True Colors

I've spent three years at law school, a private law school in Texas. Not only is it a private school, but it's a specialty school - it is a law school, and nothing else. This means that what you know about school is pretty much tied to your activity at school, and what you aren't told, you don't find out. For example, I did not find out until today, 24 days before graduation, that we have school colors. Yeah. Crimson and Gold. Now, you would have little to tell you that based on what you see around the school, but there are actual school colors for our law school.

I think it might not have been a bad idea for us to learn that at some point while we were in school, not just at graduation.

For the Greater Good

I had my blood donation appointment today. It was the second time I've gone in this year, which matches the total number of times I went in last year. I need to get one more trip in, at least, so I can say I gave more than last time. If I go three more times, then I will hit the wondrous one gallon mark (I went once in 2005).

I like giving blood. It's relatively painless, doesn't take too long, and it does people good.

Today wasn't the best donation day, though. The assistant who helped me chose a different vein than I usually use, and it ended up drying up on us just over halfway through, which means I ended up not giving a whole pint. I feel bad, especially for the girl, who kept apologizing for giving me a big bruise (she had to keep digging around with the needle to try to get the blood going again and ended up getting blood around my arm, which will leave a pretty groovy bruise, I figure.

I got a couple job applications out today as well; I don't know whether they will lead to any employment, but at least it's up to them to tell me no now.

The Final Frontier

We took the kids to NASA yesterday. It was the day after the shooting/suicide at Johnson space center (we were at Space Center Houston, same zip code, but different part of the place). The kids had a great time. They got to play on this giant jungle gym, had styrofoam balls dropped on their heads, got to see what the astronauts have to live in in outer space, looked at tons of bones, sat in a mock-up of the space shuttle, looked at some exhibits, bought some freeze-dried ice cream, and wore me out.

It was a good Saturday.

When they're a little older, we can go on the tram ride. I look forward to those days.

Almost there

I graduate in 4 weeks. Where does the time go?

Dinner

I made manicotti for dinner last night. It turned out pretty good.

I also got a treat for the children. They got to have Sarsparilla for the first time. I'd never had it before, either. It's like a mild root beer - not bad at all. The kids loved it, and the wife seemed to enjoy it as well.

Every now and then it's good to give the kids a treat. And Vernor's isn't always the answer (though it often is).

I don't like it, but I don't disagree with it

The Supreme Court upheld the ban on what is known as partial-birth abortions today in a 5-4 decision. While I agree that the government has the right to restrict in this manner, I would hope that the people use the power of their vote to change this law (i.e. petition your congresspeople).

The law seems to be pretty narrow in scope (the violation comes after the following steps: 1. person performing must vaginally deliver a living fetus, 2. must deliver it so the full head is delivered of, if breach, then up to the navel, 3. perform an overt act that kills the living fetus, which must be done separate from delivery, and 4. it must be done "deliberately and intentionally."

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, and he appears to have interpreted the Act very narrowly, especially with regard to the scienter ("deliberately and intentionally") requirement. The State would have to prove the intentional delivery to the requisite point AND the overt act were both done intentionally, a heavy burden.

Finally, Justice Kennedy cites Casey, in that the Act, in order to be unconstitutional, would have to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a person trying to get an abortion. Substantial is a key word here, one of those magic words that has an imprecise meaning. Justice Kennedy and the majority, however, held that there was not proof by Planned Parenthood to show that there was a substantial obstacle. I dislike Justice Kennedy's choice of words in Casey, but I understand what he was trying to say, "respondents have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases." Applied broadly, this goes to ALL abortions, not the limited scope of people trying to secure a D&E (this type) abortion.

I may or may not like the law, but I have a hard time disagreeing with the majority opinion that the law is Constitutional. The right to have an abortion does not imply the right to have the abortion method of your choice. I think the best recourse for those who oppose this law is to appeal to your congressperson.

An oldie, but a goodie

The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence is false.

