On winning

I was up for a couple hours last night trying to get the little boy to go back to bed, as apparently he's on Seoul time and thought 1:30 was a great time to play hide and seek. I put him back in his crib and got to listen to him complain (read: cry) very loudly about it until 3:30. While I was listening to this, I had an epiphany. I knew ultimately, I would win, and he would fall asleep again, but until he actually fell asleep, he was taking up my time and my resources (read: energy). I realized that, while he was awake, he was winning, and it wouldn't be until he finally gave up that he would lose.

Over the last year, I've read and heard plenty of talk regarding Iraq, the war, the aftermath, the insurgency, etc. Much of the talk revolves around the president's party line of "we're winning." The thought process is that the insurgents are losing their resources, their manpower, places to hide, etc. I conclude, as I did with my son, that this line of thought is incorrect.

We are not winning in Iraq. So long as there is an insurgency, we can't win, as our goal is to establish a free, safe Iraq. Until that happens, then we can't be winning. Anything that leaves insurgents in place, or a civil war in the wake of the government we overthrew, or a country where all Iraqis aren't equally free is a loss. This has turned into a battle of wills, and the question now is who has more patience? Are we more willing to stay as long as it takes? Are we willing to do what is necessary? Or even more importantly, is this war winnable?

This post is specifically for you.

You are awesome. You rock. You're one of my favorite people and I'm so glad you're hear to read this.

Back to the Grind

These are the last two days before I return to school, to the drudgery that is 4th Semester. This morning I'm spending reading up on Agency and Partnership. I've already read the cases for this class, but it's been a couple weeks, and I'm getting older. This is probably my favorite class of the semester. I like the professor, and I enjoy learning about the different types of partnerships and agency relationships there are. I can't imagine this to be a lucrative field to specialize in, though, so I'll just enjoy it while I have it.

I also need to read up on the rules for Pro Res. I've got the Model Rules here, so I'll be able to read up pretty well. Corporations will be next, as I've already done most of what I need for WIlls. Then I can return to finishing my paper, which I'd like to finish by the end of this month so I have plenty of time to proofread it.

Anyway, that's the update on 2L Steve. Enjoy!

Alone again ... naturally

Well, here it is, Friday night. I'm home and the wife is out. She gets to go out from time to time because she's in charge. I got to go out on a Friday night last year, at the end of my first year of law school. That was nice of her.

But tonight, she's out again. She's at a party with a coworker. This means that I get to stay home and watch the children. I love my kids, and I enjoy spending time with them, but sometimes my child-patience level breaches - wait, I mean overtops. That seems to be the case tonight. I need a vacation, and I'm on vacation. Go figure.

Tomorrow I get to go back to school and pick up my texts for A&P and Pro Res., so I can make sure I'm read up on both of those, as well. There's a fine way to end spring break, I can't wait!

Friday Essay Question

In some places in the U.S. convicted felons lose the right to vote. In the 1960's, poll taxes were declared unconstitutional. More recently there has been talk regarding a "voter's ID card" that would be required to be presented at the polls to prove your identity and help eliminate voter fraud.

Your essay question for this Friday involves voting. You have carte blanche to create the laws regarding voting, who should be allowed to vote, who shouldn't, methods of identification, etc. How, if at all, would your laws restrict who can vote (uninformed, uneducated, criminal, non-citizen, whatever)? Make sure you explain and support your answer. Tell your friends! I might update with follow up questions after a couple days. Grades will be arbitrary and capricious.

You know what I never got?

All right, so the A-Team were supposed to be these crack commandoes from the Vietnam war, right? They were charged with a crime they didn't commit so they run to Los Angeles and start working as mercenaries for the common good?! BA had a Mohawk DURING Vietnam?

Anyway, the thing that I don't get is how these commandoes can go for however many years the show was on, shooting who knows how many rounds at various bad guys, and never hitting any of them. Sure they blow up some cars and whatnot, but you're telling me that the best of the best can't hit a gang of evil thugs from 20 feet with an automatic rifle?

Perhaps they were charged with aiding the enemy when really they weren't aiding them, they were just incompetent and couldn't shoot them...

Random Trivia

In the olden days at Cambridge, during registration, a student was required to write their noble rank next to their names. Back in those times there weren't many common folk that went to college. Those that did, however, had no title to put next to their name, and would thus have to note that they were not nobles by the latin term Sine Nobilitate (or however it's spelled, I'm not a latin linguist). Because the space on the registration was limited, the students would often abbreviate this term as S. Nob., which gave rise to the derogatory snob, or person who ignores those who he thinks is inferior socially, educationally, or in taste.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Halfway through spring break
slept a lot, researched paper
haven't read a page

I look forward to your contributions

Random Quote

"An arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses." - William O. Douglas

Queen of the Silver Screen

I broke down and spent money today. I've been really good at not spending money, but I've had no CD player in my car for over a year now, and I need a change from listening to a 1993 4-track recording of the Anachronauts.

So I bought a CD player and a Rolling Stones CD. I dig the old music, Stones, Kinks, YardBirds, etc. I actually prefer the Stones to the Beatles. I think the Beatles probably had much more influence on the evolving Rock Sound, but I think the Stones perform better - I could see spending money to see a stones concert more easily than I could have seen spending money for a beatles concert. That's not to say I wouldn't go see the Beatles... just given a choice of the two, I'd take the Stones. Even today in their Night of the Living Dead look.

Rumour has it if there's ever a nuclear war, the only survivors will be Cockroaches...
And Keith Richards.

Apples, Peaches, Pumpkin Pi

Just wanted to be the first on the block to wish everyone a happy Pi Day! (Mar. 14)

What's the Difference?

Isaac Hayes recently quit his role on South Park, a sitcom on Comedy Central. He said that the show crossed a line when it came to religion, and that he couldn't stomach it anymore.

I understand what he's saying. I hit that limit with the show myself, back around 1998-99. Originally, I found it humorous. However, after watching a couple dozen episodes, I noticed a trend. The writers were trying less to be humorous and more to be obscene. I'll try to explain my rationale:

Lines in sand exist on television and in the movies. Many things are taboo, or were taboo. A lot of modern tolerance can be said to be found as a result of efforts in the name of entertainment. We sweep the stuff out from under the carpet, as it were, and we become better for it. Examples might include All in the Family, or Lord of the Flies, or Mississippi Burning, or Boyz 'n da Hood. These shows/movies were vulgar, crude, at times obscene. However, they explained a part of our society that needed uncovering and explaining. In other words, the shows were obscene to make a point.

South Park, on the other hand, appears to have a different outlook. It seems to me that the MO of the writers runs something along the lines of "let's be as crude, vulgar, and offensive as we possibly can, but we need to think of a reason to justify that crudenes." And so they'll come up with a "message," much like those public service "don't fight each other" messages at the end of He-Man or GI Joe, so that they have plausible cover for their shows. In other words, they have a point as an excuse to be obscene.

Now, do I think it's wrong that the show goes like that? I don't care. If that's what the censors will let them do, and people continue to buy advertising space in their time slot, then I won't say they can't do that. Nor can I say the stuff isn't funny. Indeed, it most likely is to a certain portion of the populace, as they watch the show. I can say that it's not funny to me, because I don't think they work hard enough to make a joke, but I think that's the case with many comedies.

So in conclusion, Isaac Hayes quit. I don't blame him. The creators of the show glibly note that he didn't have any problems cashing the checks when they made fun of other religions, which I thought was inappropriate and unnecessary. I don't find the show humorous. Other people do. I would prefer writers and shows that work at creating jokes, and not resorting to crudeness just to save effort.

Spring Break

It's spring break for me. Last week was spring break for The Boy. He had fun; we took him all over with his grandparents, and made sure that everyone was kept rather busy. In other words, we recreated for spring break.

I haven't really had any opportunities to recreate during spring break. In the Air Force, of course, there really is no spring break, which meant I still had to work when my undergrad classes were on break. Before the AF, I worked for a fast food company, and thus my spring breaks then were spent getting myself covered in grease - so much fun.

Last year, I spent spring break working on my appellate brief for class - another fun way to spend the break.

This year, with The Boy back in class, the mrs. back at work, and the inlaws having left, I'll not be going anywhere this year, either. I'm not too disappointed - we have no money for any trips, anyway. I also have a lot of schoolwork to get done - and job interview type preparation. Today, I spent some time on my writing sample. While I know what I want to write, I find that I have a hard time sometimes conveying the message in legalese. Practice should take care of it, but it's still a disappointment. I also have my research assignment to write - regarding ID at school. I'm looking forward to getting through that. The topic interests me, which is a refreshing change.

I also have some outlines I need to update, and get back to present. All in all, it should make for an interesting week.

Sloppy Joes for dinner tonight! it's not Polonia, but it'll do.

Friday Essay Question

I know it's Monday, but I've been busy with family. Anyway, here's the essay question for the day:

Should polygamy/polygyny/polyandry be legal? Why? Make sure you support your answer, (read: don't just say "because it's cool" or "because it's disgusting!"). Grades will be arbitrary and capricious.

