I lost my innocence my junior year in high school, and it started with reading this book. The rose-colored glasses I had developed during the first 16 years of my life were shattered by this book. I think Steinbeck intended to shake the world of his readers, and he accomplishes it with his usual mastery.
Who are we but the stories we tell ourselves, about ourselves, and believe?
Basically, the story is about a journalist who finds his father’s journal from World War II and discovers that everything he thought about his parents was wrong—but in a good way. Reading the book made me realize how little I know my own father and inspired me to consciously try to get to know him better.
I don't know much about managing a baseball team, but these two factoids struck me as crazy when I read them this afternoon.
First, "Joaquin Benoit finished second on the club last season with seven wins despite making all of his 70 appearances out of the bullpen." Hmm. So the Rangers need pitching. I guess that's why they got Jason Jennings (I actually like him a lot and have high hopes).
Second, I had heard rumors about Frank Catalanotto playing DH . . . but check it: not only is he playing DH but he's batting leadoff. Does any other team have a DH in the No. 1 spot?
This film deserved the best film award. This is not a movie about racism—it’s a movie about how complex people are. It depicts racism, yes, but, more importantly, it shows that racism is not monolithic. We learn why the racist cop is racist, but then we see him rescuing the very black woman he molested the night before. We are forced to consider her quandary: to hate her molestor or to love her rescuer. We see the cop’s partner—who asked to be reassigned in protest—deal with the fact that he killed a black hitchhiker out of fear that the kid had a gun. We see the hardworking Hispanic locksmith who tries to help a Persian client nearly lose his daughter when the Persian man thinks the Hispanic locksmith took advantage of him. And, most poignantly, we see the black detective sell his integrity to save his brother’s life, without his mother ever acknowledging it. The movie is beautiful in its poignant portrayal of life, not as black and white but as shades of grey.
Plus, you get to hear Ludacris talk about how stupid hip hop is. If that doesn’t deserve an Oscar for Best Film, I don’t know what does.
This news is so fresh, I don't even have a link yet. The #2 Howard Payne Lady Jackets have defeated #1 Hope Flying Dutch by a score of 53-49. This, of course, only means that HPU gets into the Final Four (I don't get it either--how could they possibly let the two best teams (and the only remaining undefeated basketball teams in the world) play each other in the quarterfinals?), but we're now the top-ranked team in the NCAA Division III Women's Basketball Championship Tournament. The polls should have kept as at #1 all season long instead of just that one week.
Sting'm Lady Jackets!
Explanations are useless. Explanations do not change facts. They do not make facts better. Explanations are the booby prize. You can have all the explanations you want in the world. They do not change what’s so.
The Oceanic Six are: Jack, Kate, Aaron, Sayid, Hurley, and Aaron. At least that's my theory. Unlike this guy, I don't think the press would focus too heavily on the passenger manifest:
Didn't earlier Lost promos state that by the end of episode 7, we'd know every member of the Oceanic 6? If so, does that mean that Aaron is one of the Oceanic 6? . . . This, then, brings up the question of the passenger manifest. Aaron's name wouldn't have been on it. But, and I'm going to need some help on this, parents don't have to buy a ticket or reserve a seat for infant children, right? Couldn't this be the reasoning for Aaron not showing up on the manifest? Wouldn't this be enough to appease the press when the Oceanic 6 returned to the mainland?
Here's my theory:the press wouldn't care about the manifest. At least not as much as they'd care about telling everybody about Little Survivor Baby Aaron. Jack told us that eight people survived the crash, but only six could be rescued. Maybe Claire is one of those two, and Kate adopted Aaron. Or maybe something else. I can at least say this: I don't think the passenger manifest is the issue some people thinks it is.
There. I said it. Next mystery.
Over and over again, Prof. Con Law explained that the Supreme Court changes its course by subtly changing the meaning of words. With that idea fresh in my mind, I ran across this excellent answer by a linguistics professor to a question posed in class:
Well, the short answer would be 'Yes,' and by 'yes' I mean 'no.'
Does it get any better than that?
Check this out: it's a PDF of an affidavit offered in support of an arrest warrant in L'Affaire Spitzer. There have been several articles published on the Internet discussing whether Mrs. Spitzer should divorce Mr. Spitzer, but, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit, we learn that Emperor's Club V.I.P. is also known as "QAT Consulting Group, Inc." Mr. Spitzer may not have been seeking out prostitutes for the typical reason--he could have just been trying to get some advice in that area. And that's no reason to divorce somebody!