Unique Opportunity

Kofi Annan is in town tonight, and I was one of the lucky students to get a ticket to see him speak. I look forward to the chance to hear him. I've not had an opportunity to hear a leader of the UN to speak before. I'm excited. I'll write about it later, unless I don't, in which case RHM might, since she's got a ticket as well.

Concussed

When I was eight years old, I had a bicycle. It was a nice, early 1980's style bicycle with a banana seat. One day, my friends and I were having races around Gingko Drive on McChord AFB. I went first, and got around fairly quickly. My friend went second, and he beat me. Not being one to like being beaten on my own bicycle, I went around a second time.

Things were going great. The sun was shining, just a couple clouds out, there was a slight tailwind, which helped me on the first leg, and I had managed to really get my bike around the first corner without losing much speed. I knew I had a chance at beating my friend, I just had to really nail the corners (he had bigger legs than I, so he could beat me on straightaways, I needed cornering speed to remain competitive). So as I came up to the second corner, I noticed a little dip on the side of the road where the sewer is slightly indented for the water to flow in. Now, I didn't know much about physics, still don't, but I knew that things tended to go faster around raised curves, and I knew that I could turn faster at a lower angle by using the dip in the street.

So that's what I aimed to do, and I hit the dip perfectly, I started my right turn, leaned my bike all the way down so that I could really use the centrifugal force, and I happened to notice that my right pedal was down, instead of my left. I thought to myself, "I should probably have my other pedal down, because my turn is so low, my pedal might hit the pavement." Actually, I didn't so much think that to myself as realize it about a nanosecond before it happened.

I don't remember how I got home. I don't, really, remember the visit to the doctor that day, but I do remember my parents having to ask me every two hours who I was and where I lived. I got the answers right.

Perhaps I should have started wearing a helmet after that.

Not a bad showing, but not the strongest

Governor Bill Richardson (D) of New Mexico, a man some of my republican friends have said they'd vote for and who I think is the best option out there as of right now, raised 6.2 million dollars in the first three months of the year.

After six+ years of some of the most polarizing politics in the history of America, it would be nice to have a candidate with crossover appeal, someone who can mend the rifts that have come about from hyperpartisan politicking. Bill Richardson seems to be the most qualified candidate among those who can appeal not just to the center, but to those on the other side of the aisle. He needs more attention and support, though.

The cure is as bad as the venom

I have never had rattlesnake meat, though I'm not adverse to trying it someday. I know there's a city in west Texas, I think it's Sweetwater, that has a rattlesnake cookoff every year. Apparently, people use this powder made from rattlesnake meat to cure ailments, which can be bad. It can cause salmonella, which is something I wouldn't be excited about catching. Hopefully it doesn't show up on the rattlesnake steaks, especially if I dare try one (I've had gator, which was OK, kinda gamey).

I don't care much for snakes, mostly because so many of them can kill me, and I was attacked by a cottonmouth when I was 11. However, this is more disconcerting for me, because I would normally hope that a snake can't kill me after it's dead, especially if it's trying to make me better.

Victory

While again using the troops as leverage for political purposes, president Bush reiterated that a democratic timeline leads to a victory for the enemy. I somehow think there are several both here and there that are saying "at least the democrats have a plan that leads to victory for someone."

The country is in a civil war, the administration is accusing Iran of meddling in Iraqi politics (because we would never do something like that). The most recent signs of progress, according to the administration, is the protest with thousands of Iraqis demanding the US forces out - a freedom Iraq did not have four years ago. Other things Iraq couldn't do four years ago: Bomb parliament or destroy historic bridges.

The president insists that the surge is going to work, though violence is up, deaths are up, public support is down, the president still has no exit strategy, other than to wait until he's out of office and let the next guy (it'll be a guy; Hillary is too polarizing to win) deal with it.

Perhaps a timetable is what the war needs; perhaps it will galvanize the Iraqis to stand up for themselves, and perhaps it will force the president to listen. He hasn't listened to the people; will he listen to the law (provided it's passed over veto)? If not, then the impeachment option is clearly available. I don't like the "I" word, but I hate the black eye our president's incompetence has given this nation even more.