I look forward to your replies.

Random Quote

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire

Kaboom, the evening edition

We took the inlaws to the Battleship Texas. It was great. The kids had a blast, mother in law had fun, and father in law really enjoyed the whole thing. The kids always enjoy the trip. I understand it's a popular school field trip destination, as well. I can imagine children getting tired of going to see the battleship every year, but I rather enjoy it. I got to take a tour of the Mighty Mo when it was in Bremerton back in the early '80s, and I toured the Pampanito (WW2 Submarine, and the sub they used to film Down Periscope) when I was in California. There's just such an awesome feeling to tour those old ships.

When I took a trip to Massachussetts, we went to Plymouth and I got to take a tour of the Mayflower II, a full scale reproduction of the original Mayflower (which is no longer available). That was another really interesting trip.

Kaboom!

The in-laws are supposed to leave Monday morning, which means these are the last two days we get to spend with them. Mom in law is going to make taco casserole tonight, which I've never had, but I've been informed is rather good.

As for entertainment, I think we're going to drive them eastish, and go look at the San Jacinto Monument, where, in 1836 Texas won its independence. 1836 was also going to be the name of the Houston Soccer team, but they changed it when officials decided it would be offensive to the mexican population in Houston to name the team after the day their home country lost 1/3 of its land area. So now they're called the Houston Dynamo, after a character in Ah-nuld's "The Running Man." But I digress.

The plan also includes going to the Battleship Texas, which is moored right by the San Jacinto Monument. I've been a couple times, and always like touring old warcraft. The static displays at Lackland AFB, McChord AFB, and various other bases (There's a MiG-23 and a MiG-29 at Goodfellow AFB) are all really cool, and I have a shot of The Boy on the wing of a P-51.

Anyway, Dad in law should enjoy the ship, and Mom in law has expressed interest, as well, so hopefully it'll be a fun trip. The only other thing I can think of to do is drive down to NASA and let the kids have fun there - Space Center Houston really is geared more for kids than adults, I think.

Yeeehaw!

We took the family to the rodeo yesterday. Except for the little boy, we've all been to rodeos before. I personally prefer smaller rodeos to the show that we get here in Houston, but then again, I prefer smaller towns, and smaller environments.

The kids had a lot of fun. We saw the livestock show for the most part, and skipped the rodeo part. There was a petting zoo, which the kids really liked, until a goat tried to jump on The Boy, thinking he had some goat food to munch. Kind of freaked The Boy out. The girl, on the other hand, had a blast, and little boy was going crazy running around petting the fawns, goats, sheep, and the pig.

Later, we took The Boy and the girl on the pony rides. The girl was in heaven, almost beside herself in anticipation - though not quite as pure joy as The Boy was when he first rode on the log flume. It was fun, though.

Then we ate. Nothing like rodeo, state fair, carnival food to get you going. It was just mildly overpriced for the quality, though it wasn't bad. The Boy, the mother in law, and I got to try alligator for the first time. It was tough, and it kind of tasted like a turkey neck. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't something I'd make a habit of having.

For the most part, the day was good. The kids had some issues near the end, and only a few of us got to see the pig races (the men, the women all missed the races). Everyone was tired, and we had a nice relaxing evening at home afterwards.

All in all, it was worth it. 30 dollars admission for the seven of us, so it wasn't too bad. Good fun all around.

Who's #1? Who Cares?

The last couple weeks have seen the end of the regular season for NCAA basketball, where the teams in each conference who have the best record get the honor of declaring themselves, well, nothing, really...

Thanks to the advent of the conference tournament, the regular season really means little more than trying to get enough wins to get yourself into the NCAA tournament. You don't win anything by having the best record. Instead, someone in a moment of brilliance said "Hey, I know how we can fleece more advertising dollars, and get some money from students who have nothing better to spend their cash on than, say, food, shelter, tuition, or books! Let's have a "tournament" to determing who the "champion" will be!" And everyone fell for it. So now, the regular season serves as nothing more than a seeding mechanism, which is kind of a shame, because that's where most of the work gets done.

Now I do like the idea of the NCAA tournament. It makes sense to grab the best teams from each conference and have them play each other for the best in the country. But when the conference gathers the teams that have already played together twice to play each other again to determine who's the best, well, there's nothing more to that than simple greed on the part of the conference.

Random Trivia

In archery, as well as gunshooting, accuracy is very important. Any time you shoot and you don't hit your target, you've failed. In other words, almost ain't good enough. Therefore, the saying arose "An inch in a miss is as good as an ell." Sir Walter Scott shortened the phrase in the 19th Century and changed it to be the more alliterative "A miss is as good as a mile."

What about us?!

While the more popular nations of the "axis of evil" receive the majority of the press time, what with continued instability in Iraq and hints and accusations of possible civil war, and nuclear posturing and chest puffing and staredowns with Iran, North Korea once again does what it can to keep its name at least on page 2.

From Yahoo!:

North Korea fired two short-range, SAMs near its border with China on Wednesday in what appeared to be a test...

According to the article, a "western military source" indicated that the missiles landed in the of Japan, about 60 miles northeast of the launch site.

Of course, this location for a landing of missiles launched by North Korea makes sense. NK knows that China is the closest thing to an ally that they have right now, so they're not going to shoot anything toward the Chinese Border and accidentally hit anything or give the impression that they're getting "pushy."

They're not going to shoot missiles south, toward South Korea. Not even the fan-death believing DPRK is that dumb.

That pretty much only leaves the SOJ.

Anyone can speculate the reason for the test launch, and there are plenty of plausible reasons, but I think the most likely one is that it gets them back in the news again with a newsworthy act, but not one so egregious that it would spur any real dialogue on containing the country.

Ahh, DPRK - You need a new leader, and a Taco Bell.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

My son is obsessed
With purple; I think it is
His favorite colour.

I look forward to reading your contributions.

Dictator For Life You scored 71% Campaigning, 86% Personality, and 71% Effectiveness!

People were shocked when you told them you wanted to be a politician and not an actor or model. Your drive and ambition is unimaginable, you only sleep three hours a night and work twenty hours a day. Your campaigning team shames and defeats every person who dares stand against you and they soon become a secret police force. The people can't stand the idea of you retiring after your two terms as President, so the constitution is altered and you are declared Dictator for life. After your long career and peacful death the country returns to democracy. All currency is changed to have your face on it, and a book of your sayings sells more copies than the bible.

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 70% on Campaigning You scored higher than 80% on Personality You scored higher than 60% on Effectiveness

Link: The achievable political office Test written by Flu102 on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Chon Achim! (Good Morning)

I got an early start to dinner making tonight. The In-laws are in town, and one of the things I try to make whenever family is near is My Friend Susan's Mom's Bulgoki. It is a big recipe - 3 lbs of meat - so I like to have a larger gathering when I make it.

Homemade bulgoki is so much better than what you can buy in those jars at the asian market. It doesn't taste as thick.

Additionally, I'm going to try to make cucumber kimchi tonight. I've got a recipe from my friends' wives from when I was at Goodfellow. I've never tried to make it before, and the wives didn't really know what measurements to use since they just eyeball everything, so I'm a little concerned with how this will turn out.

In other news, we're still unsure what we should do today for entertainment. Any suggestions?

Haven't we been here before?

From Yahoo!:

"Democratic lawmakers on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee said on Monday they opposed putting in the 2007 budget bill language assuming the government will raise billions of dollars in oil drilling leasing fees from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

The proposed drilling has been an issue that the President has been trying to implement for five years, and for five years it has not worked. The reason? People don't want it. American people don't want it. Many Democrats don't want it. Some Republicans don't want it (from the article: "Last week, 24 House Republicans sent a letter to House Budget Committee chairman Republica Rep. Jim Nussle, urging him to keep Arctic refuge drilling out of the 2007 budget bill"). It is unwanted.

Just a few months ago, the administration attempted to get this language in a defense spending budget, gambling that they could get it through because nobody would want to risk looking the villain by voting against funding the military. That gamble didn't work.

This appears to be an attempt to use a constructive loophole to avoid any filibuster efforts to try to push this using legislation. The reason? Budget proposals aren't open to filibuster.

Perhaps the purpose of the repeated ANWR is to appeal to the Saturday Morning crowd, because it seems to be going the route of the Trix Rabbit - try to sneak by one way, get caught, try again with another disguise...

For those poor downtrod majority Christians out there...

The time has come for the great migration. Leave everything behind, for your salvation is at hand! Two representatives in Missouri have forwarded for consideration a resolution that would recognize Christianity as the State's Official "Majority" religion. The legislation (House Concurrent Resolution 13) would recognize "a Christian god." Additionally, it would "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs," according to KMOV (the link above). It also recognizes that "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls "justified recognition."

Now, Justin Gardner over at Donklephant is the one who did the post where I found this information. He notes that KMOV refers to this as a bill, when in reality, it's a resolution. He points out that resolutions are politically charged, and bear the approval of at least some legislators.