You really should read the affidavit. It's got some fascinating stuff. Paragraph 8 explains the alleged roles of the defendants in Emperor's Club V.I.P. (including pimp and madam). Paragraphs 24 and 25 talk a little about recruitment. I'm sure there's more, but I'm not going to do your dirty work for you. So if you have any interest in starting an international prostitution ring, here's your chance to see how it's done.
Enjoy!
OK, first we have L'Affaire Eliot Spitzer, now this?
The spills, at the Alabama Biodiesel Corporation plant outside [Riverbend Farms, Alabama,] about 17 miles from Tuscaloosa, are similar to others that have come from biofuel plants in the Midwest. The discharges, which can be hazardous to birds and fish, have many people scratching their heads over the seeming incongruity of pollution from an industry that sells products with the promise of blue skies and clear streams.
Even the environmentalists are polluting! What is the world coming to? Have we no one we can trust? What's next? PETA members running a steakhouse? Al Qaeda promoting women's rights and religious freedom?
Moral of the story: Maybe if we all quit taking offense and tried to empathize, this world would be a better place.
Occasionally, I think about what I want to do with my life in terms of job security, and I think there are probably two practice areas that aren't going away and aren't particularly subject to the business cycle: family law and criminal law. The sad tale of Eliot Spitzer reassures me that the vice that underlies the conflicts in both family law and criminal law isn't going anywhere. One Texas criminal defense attorney writes:
Here is a[n] ex prosecutor who talked of "putting a stake" through the heart of a defendant when he was Attorney General for New York. Now it is his heart at stake.
This kinda reminds me of Jim Bakker. Wait--is Eliot Spitzer the new Jim Bakker?
There is a very interesting post out there that uses King Lear to show why people still read and watch Shakespeare:
[R]ules designed to enforce virtue tend to do the enforcing only against the poor and lowly. The wealthy and powerful . . . escape condemnation. The result is that those doing the punishing have hands as dirty as those who suffer the punishment.
This is a sadly familiar problem in the history of America’s culture wars. Vice crimes and morals offenses of all sorts—prostitution and gambling, liquor and drugs, abortion and sex crimes—have been enforced against blue-collar markets, not against upscale markets. That proposition helps explain the racial disparity in today’s drug prisoner population . . . . A good deal of social science research suggests that people obey the law, when they do so, because the legal system seems fair and legitimate. Legal systems that hammer the sins of the poor while winking at the wrongs of the rich fall short of that standard.
Interestingly enough, [King Lear] not only diagnoses the relevant disease; it offers a hint at a cure—another, very different approach to cultural reform. Lear’s kingdom descends into chaos and civil war as those who rule it descend into deceit and barbarism. The remedy, the story implies, is not more virtuous laws, but more virtuous rulers.
He goes on to talk about how mass culture follows the example of elite culture ("It simply wasn’t possible to convince most Americans that buying a drink was a terrible wrong when the President of the United States served liquor to his poker buddies, as Warren Harding did in the early 1920s.") It's an interesting post about whether or not you can legislate morality.
On a related note, what does this say about moral legislation and same-sex marriage? How do politicians like Jim McGreevey play into all this?
So yesterday, the Missus and I watched two movies: Stephen King's It and No Country for Old Men. I can only really say this: Pennywise just isn't as scary as Anton Chigurh (or as Joshua Brolin says, "Sugar"). Pennywise gets hit in the head with an earring and goes running scared down the drain, while Anton Chigurh breaks his arm so that his ulna is poking out, buys a shirt/sling for $100, and then walks away.
Bottom line: It may have been scary when you were six or maybe even twelve, but No Country for Old Men will always be scary because it reflects a scary piece of truth about the world in which we live. Or maybe it's just that there's nothing scary about the Waltons.
I don't want to talk about this:
The Mariners’ rotation put up a combined ERA of 5.16 last season, better only than Florida, Tampa Bay and Texas. Management addressed that concern by acquir[ing] Erik Bedard from the Baltimore Orioles . . . .
I can't remember a time when Rangers' fans haven't lamented to each other: "What we really need is pitching." But did we fight for Bedard or Johan Santana even invite some old has-been like Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens? No. We fought for Torii Hunter. A center fielder. And lost.
At least we stole Nolan Ryan from the Astros again.
I know I've been posting a lot the past few days, but I'm trying a new blogging strategy. Maybe it'll become clear in the next few weeks if the strategy holds. Maybe not.
I always knew that King Frank (or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as he is sometimes known) was a tough guy, but I never knew quite how tough until I ran across the following passage in my current reading:
Roosevelt kibitzed with the press as he sat in bed receiving his haircut.