Did people actually believe them?

North Korea recently said that it would disarm its nuclear program if we unfroze 25 million in assets.

Of course, this is the same nuclear program that they had agreed to not pursue under Clinton's administration.

This is, of course, the same North Korea that has "agreed" to many things over the past few decades in exchange for other considerations, such as food and fuel.

So, is it any surprise that North Korea did not meet its deadline, that it did not disarm its nuclear program?

I have heard talk that we should launch preemptive strikes against Iran since they are developing a nuclear program and they are a member of the axis of evil. North Korea has tested nuclear weapons, they have a program, and they have one of the worst human rights records of the past half-century.

We've invaded for less than this. Perhaps a regime change to stabilize the region and spread western-style democracy would be in order here? Of course, North Korea is a little different than Iraq or Iran, in that they have a republic-style government with millions of their brethren waiting to welcome them with open arms, making the transition arguably much smoother. Oh yeah, and North Korea has no oil, though they do have the USS Pueblo...

Friday Update

It was a busy couple of days at work this week. The staff has a pretty serious report due and an audit coming up, so they were all a little busier than usual. So when I came in yesterday, they had four contracts that needed doing, that had been in the queue longer than they should have been. None of them were huge contracts, but they were contracts that needed to be started and finished. Enter me. I walk in and have the four contracts on my desk, with instructions to get through them before I do anything else. Understand, I've worked on contracts while I've been there, but I've never done a contract alone, let alone four. I was a little anxious, but they're not going to get out of my to do pile if I just look at them.

So I get ready to get to work on the contracts. But before I do, my supervisor calls me in and tells me to knock "this" contract out real quick, because it's got to get out this morning for the guy to sign, since it lapsed and he was on vacation and helping us out by taking the work while he was in a different state than he lives. As I was walking out of the office, my mentor (I guess, I don't ever care for the term "mentor" because of the way it's been buzzworded, but it seems the best term here), stops me and asks me to get a couple things knocked out on *this* contract which needs to be done asap, and could I check on the status of these other two contracts, since it'll just take a minute? So, to recap, I have four contracts that I have to do before anything else, but I have two contracts I have to knock out and two more I have to status check on, and I'm flying solo.

Good news is I made great headway on the contracts, I have final drafts out on two for review by the other party, I have one contract killed (the vendor is no longer in that business), and the fourth is ready for the addendum's first draft. I knocked out the terms and service files for my mentor's contract, which is ready to go, and I got the agreement done on my supervisor's contract.

This afternoon, my supervisor told me she was extremely proud of me and she was kicking herself a little for not dumping so much on me at once sooner. I assured her that I would not have been able to do this two months ago, and that I needed to be able to see the parts of the contract process individually before I could approach it collectively. But it's great to know that I'm already at a point where I can go this alone if need be.

Now I just need to convince them to pay me for this.

Public Education

I was driving home from school today listening to ESPN radio (Seriously, how old am I that I willingly listen to talk radio?) and the guys on the program were discussing a plan by a TX state representative to put forward a bill that would require public schools in Texas to randomly test high school athletes for steroids.

One of the radio guys mentioned how he thought it was an idiotic idea, in part because the sponsor of the bill did not know how many students were taking steroids, and whether or not they were a problem. I think the other guy was less opposed to it, but did not support the idea, but I want to comment on the former opinion now.

I think it's monumentally silly to argue against a bill like this because we "don't know if it's a problem." That's arguing against the issue. The issue here is not "we need to find out who is using steroids," the issue is "we want to put the students on notice that we are testing, and if they use steroids and get caught, it's their ass." It's a preventive measure (Jamie, you may recognize this approach from class today), where the idea is to discourage kids from doing steroids in the first place.