Now the most glaring issue that this seems to present is the Establishment Clause issue. But, perhaps the primary issue should be one simple word: why? Why does Missouri need to introduce this resolution? What possible benefit can it bring? It protects the majority belief at the expense of the minority beliefs, which is painfully contrary to the MO of this country.

This strikes me as very wrong.

Random Quote

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider it possible that you are mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell, to the synod of the Church of Scotland, 1650. But, isn't it a good rule of thumb for everyday existence?

My assessment

The headline reads "Many Defendants' Cases Kept Secret."

The first line states: "Despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials, nearly all records are being kept secret for more than 5,000 defendants who completed their journey through the federal courts over the last three years."

The object is to point out that secret trials take place, and suggest that this is wrong. But, perhaps, maybe it isn't wrong...

My housecleaning-muddled mind is looking at this, and the first thing I read is the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, ..."

Now, without looking at anything, and simply reading the language on the paper (you strict constructionists will love that!), it appears quite plainly to me that the amendment guarantees the RIGHT to a public trial, not a guarantee to a public trial. Rights can be waived, such as Miranda/Fifth Amendment. Given these facts, then one could argue that perhaps a defendant could waive his right to a public trial in lieu of a private one. In fact Wikidpedia, where the 6th Amendment link above will take you, considers that very concept, as well as a government interest in keeping a trial private.

Now let's look at the cases themselves. The article notes that the majority of the cases causing the concern deal with plea bargains for murder suspects or drug dealers, gang members. The pleas are kept private, which means, the article says, that the public doesn't get to see what kind, if any, of punishment the bargainers receive.

While I can understand the concern over not knowing the fate of a murder suspect, I think perhaps the tradeoff of receiving the trial and increased likelihood of a conviction of a more deplorable criminal or criminals might just be worth it. There's also the concept of repeat offenders. Drug dealers, from what I would guess, aren't wont to repent off a plea deal, and likely will commit further crimes if released as a result of the plea. Thus you're delaying the process and catching a bigger fish in the net. Perhaps that's worth it...

I think this article is much ado about little.

Spring Cleaning

The inlaws are coming. They will be here in 2 days. There's nothing like the pending arrival of family to kick even full time employees and law students into high speed cleaning mode. I can't wait until I have money enough to afford a housekeeper, though. I've never been the best at keeping a house clean. It's nice to have a clean house, but impossible to do with our schedules and three kids.

oh well. It will be nice to have the inlaws here for a bit. FIL plays cribbage, and hopefully I can convince him to play a couple games of chess. I still have to break in my Staunton Rekjavik (Fischer v. Spassky, 1972) set. And perhaps get a couple backgammon games in.

Being a grown-up

Michael Brown received a lot of flack from a lot of people after the disaster with Katrina. Newly released videos now show that perhaps he was one of few individuals who did what he could to try to care for the situation. While President Bush appeared to be asleep at the wheel, Michael Brown apparently was trying to wake everyone up to the scale that the disaster could reach. (We can discuss the Blanco video later, I find it interesting that these videos were non-existent until the White House needed them to rebut damning videos.)

One site, The Moderate Voice, took the big step, and Joe Gandelman apologized. He apologized on his blog, clearly and loudly. This is something that more of us need to do. Michael Brown received flak that should be reserved for many others, and he took it on the chin better than most could. Not only that, but he took the grand step of actually addressing Mr. Gandelman via comments, and accepting Joe's apology.

Mr. Brown, I too apologize. Comments that I made and thought were inappropriate and premature. I don't anticipate you'll read this little corner of the web, but I want to get the apology out, as well.

Friday Essay Question

The 13th Amendment says that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist anywhere in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The military has, in times past, used a draft to ensure a full contingent of soldiers. Additionally, in times of crisis, the military has adopted a "stop loss" policy, which freezes soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines from separating at the end of their enlistment, involuntarily extending their enlistment until trained replacements become available (this was in effect, inter alia in 1999, 2001, and 2003).

The essay question for today:

Is it hypocritical for the Federal Government to put in place a draft or stop loss program which compels involuntary service upon Citizens of the United States? When, if ever, should such a policy exist? Do the obligations to the country outweigh the obligations to the family, or the individual?

Again, I am looking for the best answer, not necessarily a right answer. Grades will be arbitrary and capricious.

Eager Beaver

The Daughter wants to be a big girl so badly. She's chomping at the bit to go to school and wants to start yesterday. She does everything she can to keep up with the Boy. Usually, that's great. I love that she is so eager to learn, though I don't like the rush to grow up.

Today, we had a slight incident when I dropped the kids off at Day Care. The Boy elected to let the daycare driver take him to school in the van, as opposed to my dropping him off. I don't object to that; I can see the urge to go to school sans parents, and he has a safe alternative. However, the van driver elected to ask the Daughter if she wanted to go to school. The girl was excited beyond words at the chance to go to school. It was a crushing blow when she realized she wasn't going to be able to go with her brother - you could almost hear the little heart breaking. I felt so bad for her.

Now I'm sad.

What, a day?

I get up this morning, and after I drop the kids off, I check the mail - something I manage to do at best twice a week anymore. In the bundle of envelopes and mass mailings (seriously, who needs plastic wrapped coupon mailings five times a week?), I found a nice letter addressed to me from a law boutique in Beaumont. It's one I mailed my resume out to a short time back, and I figure this is their rejection letter. I open it, and get a nice compliment - your resume is very impressive, both from a quality and content standpoint. They then tell me that they can't offer me employ this summer (see, I was right for once!) but told me they would keep my resume on file and "hope to be in touch with [me] again soon." Signed by one of the partners - always nice. I must say, all in all, this was one of the nicest rejections I've ever received. Much better than the time I invited a girl to prom when I was in 10th grade and she laughed at me.

Then, I start reading pro res and watching Monk, and I fall asleep. Which is a real shame, because I really like Monk - excellent show with good writing.

I pull the weeds on the patio; there's too many. Stupid weeds.

Now I'm doing laundry, and I have to put in the fabric softener, because I'm married, and apparently you have to use fabric softener if you're a married male - and not just drier sheets, either.

Now I have to get ready for class. Education law. This class rocks! I'm really getting excited about my paper. I have most of the research done. I just have to put it together and work on the proposed curriculum, with legal analysis. It's going to be a fun one.

Random Trivia

Pound for pound, you are stronger than a horse.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

ball park franks, my kids
love to eat - but hot dog first,
then, ketchup-dipped bun.

As always, I look forward to you contributions. Open floor day on Haiku Wednesday

Poor little rich girl

Apparently Anna Nicole Smith is rather charming among the octogenarian set. According to Yahoo!, the Supreme Court has expressed sympathy for Miss Smith in that her stepson is blocking her from retrieving a portion of her husband's estate.

Perhaps it is a moment for sympathy. After all, she didn't get to inherit 400+ million dollars. However, she wasn't in the will. Her claim stems from a promise that her husband made that he would "take care of her." In Texas, where he's from and where they lived while they were married, parol evidence like this doesn't work in probate. If you want the oral agreement, or even a written contract to "take care of someone for life" to count in a will, you also need an attestation in the will that the contract or parol evidence is to be kept. This is something that J. Howard Marshall's will didn't have, and is the reason why she was not able to recover in Texas.

So how did she get to receive money? Well, unlike her late husband, Anna Nicole spent a lot of time in California, and had a lot of trouble managing her money. She ended up in a bankruptcy hearing in Federal Court in California, where the judge allowed her to recover damages from her stepson for "tortious interference" by keeping his father from executing a will that would list Anna as beneficiary. I'm not quite sure how they determined that they had standing to settle a (settled) probate issue from Texas in a bankruptcy hearing in a California federal district court, but apparently, they found a way.

Now, I'd think that res judicata would rule on this issue, as the probate issue had been settled. However, it appears that my law student mind doesn't see things as well as the Supreme Court, who said that "that's just not the way our system works" (Justice Ginsburg), and "I fail to see your logic (on a similar assertion by J. Howard Marshall's son Pierce's lawyer) (Justice Souter)."

I'm anxious to see how this is going to turn out; but I fear that the decision will be the one that I think is wrong.

Things I was thinking while getting the dishes done

I wish James Fenimore Cooper was alive so I could sue him for writing painfully boring books with really exciting titles.

If any boy wants to be able to date my daughter, he's going to have to be able to explain the chemical process of water boiling.

Whenever I see Dan Brown, either in interviews or photos, he always strikes me as a conceited, self-absorbed know-it-all who's not as clever as he thinks. (I could be completely wrong here, and I confess that my perception of him stems in part from reading the DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons.)

I'm going to make Cucumber Kimchi next week - I hope it turns out well. (Note: the Korean word for Cucumber is Owi [oh we]).

If there's a snack better than popcorn, I don't want to know what it is.

If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question

A Le Moyne college/Zogby poll has come out, and the responses are interesting, to say the least.