Any guy knows that there is nothing quite so itchy as the back of your neck the day you get a haircut. I can't imagine sleeping in it. Wow. But hey--it ain't easy being king.
Joe Posnanski, a journalist who covers the K.C. Royals (the team we fought with for most of last season for the worst record in the AL), wrote this limerick about America's Texas's Waco's my team. So sad, but so true . . .
The search goes on for a pitch panacea
Chan Ho, Loaiza, now Vincent Padilla
The lineups, quite sadly
even with Milton Bradley
Lose 10-8 and get the idea
Anybody remember that weekend or so last year when Johan Santana struck out 18 Rangers, then we smashed the Orioles 30-3?
Yeah . . . too true . . .
Last night, we had some family over for my birthday, and, naturally, politics came up. When my mother found out how I voted, she got pretty upset. I stand by my vote. Until last night, I've been pretty reticent about whom I support (or at least, I haven't come right out and said it), and I'll continue to do that. But I will take a stand on one thing: Barack Obama is (probably*) not the antichrist. And I think it's a despicable, fear-mongering attack unworthy of even debunking. But for those of you who question his commitment to "traditional" (whatever that means) American values, you should read this article from Christianity Today, in which Obama is quoted as encouraging people to read their Bibles. This quote I particularly like:
If people find [my support for civil unions] controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.
And later, on the Bible and public policy:
Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles
I'm not saying how I voted out of the real fear of retaliation (I have a summer job in the Department of Justice that I wouldn't mind turning into a post-graduation job). If people had made the same attacks on Hillary Clinton or Bill Richardson or John Edwards or John McCain or Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or anybody else, I would respond the same way. Fear-mongering should have no place in today's America; there's enough real fear to go around without adding illegitimate fears to it. Besides, what else did Jesus say?
Don't worry about tomorrow. It will take care of itself. You have enough to worry about today.
Anybody who tries to keep somebody out of office by referring to him or her as the antichrist ought to be stoned, Deuteronomy-style. Then again, I'm against content-based speech restrictions, so they can say whatever they want. Make that stoning Dixie Chick-style.
*I say "probably" because my understanding is that nobody knows who the Antichrist is or if it's even one particular person. And that's one bet I don't want to lose.
I love voting. I love all the signs set up along the streets leading up to your polling place. I love the electricity in the air as you wait in line to vote. I love sitting down in front of the machine and thinking "OK--this is it." The moment of picking your future and permanently choosing whose side of the fence you're on. The moment you've been talking about for months has arrived. It's time to put your ballot where your mouth is. I love it.
If you haven't voted by the time you're reading this, it's probably too late. But it's not too late to register for November. If you care anything about your future, get out there and vote.
¡Viva la democracía!*
*I saw this scrawled in spray paint on the side of a McDonald's outside Caracas, Venezuela, in the summer of 2002, shortly after Hugo Chavez had been deposed and reinstated. Imagine if our gangsta thug vandalizers were politically active.
IRAC. I do it every day. You figure out what the issue is, determine the most appropriate rule, apply the rule to the circumstances, and get your answer.
Common sense. I use it every day, too. You look at a situation, stick it into your intuition, and wait for the answer to pop out.
We call the steps in the process by different names, but you usually get the same results. IRAC just tells you why and how you got there. Common sense is like flying up to Minneapolis; IRAC is like taking I-35. You don't even have to know what you're doing when you use common sense, but if you don't know how to use IRAC or you don't use it right, you could end up in San Francisco after accidentally turning left in Des Moines.
I like to think about this kind of stuff. How the brain and/or mind works. Maybe that's why this article, comparing psychology and common sense, was so interesting to me. Here's my favorite quote:
Ultimately what really sets psychology apart from common sense is the scientific method.
And
once psychological findings become well-known, people [might] incorporate them into their intuitive thoughts and behaviour.
And then it becomes "common sense."
Beautiful.
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 . . .
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.
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.
Where are Osler's Razor and Civ Pro Prof Blog on this so-called fair ranking???
It's rigged, I tell ya.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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:
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?
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?
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 . . .
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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 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.
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 . . .
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!
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.
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is for President Scott, my fellow cartophile. This is awesome: an unofficial map of the Island from Lost.
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?
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.
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:
These are just my Republican results. Later, I plan to try the Democratic candidates and see whom I like. I'll let you know.
| 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 | |
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.
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.
Who's with me?
*Maybe after finals I'll blog about why business law is the best out there.
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.
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).
[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.
El amor no es sólo un sentimiento. Es también un arte.
What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure.
courtesy of http://indexed.blogspot.com/
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).