Personally, I think this concept could be expanded. I think there is a strong argument in favor of mandating random drug tests among all students in Texas schools (or any other state). I think it comports with the school's responsibility to protect the students, it polices the students in advance, it's facially neutral (if done right, say you have two drawings of 9 digits, the first is the location on the social security number 123-45-6789 and the second is the actual number that appears in that location, then have all students whose social has that number in that place take the test), it matches the current curriculum of resisting drug use, and it is in keeping with public policy.

Public education is a privilege, and that privilege should come with responsibility. Teaching kids to avoid drugs in junior high and high school can help set a drug-free pattern after high school, and having fewer people using drugs results in fewer people being arrested for using drugs, and that leads to fewer people in jail, which leads to fewer government (read: tax) dollars going to house people.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Four classes to go
Only two finals, then grad,
I'm dreading the bar.

As always, I look forward to your submissions.

Where it all comes in to play

"Trust us."

Because THIS time, we're telling you the truth. Never mind that we were wrong before. Never mind that we told half truths before. Never mind that we said Mission Accomplished with a banner that the WHITE HOUSE made and the PRESIDENT stood behind. Never mind that the stability we were so quick to display with purple thumbs and a torn down statue has degraded into sectarian civil war. Never mind that we continue to cling to the false notion that Iraq supported Al Qaeda on the same day that information directly contradicting that assertion comes to light. Never mind that we didn't mean stay the course when we said stay the course.

This time, we're serious. We wouldn't lie to you. Unless we had plausible cover.

Post Mortem

The minitrial is over.

The state's case was that the defendant entered a U-Totem, robbed the store, took the clerk's watch, hit him in the head, and shut him in the cooler, with a second witness who came in after.

The defense's case was that the defendant was at a bar a mile and change away from the store, playing a shuffleboard tournament at the time of the robbery.

After all was said and done, the verdict was returned as a hung jury.

I thought we had a pretty good case, but we had worthy opponents who know how to dig and cross and examine. In the end, I'm happy with a hung jury, because that means we convinced at least some members of the jury of guilt (actually, of the 8 jurymembers, 4 wanted to convict and one was on the fence, so it was essentially 4.5 - 3.5).

It was tough. There are so many things to consider when it comes to arguing a case, rules of evidence, rules of procedure, hearsay rules. Then there are witness problems - some witnesses are helpful, some are not so helpful, some who should be good witnesses turn out to be harmful witnesses - for example, it got to a point with one of my witnesses on redirect where I had to flat out tell him the facts, which I normally would not have gotten away with. Then you have the testimony you are unsure about - the stuff from the defense. We did not get to hear from the defense, no theory as to their case, no exculpatory evidence, heck, we didn't even see the defendant until the trial. We had to anticipate not just what the defense's story was but what their witnesses were going to say and then adjust to what they really said on the fly. Trial lawyers need a quick mind and the ability to focus on several things at once. This is multitasking for people's freedom, sometimes lives. It's fun, but I think it was fun for me more because it was a rare occurrance.

I have plenty of room to improve. I need to do a better job understanding the rules of evidence, understanding the rules of procedure, and especially not leading the witnesses, but the important thing for me is the knowledge that if I have to make a living, I could be a criminal trial lawyer.

Trivia

I'm tired from preparing for minitrial, it's been a long day. I had to deal with inanity, which I may or may not get in to later.

Anyway, for a quick break, here's some trivia for you:

Charles Babbage was the inventor of the skeleton key and the cow catcher.

Happy Easter

HAPPY EASTER!

I'll see you in court!

Tuesday is the big day.

That's the day of me and RHM's minitrial. This is the final, so to speak, for our advocacy class. It's what we've spent all semester preparing for, the chance to show off our litigation skills in front of the rest of the class, and put on video for posterity. RHM is more relaxed than I, though I am not as stressed as before. The charge is robbery, dropped from Armed Robbery. We're going against two of the top students in class, one is a Marine entering the JAG while the other has been hired to the DA's office. It's going to be interesting. We've got a tough row to hoe, but we have a decent shot.

I'll post more regularly after this is done - I'll have more free time. Talk to y'all then!