In the poll, which surveyed American troops serving in Iraq, 72% of respondents replied that they think the U.S. should leave Iraq within the next year, and nearly 1 in 4 say they should leave immediately.

29% said they should leave "immediately"
22% said they should leave in the next six months
21% said the troops should be out between 6 and 12 months
23% said they should stay "as long as they are needed"

89% of reserves and 82% of the National Guard said the US should leave within 1 year, while only 58% of Marines felt the same way. Marines are typically the most gung-ho, and I think it's interesting that over half of them support withdrawal within the next year.

When asked about why some Americans in the states favor a rapid withdrawal (which I don't):
37% of treeps overseas said those Americans were unpatriotic
20% said those Americans didn't believe continued occupation would work.
16% - they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war
15% - they don't understand the need for the US troops in Iraq.

Only 58% of those polled said that the US mission in Iraq is very clear in their minds.

On the object of the mission:
85% said it was to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks
77% said they also believe the war was to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.
93% said that removing WMD is NOT a reason for being there
68% said the real reason was to remove Saddam Hussein
24% said that Establishing a democracy that can be the model for the Arab World was the main reason
11% said we were there for oil and 6% said to provide long-term bases for troops in the region.

74% of the troops wee on their second or greater tour in Iraq, 26% were there for the first time.

There is plenty more in the article; it's worth looking at.

I think the scariest things in there are the high number of respondents who believe this is retaliation for 9-11 and the low majority percentage of respondents who said that our reason for being there were clear.

Perhaps it's better to follow the teachings of the Charge of the Light Brigade when you're active duty and not reason why.

Hasta la Vista, Cheney?

According to this article from Insight Magazine, "Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to retire within a year."

The article cites senior officials who say that the VP "would be persuaded to step down as he becomes an increasing political liability to President Bush."

There are a lot of issues cited in the article, and I encourage you to read the article to get an idea of what is going around the scuttlebutt on the upper echelons.

I think it bears noting that the article is very definitive in its statement - he's expected to retire. This isn't a "sources say something might happen sometime in the future maybe," article. The fact that they cite "senior officials" also indicates that there might be more here than mere speculation.

Of course, much like Oscar predictions, only time will tell whether the insiders are right.

And the winner is...

Parade Magazine came out with its list of the ten worst dictators in the world last month. I'm a little behind the times on reporting this because I wasn't aware it (the list, not the magazine) even existed until today.

According to the magazine, "[The] present list draws in part on reports by global human-rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International."

While I can's say that I completely disagree with al-Bashir as their number 1 pick, I think if more people were aware of what a day in North Korea was like, they'd surely bump the Chonger (Kim Chong-Il) up that one extra slot. Notably, there is an absence of one Cuban leader from the list, as well as Qaddafi. Still, the rest of the list is a veritable who's who of the adage regarding absolute power.

488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985)

Smith v. Van Gorkum. Instead of reading this case, which my professor assures us is one of the two most important Corporations cases (and thus, painfully hard reading without the fear of recitation looming over your head like Damocles' Sword), I decided to do a post.

Every now and then, I'll take part in a political conversation, or I'll read a post by someone (any random person, nobody in particular), and the person will say or write something that strikes me as fundamentally wrong. What they'll say is something to the effect of, "Well, I'm a Democrat/Republican, so I believe XX." I really hope that the person (For ease of typing, I'll say "he") doesn't mean that the way it came out, because it sounds like he is so desperate to belong that he's willing to give up independent thought simply to be able to say he belongs. That might have been somewhat tolerable in high school, where your world is a fishbowl, but the point of high school is to help you learn how to think, or, in these days of no child left behind, how to mark A, B, C, D, or E in the right order.

One of the reasons why I refuse to align with any party is that I don't think that any party has it completely right. There are failures on each side. As such, I won't joing a party line simply because it's mentally efficient. Another reason I don't join is because I enjoy being able to pick on both major parties equally, and the Libertarians on a much lower proportion.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting you morals determine your politics; indeed that should guide your way. However, I can't accept anyone arguing that they let their politics determine his morals. Efficient or not, it sacrifices individual integrity.

We support higher learning... just not THAT

DePaul University in Chicago has recently announced that it is going to offer a minor in "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer" studies. Not surprisingly, many Catholics don't like this, and are calling for its abolishment. The program director disagrees, and notes that many of the classes in the program already were being taught at the school. He's also considering adding a class that would address the Church's stance on homosexuality.

De Paul is a Catholic school, however, it's not a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church. Teaching classes on gay studies is not an acceptance of homosexuality by the Church. I personally think, that as an institution for expanding knowledge, a subject such as this would be a good idea, which is essentially what the program's director, Professor Cestaro asserts.

I really can't think of any strong arguments against the curriculum. I can't imagine people would believe that teaching about gay studies would make people gay - that can't be a serious concern anymore. I mean, I majored in Korean studies in undergrad, and when I finished, I didn't decide I wanted to be Korean.

I think it's a good idea.

I'm afraid to see the search hits this might get

A store clerk called police in Pittsburgh on Thursday reporting that a man and woman had asked her to microwave what appeared to be a severed penis wrapped in a towel.

Apparently, the man and woman entered a convenience store and asked the clerk for some paper towels. They then wrapped the towels around an item and asked the clerk to nuke it for 20 seconds. When the clerk handed the item back she saw through the towel what appeared to be a phallus.

The woman who was with the man called police on Friday to offer up her side of the story. According to her, the item in question was actually a prosthetic, filled with the man's urine, that she was going to use for a drug test that was required for a job she was applying for. no word on why she decided to hold the urine in a fake penis, or where she was applying for employment.

Man, I'm glad to be done with retail.

The daughter says:

cat dog cow horse
princess
3

Bills of Attainder

According to my Black's Law Dictionary, abridged seventh edition, a bill of attainder is (2.) a special legslative act prescribing punishment, without a trial, for a specific person or group. Additioally, it notes that Art. 1, section 9, cl. 3 and art. 1, section 10, cl. 1 of the Constitution prohibit bills of attainder.

Why do I mention this? Because that what legislation in MD sort of sounds like to me. The story:

Maryland recently passed a "Fair Share Health Care Fund Act," which states that employers who employ more than 10,000 people in the state must spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care. If they spend less, then they must pay the difference to a state medical assistance fund.

Currently there are four employers in Maryland who fit that description, and one of them has filed suit challenging the law. The lawyers for Wal Mart (Wal Mart not wanting to pay for medical insurance?! The hell you say!) claim that this law is unfair as it only applies to them (not mentioning the other three employers), and that it is squarely violative of ERISA, a federal law that is supposed to create uniform health care standards.

Maryland insists that they are not forcing Wal Mart to increase their health care load. They point out that Wal Mart has a choice, and that they have an option against paying increased health insurance. The article states that many legal scholars think the law won't stand.

I'm on the fence here with how I would like this to turn out. On the one hand, I can see the importance of uniform standards, and I don't like the idea of targeting businesses just because they're big. On the other hand, it's Wal Mart. Wal Mart's health care plan has a reputation for being really poor. One man in an interview pointed out that in order to pay for health care, he would have to part with $200 of his $1200 a month paycheck. In order to make ends meet, many of the employees opt against company health insurance and choose instead to go to free clinics and ERs. This increases the burden on the hospitals and drains resources from the state that need to be replenished somehow, lest the health care system crash.

I suppose if I were pressed to take a position, I would say that I support Maryland's law, though it is a difficult choice for me. I will keep my eye on this.

Those invading circles best watch out

Today, after school, my friend and I went out to a shooting range. It was the first time in a few years that I'd picked up a gun, and his first time ever. I rather enjoyed getting out there again, shooting at little circles 10, 20, 30 feet away.

I'm glad my friend decided to try it out. It was nice to get to refresh my memory on the mechanics and safety of the whole thing by teaching and showing him.

I don't expect I'll be buying a gun again anytime soon; I prefer to keep them out of the house where I have curious children. Still, I think I might start going to the range slightly more often, at least, what I can handle in my budget. It's a good stress relief.

Friday Essay Question

Your Essay Question is as follows:

Is President Bush an example of the Peter Principle as applied to world politics?

Remember to support your answer. Grades will be arbitrary and capricious. I'm looking for the best answer, not the right answer.

The only bad question

Is one that goes unasked. At least, that's what I was told in junior high and high school.

Yet I avoided asking questions, because I was afraid of asking the dumb one. So if I didn't get something, I just let it simmer and either come to me on its own or wait until I forgot all about the item, whichever came first. Usually it was the latter. On the rare occasions that I did muster the courage to ask a question about a concept I didn't understand, I'd get a look from the teacher like I was the biggest idiot ever to walk erect and a dismissive explanation that used the same words in a slightly different order. So I continued to shut up and color.

This habit has continued with me through my adult life, and I'm still never comfortable asking questions, which is usually to my detriment, especially as a law student. I am a bit better, though, than I was in the old days.

