr. Taylor's attempt to connect Mr. Edwards to the ad is nothing more than team-based strategy.
Consider: Chet Edwards has done a lot of good for Central Texas: He's fought to save Waco's VA hospital; he's thoughtfully represented Central Texas since 1991. (Seriously: check out his record.) In our society, there is no more trustworthy politician than the one who acts thoughtfully. You can't trust them to do what they say they'll do because life's just too complicated for that. I say--get a representative you like and stick with him or her, at least until s/he starts acting unthoughtfully and instead with the team mentality. In our society, so overloaded with information, we can't make decisions based on what's best anymore, just on whether we're satisfied with what we have and whether we need something better.
Central Texas and the 17th District ought to be satisfied with Mr. Edwards's representation. Van Taylor doesn't deserve a chance just because he happens to be Republican and happened to have moved to a Republican-dominated district.
To me, one of the most sickening things about politics is the team competition nature of it. It's always Team A vs. Team B. Screw what's good for America; what's good for me and my team?
Check out this story about the 2006 congressional race between incumbent Chet Edwards, a Democrat in Republican territory, and Van Taylor, some punk businessman from Dallas. To give you a bit of a summary, Mr. Taylor is looking for ways to connect Mr. Edwards to a vicious campaign ad hoping to inspire Democrats who oppose the Iraq war. Mr. Edwards, however, is well-known for his support of veterans. Mr. Taylor's attempt to connect Mr. Edwards to the ad is nothing more than team-based strategy.
Consider: Chet Edwards has done a lot of good for Central Texas: He's fought to save Waco's VA hospital; he's thoughtfully represented Central Texas since 1991. (Seriously: check out his record.) In our society, there is no more trustworthy politician than the one who acts thoughtfully. You can't trust them to do what they say they'll do because life's just too complicated for that. I say--get a representative you like and stick with him or her, at least until s/he starts acting unthoughtfully and instead with the team mentality. In our society, so overloaded with information, we can't make decisions based on what's best anymore, just on whether we're satisfied with what we have and whether we need something better.
Central Texas and the 17th District ought to be satisfied with Mr. Edwards's representation. Van Taylor doesn't deserve a chance just because he happens to be Republican and happened to have moved to a Republican-dominated district.
powered by performancing firefox
Speak the Truth
Please read this post over on CommonTrend, where the author talks about how most bloggers have nothing worthwhile to say. He disses those who quote/refer to/link other blogs. I'm going to follow its instructions and begin blogging less often. Please don't hate me.
powered by performancing firefox
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Open Up the Floodgates
I think you guys should check this out. Finally, somebody has figured out that public policy should follow public reality. Well, I guess that a lot of people have been trying to follow statistics, but how real is that?
For those of you who won't follow the link, the Wall Street Journal has suggested that increasing the number of U.S. visas will do more for improving the quality of life for both Mexico and the United States. Wow. What a concept.
I think we should put more bridges on the Rio Grande and up the number of visas to like 250,000,000. There's no way that many people could slip in. And if so, who cares? At least then, we could stomp the Chinese army.
For those of you who won't follow the link, the Wall Street Journal has suggested that increasing the number of U.S. visas will do more for improving the quality of life for both Mexico and the United States. Wow. What a concept.
I think we should put more bridges on the Rio Grande and up the number of visas to like 250,000,000. There's no way that many people could slip in. And if so, who cares? At least then, we could stomp the Chinese army.
powered by performancing firefox
Monday, July 03, 2006
Good Will Hunting
So I'm watching Good Will Hunting, and Sean (Robin Williams) and Will (Matt Damon) are having a counseling session when the following interchange takes place:
Will - Do you ever wonder what your life would be like if you, uh, if you never met your wife?
Sean - Like wonder if I might be better off without her?
Will - No no no. I'm not saying like--better off--I didn't mean it like--
Sean - It's alright. It's an important question. Because you'll have bad times, but it'll always wake you up to the good stuff you weren't paying attention to.
Although Robin Williams is usually known better for his comedy, but I think his dramatic parts are his best movies. If you haven't seen Good Will Hunting, go rent it right now.
Will - Do you ever wonder what your life would be like if you, uh, if you never met your wife?
Sean - Like wonder if I might be better off without her?