On Intelligent Design, Part 3

This is a continuation of the paper I began earlier this week. You can find Part 2 here.

i. Balanced Treatment

The Court’s ruling in Epperson led to a change in the approach of Creationist instruction. The next step state legislatures took was to adopt a “balanced treatment” standard. One example of this type of statute was Tennessee’s 1973 Public Acts chapter 377. Section 1 of the Act amended Tennessee’s Code to require, inter alia, that any textbooks that proffer any theory on the creation and origin of man first must state that such theory is a theory and not a fact and second give an equal amount of time to the theories involved in the Book of Genesis in the Bible and other sources.[i] Additionally, this section stated that “[t]he teaching of all occult or satanical beliefs of human origin is expressly excluded from this Act.”[ii] Section 2 of the Act granted an exemption for the Bible.[iii] This Act was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit. In Daniel v. Waters, the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tennessee’s Statute unconstitutional:

First, the statute requires that any textbook which expresses an opinion about the origin of man "shall be prohibited from being used" unless the book specifically states that the opinion is "a theory" and "is not represented to be scientific fact." The statute also requires that the Biblical account of creation (and other theories of creation) be printed at the same time, with commensurate attention and equal emphasis. As to all such theories, except only the Genesis theory, the textbook must print the disclaimer quoted above. But the proviso in Section 2 would allow the printing of the Biblical account of creation as set forth in Genesis without any such disclaimer. The result of this legislation is a clearly defined preferential position for the Biblical version of creation as opposed to any account of the development of man based on scientific research and reasoning. For a state to seek to enforce such a preference by law is to seek to accomplish the very establishment of religion which the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States squarely forbids.[iv]

The court also found that the reference to “the occult or satanical beliefs” problematic:

Throughout human history the God of some men has frequently been regarded as the Devil incarnate by men of other religious persuasions. It would be utterly impossible for the Tennessee Textbook Commission to determine which religious theories were "occult" or "satanical" without seeking to resolve the theological arguments which have embroiled and frustrated theologians through the ages. …

The requirement that some religious concepts of creation, adhered to presumably by some Tennessee citizens, be excluded on such grounds in favor of the Bible of the Jews and the Christians represents still another method of preferential treatment of particular faiths by state law and, of course, is forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[v]

And as such, the court found balanced treatment unconstitutional.

---

[i] See 1973 Tenn. Pub. Acts 377.

[ii] Id.

[iii] See Id.

[iv] Daniel v. Waters, 515 f.2d 485, 489 (6^th Cir. 1975)

[v] Id at 491.

On Intelligent Design, Part 2

This is a continuation of the paper I began posting yesterday:

a. History

i. Evolution in School

This country was founded on the principal of religious freedom. For most of our country’s history, Americans interpreted that rule to mean that they could worship God and the Bible as they pleased. So important was the right to religious freedom that the Founding Fathers took care to address it foremost in the Bill of Rights, as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof….”[i] For years, however, religious “creationism” instruction was commonplace in public schools, and the idea that any other theory on the origin of man existed did not exist. This changed with Charles Darwin’s book “On Origin of Species,” which proposed that evolution may account for how people have come to be.

At first, this new theory made little headway into the public education systems across the country. However, as the theory persisted, states resisted by passing laws forbidding schools and teachers from teaching evolutionary theory in public schools. Tennessee passed its Anti-evolution statute which read:

An ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.[ii]

This led to a challenge of the statute by way of high school coach and part-time biology teacher John Scopes, who had been teaching evolution in a state-approved text. He became the defendant in a challenge of the statute that went up to the Tennessee Supreme Court, where the statute was upheld but the decision reversed because the trial judge issued the fine, not the jury.[iii] Ultimately the case was dismissed, but the result of the trial was felt across the country, as only two of the fifteen states that were considering anti-evolution statutes passed them.