Now, about the statement that there's no such thing as a bad question. I can assure you that is not the case. I taught for a few years and have heard many different questions. Most of them were quite good. Even the questions that weren't on point but the student was actually trying to learn something were all right. However, I encountered my fair share of dumb questions. Here's how I define a dumb question:
A question asked not for the acquisition of knowledge, but rather as a means of procrastinating or being difficult.

These questions are usually asked by people who contain a certain degree of smug and inflated sense of self-worth. The person often feels put off by the fact that his time is being wasted learning this stuff that he signed up to learn. I hated those questions, and have vowed never to become "that person."

So anyway, moral of the story - there is such a thing as a dumb question.

The hat is in the ring

The South Dakota Senate approved a bill that would make most abortions in the state illegal. It would call for a felony conviction and a 5 year prison sentence for doctors (or others) who perform abortions.

"(State Senator Julie) Bartling and other supporters ntoed that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade. President Bush ... might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said."

The addition of two justices to support the voiced opposition to RvW of Justices Alito and Thomas. I'm no math major, but I see only four on the potential overturn side. And even then, there's no guarantee on how Justices Roberts or Alito will rule. This is an interesting gamble on the part of South Dakota. The state is betting that the litigation that will certainly ensue will wait until President Bush (maybe) can nominate a new justice to come up for review.

It will be an interesting show, no matter how it goes. I look forward to seeing how it plays out.

Random Trivia

The FDA has never approved aspirin, because nobody is sure how it works. It's never rejected it, either.

Free Speech in Public Schools

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. That seems to be well established. However, people continually have problems determining what exactly is free speech? What is protected?

I think most people can agree that not all speech should be protected by the First Amendment. I'll ask a question regarding its application at public schools.

As best as I can figure it, there seems to be a limit to protecting free speech at schools to public statements about public affairs. For example, if you speak out against a proposed levy for the school board because of certain disagreements with it, that would likely be protected. However, explaining how the principal is a sumbitch for taking out a picture of her in the yearbook because she disliked it likely would not be protected, and would probably get you suspended.

I pose the following question: at what point, if any, should there be a limit on free speech by students and faculty at public schools? If you could draw the line, where would you draw it?

I look forward to your replies.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

"I'd love a cookie"
From Lord of the Beans is my
Children's new fave quote.

I'm looking forward to your contributions. The above line is in a Veggie Tales DVD they got for Christmas, which they adore.

Independence!

Back in 1999, after the UN demurred, NATO, under pressure from the United States attacked Serbia on behalf of the Kosovar Albanians. You see, Kosovo is in Serbia, and the Serbs consider it the birthplace of their nation. The Kosovars have lived there for quite a while, but control of the region lay with the Serbs. The Kosovar Albanians decided they wanted more of an identity. "We'll CALL ourselves part of Serbia," they said, "but we will have our own money, our own languages, our own language, and we won't pay national taxes." Surprisingly, Serbia didn't like that. Long story short, we invaded to protect the Albanians, and we (the U.S. and NATO) insisted that an independent Kosovo was not a consideration.

Now, Serbia-Montenegro and Kosovo are in negotiations to determine what the future status of Kosovo should be. Perhaps not surprisingly, things aren't going completely swimmingly. One of the primary issues? Kosovar Albanians want independence. How surprising. Serbia doesn't want to give up control of part of their country. The "Contact group" of nations overseeing the discussions, which include US, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Russia, insist that any agreement must be acceptable to the Albanians in Kosovo.

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if it was the US who was trying to keep a minority from declaring independence from our country's birthplace, Massachussetts, or Virginia, for example? Say, a Native American tribe who was subjugated or forced from their lands under threat of force or inequitable bargaining position... Have we established a precedent where we would allow that to happen? Or is this an example of international hypocrisy?

The problem started by allowing Kosovo to have too much lattitude in its provincial affairs, creating a quasi-independent state in a region that has had millenia of turmoil.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think some preventative maintenance back in 1999 might have been a good start.

The ID problem

Only 5 weeks into the semester and I've actually started researching my paper for Education Law. As I mentioned before, I'm to write on Intelligent Design - the history of religious instruction in schools, the evolution (get it?) of ID, the current status of ID in the US and in Texas, and then attempt to draft an ID program that could pass Constitutional muster.

I started my research by looking up the recent decision Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707. It's an 82 page ruling that goes into the history of ID. The ruling in the case was much deeper than the quick conclusion we all heard on the news a short time ago. The conclusion essentially said that it was "obvious" to everyone that ID was simply creationism in disguise. It didn't go into any explanation of the source of the court's conclusion.

The current incarnation of ID stems ultimately from Thomas Aquinas, who syllogized: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. Both experts for both the plaintiff and the defendant proffered essentially the same argument, except the defense used the term "purposeful arrangement of parts."

There's much more history, including the "Monkey trial," Edwards, Effington, and the Lemon test. It's a very good, but long, decision that does a good job explaining one of the fundamental problems with ID. It'll be interesting to see if ID can be introduced as a curriculum on its own. I'm looking forward to writing this paper.

It's like having a kidney ripped out

About 10 years ago, the Air Force retired the last of its F-111 Fighters. We had the pleasure of watching an interview with one of the crew chiefs of the F-111s at the time. He provided the header quote to describe how he felt about losing the plane he'd worked on for 11 years.

I thought the quote apt for how I felt without my laptop. Fortunately, I got my computer back yesterday, all new and fixed.

I must say, I think I may just keep taking notes by hand. I seem to pay slightly more attention when I'm handwriting vice typing. It's too easy to go into gist mode and simply write down what goes into my ears and not think about what I'm doing. Perhaps it will serve me better in the long run, who knows?

It's good to be back to normal.

Ringy Ringy

Today, as I was going to my car after class, I saw a homeless man. He was leaning up on the fence that surrounds the student parking lot, his bag hanging from one of the bars. That in and of itself is less interesting as the fact that this homeless man was talking on a cell phone.

Now I know that they make all sorts of inexpensive deals on cell phone plans these days, and just about everyone has one. Yet, I couldn't help but wonder, who this man had to talk to that was so important he needed to carry a cell phone?

We truly are a wired world, aren't we?

Saengil Chukha hamnida!

Just a friendly reminder to with a happy birthday to the Great Leader, Comrade Kim Il Sung!

Smokending

I quit smoking over 2 years ago, just after we moved to Houston. I did it mostly because it was boring to go out and smoke by yourself, though the health reason was a bit of a factor, as well.

For the last several years, there have been a steady stream of commercials from an anti-smoking site that uses scare tactics and abrasiveness to try to get people to quit smoking. I'm sure most of you have seen the ones of which I speak. The overarching purpose of the commercials is to try to convince people through shame, fear, or whatever, to quit smoking.

I have a hunch, and this is my conspiracy theory mind going to work here, that this website doesn't really want people to quit smoking. I think the commercials are as abrasive as they are to encourage people not to quit smoking. I think it's classic reverse psychology. Why would an anti-smoking organization want people to keep smoking? So that they can continue to get funding from the various lawsuits and settlements that the tobacco companies have to pay to smokers. If people stopped smoking, then these guys would be out of jobs, and would have to actually work, instead of point fingers and sound condescending. It's a cycle.

Note: I don't actually believe this to be true, but I think it would be funny if it was.

To Dream the Impossible Dream

Don Quixote is a tremendous story, and quite compelling. The movie version of the musical isn't the best (they refer to the author as Mig-well de Cerv-ant-ese), but Sophia Loren and James Coco do their parts well. It's hard not to be motivated by this story, at least for me. If you get the chance, read the book, unless you find the book is too wordy, in which case, watch the musical, it's worth it.

Random Trivia

Due to different measuring systems, a pound of feathers (16 oz.) actually weight more than a pound of gold (12 oz.).

The importance of a higher education

My children are fans of PBS. In the afternoons on days they don't have school, they watch Zoom, Maya and Miguel, and Cyberchase.

I dig Cyberchase. It's a math and reasoning cartoon with Gilbert Gottfried (not his typical hyperannoying self) as a sidekick and Christopher Lloyd as the bad guy's voice. The show is one of the most refreshing child programs to come out in the last several years, and I'm glad my kids like it.

Guilty moment - this afternoon, before I went to pick up the kids, I turned on the TV and Cyberchase was on. I could have changed it, watched the Olympics, or news, or whatever, or even just turn it off. But I didn't. I watched Cyberchase, a show aimed at elementary school aged kids. And I enjoyed it. The writing is pretty clever for PBS kids shows, and the characters are engaging. Also, it's kind of nice to know the answers before the characters every now and then ;-).

Anyway, if you have young'uns, I would recommend this show. And if you're bored in the afternoons with nothing to do, I recommend it as well.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Cheney shot someone
'Twas an accident, both say
Why is it still news?

Olympic Spirit

In my last post, I commented about what I viewed to be a lack of Olympic Spirit by an American Medal winner. I'd like to contrast that with the following.

U.S. Speed Skater and gold medalist Joey Cheeks, in an interview after the medal ceremony told reporters that he intends to donate the entirety of the $25,000 the USOC is giving him to relief efforts in Darfur. I am having some computer problems, so I can't link the article, but it's on ESPN.com. He said, in effect, that the best way to give thanks for what you've been given is to give to others.