Will - No no no. I'm not saying like--better off--I didn't mean it like--
Sean - It's alright. It's an important question. Because you'll have bad times, but it'll always wake you up to the good stuff you weren't paying attention to.
Although Robin Williams is usually known better for his comedy, but I think his dramatic parts are his best movies. If you haven't seen Good Will Hunting, go rent it right now.
powered by performancing firefox
Superman? Really?
Your results:<BR><B>You are <FONT SIZE=6>Superman</FONT></B>
<TABLE><TR><TD><TABLE><TR><TD>Superman</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=70></TD><TD> 70%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Spider-Man</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=65></TD><TD> 65%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Supergirl</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=50></TD><TD> 50%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Robin</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=47></TD><TD> 47%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Green Lantern</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=45></TD><TD> 45%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Hulk</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=45></TD><TD> 45%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Batman</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=45></TD><TD> 45%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>The Flash</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=40></TD><TD> 40%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Catwoman</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=30></TD><TD> 30%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Wonder Woman</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=20></TD><TD> 20%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Iron Man</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=20></TD><TD> 20%</TD>
</TR></TABLE></TD>
<TD>You are mild-mannered, good, <BR>strong and you love to help others.<BR>
<IMG SRC="http://www.seabreezecomputers.com/superhero/pics/superman.jpg"></TD>
</TR></TABLE><A HREF="http://www.seabreezecomputers.com/superhero">
Click here to take the "Which Superhero am I?" quiz...</A><BR>
<TABLE><TR><TD><TABLE><TR><TD>Superman</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=70></TD><TD> 70%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Spider-Man</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=65></TD><TD> 65%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Supergirl</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=50></TD><TD> 50%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Robin</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=47></TD><TD> 47%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Green Lantern</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=45></TD><TD> 45%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Hulk</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=45></TD><TD> 45%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Batman</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=45></TD><TD> 45%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>The Flash</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=40></TD><TD> 40%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Catwoman</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=30></TD><TD> 30%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Wonder Woman</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=20></TD><TD> 20%</TD>
</TR><TR><TD>Iron Man</TD>
<TD><HR ALIGN=LEFT NOSHADE SIZE=4 WIDTH=20></TD><TD> 20%</TD>
</TR></TABLE></TD>
<TD>You are mild-mannered, good, <BR>strong and you love to help others.<BR>
<IMG SRC="http://www.seabreezecomputers.com/superhero/pics/superman.jpg"></TD>
</TR></TABLE><A HREF="http://www.seabreezecomputers.com/superhero">
Click here to take the "Which Superhero am I?" quiz...</A><BR>
powered by performancing firefox
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Dream come true?
Three of the partners at the law firm for which I work (including my boss) has recently decided to split from the rest of the law firm (located in a different city). The "mother law firm" and the "child law firm" have decided to part ways to the extent that we will be entering a new office by the end of the month. In a move highly exciting for me, we may be leasing office space in the wonderful Alico Building. Three cheers for the home team.
powered by performancing firefox
Saturday, June 17, 2006
What should I do with my life?
Po Bronson wrote a fascinating book about the young person's least favorite but most important question to answer. According to the people whom Bronson interviews, the difficulty of the question is rarely eased with age (only the person's sense of possibility is diminished). While this is bad news for people like me who hope that life's experience will push me in the right direction, it has caused me to think about my future and what I want to do. (As if I weren't doing that already.)
The one thing I know is that I want to be a lawyer: I want to go to law school; I want to wear suits; I want to be able to speak with authority and confidence; I want to know how things work. But that only partially answers the evil "WSIDWML" (pron. "wuh-sihd-wuh-mill") question because the legal profession is incredibly complex with probably thousands of different specialties and different jobs that must be performed.
So question 2: what kind of lawyer should I be? Before I worked at my previous job, I thought that family law was a horribly boring field of law that no one should get into except for the money (it pays surprisingly well for those who are good at it). Part of my job involved legal research, though, and I even wrote a brief for an appeal of a termination of parental rights. (Which we won, dadgummit.) Through that experience, I discovered that even family law can be fascinating. I won't go into specifics here, but I learned that any area of law could be fascinating if you gave it enough attention. Conclusion: looking at different fields of law to find one that's interesting just won't work for me. I need to consider more about the practice of that particular field.