One of those two states was Arkansas, which passed its Arkansas statutes §§80-1627 and 1628 in 1929. These statutes, like Tennessee’s statute, made it unlawful to teach evolution in any public school or university.[iv] (SEE endnote). In Epperson et al. v. Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of banning evolution. The Court struck down the Arkansas statute and criticized Tennessee’s statute, ruling

In the present case, there can be no doubt that Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that Arkansas' law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens. It is clear that fundamentalist sectarian conviction was and is the law's reason for existence. Its antecedent, Tennessee's "monkey law," candidly stated its purpose: to make it unlawful "to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." Perhaps the sensational publicity attendant upon the Scopes trial induced Arkansas to adopt less explicit language. It eliminated Tennessee's reference to "the story of the Divine Creation of man" as taught in the Bible, but there is no doubt that the motivation for the law was the same: to suppress the teaching of a theory which, it was thought, "denied" the divine creation of man.[v]

Additionally, the Court stated:

It is of no moment whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties of communication embraced within the term "teaching." Under either interpretation, the law must be stricken because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.[vi]

This ruling effectively established the theory of evolution as standard instruction in the public school systems of this country, and struck a blow against the instruction of Creationism in those same schools.

---

[i] U. S. Const. amend. I.

[ii] 1925 Tenn. Pub. Acts 27.

[iii] See Scopes, 289 S. W. at 367.

[iv] Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 80-1627, 80-1628 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

[v] Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 108 (1968).

[vi] Id at 103.

Iran's PR victory?

After 9-11, the United States declared war. We didn't declare war on an enemy state; we declared war on a concept - terrorism. The president entered us into this war under his Constitutional warmaking authority pursuant to an AUMF signed by Congress. Our goal is to eliminate terror, specifically, Al Qaeda, who was deemed (and later corroborated) to be responsible for the attacks on September 11. One aspect of war is capturing enemy combatants. We captured a lot of people we declared were Al Qaeda members or Al Qaeda supporters, and we held them in, among other places, Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. There, the detainees have been held without the right to challenge their detention, without the right to see the evidence against them, without the right to see the witnesses against them, they are subject to harsh treatment (at one time torture, perhaps, as well), and are subject to coerced confessions, which can be used against them in trial - trials that will be for their lives, for losing their case almost inevitably will result in death. Winning just means they get to go back to Guantanamo Bay, but that's for a different time.

The United States has sent the message to the world that this is how it treats those it captures pursuant to the laws of war. Common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions apply here; the president can't invoke the law of war for the capture and prosecution of enemy combatants and then claim a loophole that allows him to not offer the protections granted by the laws of war (gotta take the bitter with the sweet - one of the major holdings in Hamdan). We have told the world, as the superpower, that we consider this treatment to be acceptable.

A short time ago, 15 british Marines were captured by Iran. They were detained without access to international aid, they were subject to coerced confessions, and they were paraded over the airwaves. Iran had the confessions from the sailors, that they were violating Iranian waters. Iran had a violation of the laws of war, they had a confession, and we really were not in a position to forcefully say "you can't execute them," because that is what we hope to do with the few (I think 10?) detainees currently awaiting trial using coerced confessions as a principal piece of evidence. Yet, they didn't do so. They released the sailors - and there was much rejoicing.

People will argue that Iran had to do this, that it had no other viable choice, because executing the sailors would have invited retaliation, and perhaps that's true, but who would have been the aggressor? Per our actions in the war on terror, said executions would arguably have been justified. The western nations that attacked Iran would be punishing Iran for following the United States' lead.

While one could argue releasing the sailors was the "only" choice, it certainly was the best choice for Iran and the rest of the world. And for all the hateful rhetoric that Ahmedinejad spews, in this instance, he set the proper example.

On Intelligent Design

Last year, I took a seminar class called "education law." I loved that class, so much, in fact, that part of me wanted to become an education law lawyer. Maybe I still want to, I don't know.