This, in my opinion, represents the Olympic Spirit, a person who does his best for himself and his country, and uses what he has to help others in the world. Joey Cheeks set an example to follow. Kudos to him.

National Pride

I remember watching the Olympics when I was a child, seeing the medal winners on the podium, swelling with pride, with the knowledge that they not only represented their country, they performed better than everyone else in the world. I remember seeing the men and women fighting back tears, or letting them run freely in many cases, as they sang their national anthem, a testament to the country they love.

The other day, when I was watching the men's halfpipe, I saw the American guy win the gold, which is great. I saw him standing on the podium after he got his medal, when they raised the flags and played the national anthem. I saw a grin as big as could be. I saw the man trying to shed a tear, probably because he thought that's what you're supposed to do. I saw a visual representation of "Dude, I rock!" I did not see a man welling with pride at representing his nation in international competition. I did not see him try to sing the national anthem.

In short, I saw a guy who won a contest and is preparing for the next one.

I think that for the majority of people at the olympics, the international competition and the fact that you represent the best your nation has to offer, and that you're doing the best you can is what runs the show. What annoys me are the people like the man I mentioned above, who do'nt seem to get the point of the olympics.

Maybe I'm just an idealist, a purist, but would it be that difficult for the guy to learn the national anthem of the nation he represents?

In a similar vein, I'd like to see the papers, when they do the medal counts, not just count the medals, but name the medal winners. Show them that they mean more to their country than just a number on the sports page. They worked their tails off to do better than everyone else in the world, that deserves more recognition than "that's our 12th medal of the olympics, and the 5th Silver."

The answers

In pro res, the answer is "it depends."

In Corporations, the answer is "To enhance shareholder value"

In Wills, trusts, and estates, the answer is "To avoid this problem, draft a will."

In Agency and Partnership, you have to reason for a solution.

Guess which is my favorite?

Nine Things I'll Never Be

Since Particleman and Heatherfeather are playing, and I like inclusion with the cool kids, I've decided to take it upon myself to write my own list. So there. And, since I'm a rebel, I won't pass it on ad infinitum, rather, I'll let whoever wants to do one do one.

1. Latvian
2. Able to play any instrument that requires use of more than one hand to play notes/chords
3. A democrat
4. A republican
5. A goalie for the Detroit Red Wings
6. Able to get this thing out of my teeth.
7. An ambulance chaser
8. A fan of Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, or any of their numerous clones
9. A Supreme Court Justice

The old days

At this point 10 years ago, I was in my second month at DLI, where I was studying Korean as best I could. As much as I love my liberty, my ability to come and go as I please, I must say there was a certain comfort aspect in having your entire day dictated to you. You were free to focus all your effort on one or two things and didn't have to worry about much decision-making. It was nice.

I don't think I could ever do it again, though. Once was enough.

Perhaps I'm a little quirky

When I eat Crunch Berries, I usually eat the crunches first, and save the berries for last. I also save the marshmallows for last when I eat Lucky Charms.

Whenever I sit in a restaurant, I have to sit so that I face the greatest amount of space possible.

Daughter goes to lawschool

Because I'm currently sans laptop, I had to come in to school on Wednesday to print off a couple cases for the next day. In order to ease the burden on my lovely wife, I brought the daughter with me. We get to the front door and I show the security guard my ID, he looks over the side of the table and says to daughter "where's your ID?"

Daughter smiles brightly, sticks her arms out, and shouts, "I'm [daughter]!"

She was very popular amongst my friends in class. She's a cutie.

Friday

Things are swerving back toward normalcy. The delivery guy picked up my computer with little griping - apparently he was only supposed to drop off the box, and then I was going to have to call back to set up a pickup time, though I convinced him to stay the extra 42 seconds it took me to put the computer in the box.

My new phone arrived yesterday, which means I'm no longer sans phone.

I did my education law orations yesterday, so I'm finished reciting for that class, just have the paper to go.

I only missed two classes today, out of four, so I'm not as far behind as I feared I'd be.

My son is learning how to play the "go" game (see previous post, which I won't link here because I'm lazy, where I point to a child and yell go, and they run around the living room giggling like hyenas and then return to me ad infinitum), though he can't say go, so he points to his brother and yells "D'oh!" It's cute.

We're having hamburger helper tonight, so PETA, if you're looking for a new cause to protest, our kitchen is fair game, but we might not have enough HH to serve all of you, so pack a bag dinner.

Sneaky Sneaky

Last year, the President was adamant about privatizing Social Security, and the response from the country was, basically, "no thank you." This year, at the SOTU, the President commented on how "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security." He also asked Congress to "join [him] in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby-boom retirements on Social Security in Medicare and Medicaid," and suggested that the commission would be bipartisan "and offer bipartisan solutions."

If that's the case, then why would the President, despite making no mention of privatized Social Security, would he surreptitously add it to his proposed federal budget?

Now, when I make a meal, and my kids choose to go to bed without eating because they don't like it, and my wife smiles as she tries to choke it down, I learn. I realize that my family doesn't want that meal, and I don't make it again. I certainly wouldn't make it for dinner again and serve it to them without telling them... ugh.

Random Trivia

Termites are not related to ants; they are members of the cockroach family.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

My singing Daughter
Can almost carry a tune
She's better than Britney!

The positive effects of education

I had to hook up my old desktop yesterday, the one that takes 20 minutes to boot up, so that I could at least do word processing while I was at home - Briefing by hand is not my thing.

After I got it up and running, I started browsing through some of my old notes from undergrad. One thing I've noticed is that my analytical skills have improved greatly, and my ability to convey my thoughts has increased tremendously. I look at some of the notes from the introduction to law for paralegals class that I took, and I can't believe that I actually turned them in for a grade - never mind that I got As and Bs on them.

to paraphrase the cigarette ad - "I've come a long way, baby"

Unfortunate Events

Yesterday wasn't the best of days.

First, my GI bill hasn't processed yet, so I'm broke.
Then, I spilled an ounce of water on my laptop, and fried the motherboard, which means I have to shell out a bunch of money to get it fixed.
Then, the delivery guys delivered the cell phones to replace my broken one, which were supposed to be delivered on Friday, but due to delays and deliveryman error, didn't come until yesterday - long story, won't bore you with details. We open the boxes only to learn that the boxes have already been opened, we presume by people at the delivery company, and the cell phones removed. So we were delivered boxes that contained literature about our phone, the earpiece, and a battery charger, but no phone. Fortunately, we called the delivery people, who assured us that they will send someone out today to inspect the boxes to see whether they were indeed tampered with. Yes. They're going to look at the boxes we opened to find out something was not in them, due to their being opened previously, to determine whether someone opened them. Gotta love those brilliant folks.

Anyway, now I'm sans phone and sans computer. I have no stereo in my car due to a faulty antenna, so all I have is a tape deck and two family law tapes that haven't died yet from overplay.

Calgon, take me away.

Early Riser

The littlest child woke up early this morning, around 3:30. He apparently decided it was time to watch Elmo, and since he can't reach the VCR, needed me to get up with him. After trying to convince him that it really was time for sleep, he got bored with the debate. He subtly told me it was time to get up. First, he grabbed my glasses off of the nightstand and handed them to me. Then he went to my dresser, pulled open the shirt drawer as far as he could, and then started trying to pull out a shirt for me, so that I could go downstairs with him. This is the same boy who decides it's time for me to get up and starts pulling my shoulder so that I sit up. The boy ain't slow, that's for sure.

I'm NOT Cliff

Even though Red Hot Mamma seems to think I am.

Anyway, in answer to her question, the 'bee's knees' is a term that found popular in 1920's America, the era of the flappers. During this time, numerous animal references became popular to mean cool, neat, or excellent. Some examples are the "elephant's adenoids" the "cat's meow," the "cat's pajamas" "bullfrog's beard" "monkey's eyebrows," etc.

Super Bowl Yesterday

Yesterday, my wonderful wife and I loaded up the kids and went out to Memorial Park to have a picnic lunch with Nuje and his family. It was nice. We made sandwiches, took the children for a walk in the woods, which was noteworthy mostly because the wife avoids nature as though it were the plague. Then, we let the kids fly kites for a while. There are few things more fun than watching children with kites. They think it's the bee's knees. After watching the kids run laps in the volleyball pit (gotta wear them out), it was time to head home and get ready for the game.

Oh yeah, there was a football game last night, the Steelers played the Seahawks in Motown. As far as games go, it was about a B-. The drama wasn't as teneble as in some games past, such as the Giants-Bills in 1991 or St. Louis-Tennessee in 2000. The Steelers won, and I'm happy, because Jerome Bettis, one of football's class acts, gets to go out with a win. I'm disappointed, because the Seahawks, my hometown team for 13 years, lost.

And I wasn't impressed with the commercials at all. What is up with Burger King? Perhaps they've had one too many whoppers and it's affecting their ability to come up with any kind of decent ad campaign. The "freaky King" has to go.