So question 3: what kind of law would I enjoy practicing? Alas, this is the hardest question so far. No lawyer wants to talk about their daily routine. I have searched hundreds of blogs and find only commentary on law. Blogs very rarely discuss the ins and outs of actual, daily practice. Fortunately, I have worked in two law firms: one a solo practitioner family lawyer and the other a small insurance defense firm. At this point, I prefer the people interaction of family law and the research possibilities of insurance defense. I dislike the hours of family law and the relative lack of court-time of insurance defense. (But I'm told that family lawyers outside small towns spend very little time in court.) As my old logic professor used to say: I am stuck in the horns of a dilemma.
The answer, I think, for now, is that I don't know. I don't know what I want to be. I have several "options" or "theories of the future." For example, I could become a property investor/developer, or I could practice insurance defense, or I could practice family law, or I could get a job with the Travel Channel writing about what to avoid in other countries' legal systems. What will probably happen is that I will get a job out of law school and be ushered into a specialty which I will either love or hate. If I love it, I'll stick with it; if I hate it, I'll find a different specialty. I call this the pinball approach to life.
I think it's what most people do.
The one thing I know is that I want to be a lawyer: I want to go to law school; I want to wear suits; I want to be able to speak with authority and confidence; I want to know how things work. But that only partially answers the evil "WSIDWML" (pron. "wuh-sihd-wuh-mill") question because the legal profession is incredibly complex with probably thousands of different specialties and different jobs that must be performed.
So question 2: what kind of lawyer should I be? Before I worked at my previous job, I thought that family law was a horribly boring field of law that no one should get into except for the money (it pays surprisingly well for those who are good at it). Part of my job involved legal research, though, and I even wrote a brief for an appeal of a termination of parental rights. (Which we won, dadgummit.) Through that experience, I discovered that even family law can be fascinating. I won't go into specifics here, but I learned that any area of law could be fascinating if you gave it enough attention. Conclusion: looking at different fields of law to find one that's interesting just won't work for me. I need to consider more about the practice of that particular field.
So question 3: what kind of law would I enjoy practicing? Alas, this is the hardest question so far. No lawyer wants to talk about their daily routine. I have searched hundreds of blogs and find only commentary on law. Blogs very rarely discuss the ins and outs of actual, daily practice. Fortunately, I have worked in two law firms: one a solo practitioner family lawyer and the other a small insurance defense firm. At this point, I prefer the people interaction of family law and the research possibilities of insurance defense. I dislike the hours of family law and the relative lack of court-time of insurance defense. (But I'm told that family lawyers outside small towns spend very little time in court.) As my old logic professor used to say: I am stuck in the horns of a dilemma.
The answer, I think, for now, is that I don't know. I don't know what I want to be. I have several "options" or "theories of the future." For example, I could become a property investor/developer, or I could practice insurance defense, or I could practice family law, or I could get a job with the Travel Channel writing about what to avoid in other countries' legal systems. What will probably happen is that I will get a job out of law school and be ushered into a specialty which I will either love or hate. If I love it, I'll stick with it; if I hate it, I'll find a different specialty. I call this the pinball approach to life.
I think it's what most people do.
powered by performancing firefox
Monday, June 12, 2006
Adapt and Endure
One of the blogs I read on a regular basis is the Greatest American Lawyer blog. He recently posted about "Adaptability as a New World Trait" discussing how the "new world lawyer" will be able to adapt to any new situation seamlessly and easily. I have two goals as a lawyer: (1) make money so I don't have to worry about bills and (2) work a 40-hour work week (or as close to that as possible). Do I think this is possible? Yes. James Gould Cozzens said that the first test of intelligence is figuring out the easiest way to make a lot of money (paraphrased of course). Anyway, I plan on figuring out how to make bookoos (should be spelled "beaucoups") of money with very little effort. One characteristic of effort is that things we enjoy are easier than things we do not enjoy. Unenjoyable things require much more effort than things we enjoy. Thus, very tentatively, my plan is this: (1) do some criminal work using my laptop and visiting my cliens at jail or at public meeting places; (2) do some family law work meeting my clients at my office; (3) do some wills/probate work meeting clients at their homes or other public meeting places; and (4) do insurance defense at my office. I hope not to be tied down to my office but to have all the mobility the future promises. (I also hope that Sprint's crazy mobility stuff will work out so that you can get internet freakin' anywhere.)