Anyway, my paper earned me a B+ in the class, which may have been a little higher than I deserved; I wish I'd have put in a little more time to make a stronger paper. Being that I think many people don't understand the idea of Intelligent Design, or why people are opposed to its teachings, I thought I would do a piece by piece posting on my blog. So, without further ado, here is the introduction, and I apologize in advance for the cites:

In 1927, John Thomas Scopes went on trial for teaching that humans evolved from monkeys. In what was a very controversial issue, the Supreme Court decided that the state was not wrong by refusing to allow the instruction of evolution in public schools. Though Tennessee’s Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts upholding the statute, it did so the on grounds that the Judge levied the fine, not the jury, and the Court declared a nolle prosequi on the famed “Monkey” trial.[i] The past eighty years have seen jurisprudence on this matter nearly stand on its head. Today evolution is a part of virtually every public school’s curriculum while creationism has been all but shut out of the schoolhouse. Some have praised this reversal while some have fought it tooth and nail. Some have even parodied the fight to teach alternative theories[ii].

This paper will discuss the history of Intelligent Design in schools, from its roots in creationism through creative science up to intelligent design. It will explain the tests used to determine whether or not an Intelligent Design program violates the Establishment Clause, how the country reached the position it has regarding intelligent design, as well as where Intelligent Design might stand in Texas. Finally, it will offer a proposed curriculum that incorporates intelligent design into public education while surviving First Amendment muster. First, we will discuss the Constitutionality of teaching evolution.

---

[i] See Scopes v. State, 289 S. W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).

[ii] http://www.venganza.org

So honored

My good friend GTL at Gun Toting Liberal did me quite the honor yesterday. He placed me on his list of five bloggers who make him think. My thanks go to Papamoka, who directed me to the site, where I've had the opportunity to take part in many a great debate.

One of the responsibilities I have as a result of this award, though (much like a chain letter), I have to name five people who make me think. I like this, because it gives me the chance to point people to blogs I read. To be fair, though, I will not include family members (they make me think, but I don't believe in nepotism).

First, I'm going to breach etiquette a little, and point right back to the GTL - I have been the part of a great many discussions on that site and look forward to many more.

Then, in alphabetical order, I offer the following:
2. Bookworm
3. Good Enough Mom
4. Vim and Vinegar
5. War Professor - who has been a bit of an absenteeist for the last several months, but is an excellent poster when she can find the time.

I enjoy everyone on my blogroll, otherwise I would not link to you. It's rather difficult to find a way to narrow the list down, and this list, like GTL's, could easily be different 6 months from now, as it most certainly would have been different 6 months ago. Every one of the blogs above provide well-written positions and unique perspectives that I enjoy reading. They are all courteous, cogent, and congenial, even in disagreement, and many bloggers could take a lesson on rational discourse from any of them.

Objection, Hearsay

Hearsay is: any out of court statement, made by a declarant (person), which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Essentially, this means that the person made the statement to prove that the statement he is making is true.

Great, just great

As if we didn't have enough going on with graduation, and bar review and bar exam and trips to Pennsylvania for training and getting the daughter ready for kindergarten and the Boy going to an advanced program at a different school next year and the little boy potty training...

The rabbit's dead.

"Mission Accomplished"

I've heard the cover story for a long time now - that the banner that flew behind president Bush on March 1, 2003 when he declared a victory in the war on terror (decide for yourself the veracity of that statement) referred to the sailors on the ship, who had, indeed accomplished their mission and done so capably and admirably, and that the president had nothing to do with it.

However, I am also more than certain that the implied message was what president Bush intended to convey, and as Commander in Chief of the military, he could easily have not had that banner flying behind him.

What I want to know, though, is when did the "official" reason for the banner come out? The earliest reference I can see (with my very limited research - school is keeping me very busy today) is from October of 2003, where the White House insisted that, while they made the banner, the Navy requested it and was responsible for it. When did the story get released, and what was the true intent of the President standing in front of the banner to make that speech? Give me dates and links, not speculation.

When you can't deny...

There's always the amnesia defense. I find it incredibly scary that these are the people who were selected for their positions because they were highly qualified (i.e. "competent"), yet they have the memory spans of goldfish (random trivia - pregnant goldfish are called "twits"). How could these people be trusted to run the country when they all apparently suffer from Alzheimer's?