And was it really the best idea for Hummer to have two Japanese Monsters in a mock-up of Tokyo produce the new, American Made Hummer? That just strikes me as absolutely ridiculous.

Anyway, it was a pretty good day.

Something to ponder

How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?

To get to the other side.

The Democratic Process at Work

In the wake of Kelo v. City of New London, many states have started re-thinking their eminent domain laws. The people of the states are asking for a change to policies, and many states are listening.

Recently, an activist group tried to pass a referendum taking Justice Souter's home in Weare NH, to build a hotel. The people of the city rejected that proposal.

Isn't it wonderful when things work the way they're supposed to? The law exists. Someone challenges the law. The law is upheld. The people determine they don't like the law as it's applied. They petition for a change to the law.

My Daughter Says:

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

What's the definition of Irony?

In England at one time, suicide was a crime punishable by death.

How time flies

One hundred years ago, on February 1, the Japanese government established the governor-general position in occupied Korea. This set up the imperial rule of Korea by Japan, a 40 year occupation that ended with Japanese surrender at the end of WWII and the division of Korea into two nations.

During that period of time, thousands of Koreans were forced into slave labor, women forced to work as "comfort women" for the Japanese military.

North Korea's Committee for Investigation into the Damage Done by the Japanese Imperialists During Their Occupation of Korea issued a statement last Thursday urging Japan to settle the issue. That in itself seems a reasonable request, though it doesn't elaborate on how Japan would make amends, and in fact, the statement says "the crimes of the Japanese imperialists, the long-time sworn enemy, can never be erased even after centuries." This tells me that, like so much in North Korea, this is little more than proselytizing rhetoric aimed and keeping the North Korean people angered at another people.

Strangely, the article makes no mention of the North Korean practice of kidnapping Japanese women and forcing them to train insurgents, as well as beating, raping, and forcing marriage on them. Strange how little things like that get lost.

The Excitement Continues!

Sample of what we've been reading in class:

Art. 2.21 - Liability of Subscribers and Shareholders
A. A holder of shares, an owner of any any beneficial interest in shares, or a subscriber for shares whose subscription has been accepted, or any affiliate thereof or of the corporation, shall be under no obligation to the corporation or to its obligees with respect to: ...
(2) Any contractual obligation of the corporation or any matter relating to or arising from the obligation on the basis that the holder, owner, subscriber, or affiliate is or was the alter ego of the corporation, or on the basis of actual fraud or constructive fraud, a sham to pereptrate a fraud, or other similar theory, unless the obligee demonstrates that the holder, owner, subscriber, or affiliate caused the corporation to be used for the purpose of perpetrating and did perpetrate anactual fraud on the obligee primarily for the direct personal benefit of the holder, owner, subscriber, or affiliate, ...

Tell me you're not on the edge of your seat.

Love is a two count movement

When I first in-processed at the Defense Language Institute ten years ago, my MTM (Military Training Manager) briefed us on various aspects of being at the multiservice language training center.

One of the things he discussed was an interesting phenomenon at DLI - the marriage rate there. He nicknamed the base the Defense LOVE Institute, and explained that about 1/2 of every incoming flight of (single) students would get married before they left the Presidio. The language schools last from 6 months (Spanish) to 63 weeks for Russian, Korean, Chinese, and Arabic. Perhaps more interesting than that is the next bit of information - of those couples who get married at DLI, 90% are divorced before the end of their first enlistment. In my observations since that time, it appears he was pretty close to accurate, if not completely accurate.

I've often speculated as to why this is the case. My guess has something to do with the sudden change in circumstances for the individuals. Most enlistees are young, often 21 or under. They have just completed one of the most intense experiences of their lives and are in a position where they are living away from their families, often for the first time ever. They're on a base where they spend every day around the same groups of people. Their classes seem interminable - 63 weeks plus Exodus and Class Break and any casual time adds up quite a bit for young people. The airman, soldier, sailor, or Marine is looking for some semblance of stability, and they often decide that the person they're dating is that piece of stability they need, and convince themselves they're in love. The desparation to have that company is so strong that the people ignore the obvious differences and unpreparedness and charge headlong into a marriage that they're not ready for.

As for the divorces, there are a couple things there, I think. First, many of the people who fall in "love" don't pay attention to minor details such as: their relationship won't dictate where they're stationed. If you're a Korean linguist in the Air Force, the odds of your getting stationed with a Spanish Linguist Marine are about as good as my winning the Iditarod. This means that after your short time together, you're relegated to spending years apart, and unfortunately, absence doesn't always make the heart grow fonder. Another thing to consider is that after these people get accustomed to their new lives as individuals in the military, they get tired of their new lives as married people, and want to return to single life. This could be because of a personal desire to enjoy the fruits of singlehood now that the stressors have been effectively dealt with. Alternatively, it could be that this married couple, who thought it would be so neat to be married, realize that they have nothing in common, and indeed don't care much for each other. They're no longer bound by the goggles of tunnel vision and desparation, and are able to see things perspectively. Hence the heightened divorce rate.

Therefore, it's not a surprise to me that the Army at the Presidio of Monterey (DLI) has elected to start a class in how to choose a spouse. If there's anyplace that can benefit from such a program, it's there.

Newspaper Demographics

My Corporations Professor passed out a printout of an e-mail he received a few years ago today. The e-mail is a rundown of who reads what newspapers. I post here, because I found it rather amusing:

Who reads what newspapers?

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country, but don't really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie chart format.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn't have to leave LA to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country, and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a coutnry or that anyone is running it; but whoever is, they oppose all that they stand for.
10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

Some of you may have read this before, but it was new to me, and thus humorous.

Flattery will get you...

I'm driving my son to class yesterday, when the following transaction takes place:
"dad?"
"Yes?"
"Your hair looks like chocolate ice cream."
"Um, thanks."

I have no idea if he means the color or the shape, but, I assume he meant it in as nice a way as possible.

I did a bad, bad thing

As I was driving home from my education law class last night, I came upon a familiar situation: The light turned yellow in front of me, and I was going too fast to stop safely before getting to the intersection, but I couldn't get through the light before it turned red. I'm ashamed to say that I was - res gestae statement alert - SPEEDING! (pardon me while I blush shamefully).

Now, usually, when I come to a situation like this, I'll hit my brakes and stop as quickly as I can, though often I end up halfway over the line. This time, for whatever reason, I decided not to follow habit, and instead gassed up and sped through. My car managed to just get into the intersection before the light turned red, and I managed to get through without impeding traffic, so perhaps I can claim victory.

After I get through the intersection, I look in my rear-view to see whether the other traffic's started moving. When I look through, I notice, not six feet from my rear bumper, a large pickup truck that went through the light right behind me. As I was quickly thanking Him for compelling me to run the red light, I saw another large pickup truck merge from my lane into the other lane on the road. Yes, not one, but two tailgating pickup trucks ran a red light after I did. My Ford Escort and I are painfully thankful that I didn't decide to hit the brakes.

Random Trivia

In 1780, Edward Smith Stanley and his friend Sir Charles Burnbury, both horse breeders, founded a horse race in Epsom, England. The race was to be a one mile test of three year old thoroughbreds. They couldn't decide on what to name the race, and so the flipped a coin to determine who the race should be named after. Stanley won the coin flip, and the race was named after him, the 12th Earl of Derby.

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I'm aware the politicians often preach what they think their crowds want to hear. I'm aware that many politicians on both sides of the fence say things that they don't necessarily mean (Such as "I invented the internet").

However, when the main talking point of your SOTU address - one that makes headlines across the world - turns out to be misinformation, then there is a problem.

From Knight Ridder:

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports over there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the

greatest oil supplies are. ...

When asked why the President used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't mean them, one official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that 'every American sitting out there understands.'

So, basically, what one can glean from this explanation is that the president, whose administration one might say has mild credibility problems, is telling us, "Listen to what I mean, not what I say." Perhaps what's more disturbing is how the correction comes quietly, and through secretaries and advisers, while the statement itself was broadcast from the nation's largest pulpit.

h/t The Moderate Voice

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Play-doh and Elmo
Two favorite toys at home
The kids like them, too.

Lunchtime

I made the brilliant decision to sit in the cafeteria today (now) during lunch to reread for my afternoon classes. The group of students next to me were talking about what they wanted to name their basketball team (for a fundraiser here).

Noting that we're in law school, one of the students remarked that they should name the team for the degree they'll be getting, "We should call ourselves the JC's! Wait, what degree are we getting? An LLM?" One of her compatriots replied, "We're getting JD's."

That reminds me of the time my sister got behind the driver's seat right after she got her learner's permit, and, the SECOND time she drove, asked "which one is the gas pedal again?"

Study Break

I'm taking a break from reading about Limited Partnership liability. (wouldn't you?) I've decided to put a movie on, and I'm watching Hoosiers.