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Premature FOSSils
So as part of my lawyer-in-training mentality, I am looking at a lot of ways to make my future office more technologically efficient. One thing I'm serious about is the "paperless office." I haven't fully decided how that will work or even if it will work, but I'm definitely looking into it. Another technology thing I've been paying a lot of attention to is the free/open source software (FOSS) movement. I recently downloaded Firefox, and have been quite satisfied with it. If you've never tried it, go out and download it, you won't be disappointed. It definitely makes the experience of the Internet easier and more satisfying. Unfortunately, I haven't had as much luck with some of the other FOSS applications.
Thunderbird, for example, is little more than a free version of Outlook. I'm not well-versed enough in either program to tell you whether it's an excellent copy or not. And I'm not technological enough to tell you whether Thunderbird is "more secure" or not. All I can say is that they look and appear to work almost exactly the same.
In another arena of technology, my wife's computer has been having problems lately. Her copy of XP has decided that it is not genuine. So I've been looking around at alternatives as a way to fix it temporarily. (I have to get a new computer for law school, anyway, so she'll get mine then.) One of our options is Linux. At first, I was pretty excited: a whole brand-new operating system--how exciting! I remember the days when my public school was stuck on Macs, and I thought it would be like looking at something totally different. (Like switching from Mac to PC back then.) All the websites and articles bragged about the security and ease-of-use of Linux and its distributions (as they call them). They talked about how they were so innovative and ahead of the curve. Perhaps I am in no position to comment, but I wasn't very impressed.
I downloaded the NX client, an application that allows you to remotely access other computers, and I logged onto Cosmopod.com, a website that offers remote access to a server that uses Linux programs. There, I looked at Linux's fabled KDE (K Desktop Environment) and their office suite, openoffice.org. Neither was very impressive in terms of prima facie innovativeness or creativity. In fact, openoffice.org is exactly like a free version of Microsoft Office or Corel WordPerfect without the Book Antiqua font (my favorite).
My conclusion: if you are worried enough about security and hate Microsoft, then go ahead and get a Linux computer or download a free distribution (surprisingly, they're not all free). If not, stick with what you're used to. It really makes no difference.
But then again, I don't know enough about computers to be making this kind of judgment.
Thunderbird, for example, is little more than a free version of Outlook. I'm not well-versed enough in either program to tell you whether it's an excellent copy or not. And I'm not technological enough to tell you whether Thunderbird is "more secure" or not. All I can say is that they look and appear to work almost exactly the same.
In another arena of technology, my wife's computer has been having problems lately. Her copy of XP has decided that it is not genuine. So I've been looking around at alternatives as a way to fix it temporarily. (I have to get a new computer for law school, anyway, so she'll get mine then.) One of our options is Linux. At first, I was pretty excited: a whole brand-new operating system--how exciting! I remember the days when my public school was stuck on Macs, and I thought it would be like looking at something totally different. (Like switching from Mac to PC back then.) All the websites and articles bragged about the security and ease-of-use of Linux and its distributions (as they call them). They talked about how they were so innovative and ahead of the curve. Perhaps I am in no position to comment, but I wasn't very impressed.
I downloaded the NX client, an application that allows you to remotely access other computers, and I logged onto Cosmopod.com, a website that offers remote access to a server that uses Linux programs. There, I looked at Linux's fabled KDE (K Desktop Environment) and their office suite, openoffice.org. Neither was very impressive in terms of prima facie innovativeness or creativity. In fact, openoffice.org is exactly like a free version of Microsoft Office or Corel WordPerfect without the Book Antiqua font (my favorite).
My conclusion: if you are worried enough about security and hate Microsoft, then go ahead and get a Linux computer or download a free distribution (surprisingly, they're not all free). If not, stick with what you're used to. It really makes no difference.
But then again, I don't know enough about computers to be making this kind of judgment.
Very Interesting
This is a very interesting idea. Firefox has a little thing where you can blog down at the bottom of your windwo. VERY interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)