It's difficult for me to name a favorite anything, but this movie is certainly on my list of favorite movies. It's quite an inspirational film, and great to watch the kids (though some of the "high school" players are balding, which is funny in its own right) learn how to play as a team. The director did an amazing job of emoting the demons the characters have to deal with without force-feeding it to us. The movie feels so natural - a trick that sometimes seems lost on movie makers. I recommend this movie.

Time to get back to work.

J'Accuse!

Recently a 15 year old girl reported to police that she was kidnapped and gang raped. The police immediately started searching for the assailants, an attempt to ensure that justice is done and that the perpetrators were punished for committing such a heinous and disgusting act.

A few days later, the girl recanted her story. She said that she made it up. Created it out of thin air, like Harvey the Rabbit (ask your parents). The police response was to arrest the girl for filing a false police report. The rationale? She committed a crime. "We regret, it's unfortunate it had to come to this, but she (the 15-year old) has to know there are consequences for lying. When people make false reports for aggravated assault, they go to jail," said a police spokesperson.

That makes sense, don't you think? A person commits a crime. That person gets caught. That person then gets punished. Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?

On the other hand, the girl's mother had a different suggestion. She concludes that the girl didn't lie about being raped. Instead, she lied about the identity of the men. She says that the men were adults, and the girl was 15 - there was no way she could consent to sex. "She need (sic) counseling. The girl cries herself to sleep every night. You think she need (sic) to be arrested?"

I don't really see a problem with this argument, either. I think these are two valid arguments stemming from the situation. I would probably lean towards the arrest, and then a light sentence at trial, if the facts are as they are. She did lie in a police report, according to the information available here, and that does warrant punishment or counseling.

Here's the real problem, though, and the one that I think really hurts the mom's argument is her suggested reason that the police arrested her daughter. It's not because the daughter filed a false report, rather it's because the police are "embarrassed," and are trying to humiliate her daughter (she was arrested at school). It's not on the link above, but she made mention of it on the report last night on the news. She suggests that the police are embarrassed that they went off and searched and didn't know enough and now they're embarrassed that they've been made to look bad.

The police did their job and zealously searched according to a formal complaint filed by a minor alleging sexual assault. The report was false. The police are wrong, according to the mother, for charging the person who made the report, because they shouldn't have done their job so zealously. Does that make any sense at all? Look at it from a different perspective. What if the girl had made the report and the police delayed their search, and kept asking for more details, more information? Police often have to carry on their searches on incomplete information. Had they delayed, they'd have heard cries of outrage from the mother as well as the community. They would have been accused of not helping the girl who needs the help, et cetera.

I empathize with the mother's position. I don't think she's right with her assertion. I think that she has misdirected her ire, and instead of getting mad at the police for doing their job, she should be mad at her daughter for lying to the police in the first place.

Military Anecdote

The following story was related to me by one of my friends while I was in the Air Force. For ease of storytelling, I'll relate it in first person, with minimum license.

When I was a new airman at DLI, when we were called to an MTM's (Military Training Manager, the NCOs in charge of training for the squadrons), First Sergeant's or the flight or squadron commander's office, we were to stand next to the door at parade rest until called in. One day, while I was waiting to talk to an MTM, the Flight Commander, a second lieutenant (note: probably about 23 years old) passed by one of the MTMs, a Chief Master Sergeant - Chief. The Chief, holding his coffee, was stopped by the Lieutenant - LT. LT's purpose for stopping Chief was to criticize the chief for his collar. Apparently, Chief's collar was wrinkled, and LT wanted to notify Chief of this deficiency and remind Chief of his duty to set the example for all us young impressionable airmen.

As LT finished his dressdown, Chief looked at him, cocked his head to one side, and stated very loudly, emphatically, and clearly, and in front of all the airmen waiting for appointments and those airmen on detail (cleaning the squadron) - "F--- you, Lieutenant!" He then took a drink of his coffee and walked into his office.

LT was somewhat upset at being shown up by this NCO and stormed into Chief's office to dress him down some more. Some shouting ensued, and quickly, the commander showed up to find out what happened. LT explained how Chief showed no respect for rank and authority and was insubordinate and rude in front of all the airmen. The commander then looked at Chief. Chief, at least a 25 year military veteran, said "He told me to fix my uniform."

The Commander let the lieutenant know that it mightn't be the best idea to criticize such an experienced man, who earned his stripes and put in more than his time. He then requested to Chief that he hold his tongue in front of the airmen.

Moral of the story: Superior rank does not mean superior experience or even authority. The same holds true everywhere.

Courthouse Excitement

On the way to school every morning, I drive by the Federal Courthouse on Rusk. Usually you see a couple hurried-looking people walking briskly to or from the building, nothing too out of the ordinary. Today, however, I had to stop twice at the traffic light before the courthouse, because two of the four lanes of traffic on the courthouse block were full of news vans that were stopped, satellite dishes and antennae opened up and pointing to the sky. I saw scores of people holding news reporting items, cameras, microphones, clipboards, etc., all creating a perimeter from the corner to the entrance. As soon as I stopped at the red light at the end of the Courthouseblock, I saw a swell of activity, as all the news types stirred. Microphones lifted up higher, cameramen moved around for a better shot, and I heard dozens of reporter voices (you know what voice I mean) desparately trying to ask a question.

Today was the start of jury selection for the Enron trial, and verious people connected to the trial were at or on their way to the courthouse. I couldn't get a good look at the object of all the reporters' interest, but I could tell it wasn't Ken Lay. It might have been Jeff Skilling, perhaps, from my standpoint it looked vaguely like what I remember him looking like. Then again, it might have been the Shipley Do-Nut guy.

It was a nice bit of unexpected change from the boring commute routine.

Constituency

Senator Sam Brownback (R - Kan) related a story to Rolling Stone magazine:

[The story is] about a chaplain who challenged a group of senators to reconsider their conception of democracy. "How many constituents do you have?" the chaplain asked. The senators answered: 4 million, 9 million, 12 million. "May I suggest," the chaplain replied, "that you only have one constituent?"

Brownback pauses. That moment, he declares, changed his life. "This" -- being senator, running for president, waving the flag of a Christian nation -- "is about serving one constituent." He raises a hand and points above him.

I find this disconcerting on one level. First, I must say I applaud this man's faith. I think it commendable that he feels strong enough in his faith to let his Christianity guide his decisions. There's a problem with his response, though. He discusses serving one constituent. I'm not certain, since I don't live there, but I'd be more than willing to believe that there are more than just Christians and Jews in Kansas. I'd even suggest that there are Buddhists, Confuscianists, Wiccan, Hindus, athiests, agnostics, etc. in Kansas. While I see nothing wrong with using your religion as your moral compass and using it to guide your decisions with regard to your life and even as a barometer with your votes, I think he's completely off base with suggesting that there be only one constituent. The senator is a public servant. His job, as I understand it, is to look out for the best interests of his state, his voters, the American people and the American government, not what is in the best interests of the deity of his choice.

Perhaps the spirit of the message is what's more important than the statement itself, but I find it a little disconcerting that he would make such a statement.

If we're in a situation where we're supposed to ensure that even the minority views get heard, and he states clearly that he intends to follow the majority view, then how will the minority view ever get a fair shot?

Not the best of ideas

Cindy Sheehan is apparently considering a run for Senate. Her rationale? "I think our Senator needs to be held accountable for her support of George Bush and his war policies." She continued by saying she felt Senator Feinstein was out of touch with Californians on the issue.

Ms. Sheehan said thatshe doesn'tharbor anyillusions about winning, but rather thinks that by running in the Democratic Primary, she can bring attention to the peace candidates.

Now, my opinion on the Cindy Sheehan matter is not the most well-informed, so take what I'm about to say for what it's worth. I think Cindy Sheehan has surrounded herself with groupies, the result of which being that she believes she and her message are bigger and better received than they actually are. I don't suggest that she's not earnest about her opinion, rather I think she's quite sincere about her desires and I respect her stance. Instead, I think that she's not as influential as those around her would suggest. In fact, one might suggest that she suffers from the same echo chambering that the President has been accused of suffering from.

I don't think she's clear on the current politics in California (indeed, neither am I, and won't comment on them here). I think it would be a bad idea for her to run, even in a primary. I think that there are far too many issues affecting California for her to try to hitch her pony to one inflammatory one in hopes of pushing her own agenda.

Philosophy through corporations

One of the cases we covered in Corporations last week was a Delaware (a corporation in Delaware, whodathunkit?) case, MM Companies, Inc. v. Liquid Audio, Inc., 813 A.2d 1118 (Delaware, 2003).

I won't bore you with the details of the case. Instead, I'll relate part of the ruling the Court delivered: "One of the most venerable precepts of Delaware's common law corporate jurisprudence is the principle that 'inequitable action does not become permissible simply because it is legally possible.'"

If we expand that away from a strictly corporate setting, it sounds like a pretty good overarching philosophy, don't you think? Imagine in politics, punishing politicians for obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit. Or education, or medicine.

Perhaps a good way to restate the ruling is "integrity, doing what you know is right, is more important than doing all you can without breaking any laws."