And I don't buy into the crap about this being a witch hunt. Accountability of the executive branch (or of the government at all) is NOT a witch hunt. Perhaps the apologists should stop attacking the people asking the questions and instead starting challenging those who were asked the questions to answer them fully and honestly. Perhaps every step this administration takes is looked upon with strict scrutiny because so many of the previous steps turned out to be deceptive. And perhaps, had this administration exercised its oversight somewhat more effectively in the six years of unquestioned governing, it wouldn't be subject to external oversight now.

Why is it so hard to find a good restaurant on the moon?

Because there's no atmosphere.

That's a bad joke - quite possibly the worst joke I've ever told (most of my jokes, I'm not too modest to admit, are quite the knee-slappers), but I take solace in the fact that it's not my joke, I read it somewhere.

Anyway, it provides a pretty good segue into the point of the post - NASA is testing an inflatable shelter for use on the moon. I must confess, I am nowhere near an expert on outer space, but from what I understand, to inflate something, you would need air, and the moon is pretty much devoid of air, hence the spacesuits worn by Neil Armstrong, et al when they landed in Nevada - er, on the Moon... My conclusion - not based on any science above what I remember from 6th grade, would be that an inflatable ANYTHING on the moon would be a dumb idea - from shelters to pools to those chairs that you get from drinking enough beer or smoking enough cigarettes... But, if NASA can get the government to approve it (and they've granted monies for things just as dumb, e.g. how long it takes to prepare two eggs for breakfast, or the political effects of bullfighting in Spain), then go for it. I'm thinking of asking for a grant of several million dollars to study the effect of having several million dollars in the bank account of a law student with a wife and three kids.

Is He the Guy?

Is this man the best choice for president out there? There are many people, including myself, who say yes.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

The kids woke up at
three this morning, and then had
to sleep next to me

Going Fishing

My father booked a deep-sea fishing trip for us, my father in law, and The Boy for graduation. We got the deposit in this weekend, and the wife of the guy we're chartering called me to confirm. She and I got to talking a bit, because she was at home alone for the day (the Capt. was out fishing), and I was between classes so I had some time to spare. We got to the topic of why we were going fishing and I mentioned it was a graduation gift. She asked where I was going to school. I mentioned I was in law school downtown, to which she replied, "That's ok, Bill (the captain) will take you anyway."

She said some charters won't take lawyers. That made me sad.

Rule Against Perpetuities

When considering the Rule against Perpetuities, you don't look for a particular person as the life-in-being, rather you look at the facts and ask, "Could everyone alive at the time of the grant die and 21 years pass before the interest might vest?" If the answer is yes, then the grant is void as violative of the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Just a refresher before all the bar reviews.

A case of the Mondays

I'm not moving to Salt Lake City. At least, not now.

I woke up early this morning - about 4:45. Laid in bed for an hour and a half, because I didn't want to get up and I kept hoping I'd fall back asleep. I don't ever fall back asleep.

Finally got out of bed, got the kids up, except the apple (youngest son) who wouldn't go downstairs for breakfast. instead, he stayed on the landing informing me that the kitty cat was "there" (on the coffee table). I didn't fight with him, because I was busy fighting with the refrigerator. Maintenance came out some 10 days ago and defrosted it because there was no freezing going on. I ended up having to do the same thing today, because the food we bought over the weekend was still not quite frozen (most of it was, but not all of it), and the milk, coke, water, and diet Dr. Pepper were all warm. Anyway, I spent about 2 hours on that all told this morning, but back to the apple. He informed me of the cat's incredulous decision to be on the coffee table a good 30 times or so, and by then the other kids were back upstairs getting dressed. When I suggested that apple get dressed, he started throwing a temper tantrum that lasted from 6:45 until I left him at daycare a half hour later. Two adults were barely able to get a shirt and shorts on this guy - I never knew toddlers could make their bones disappear at will.

I had an eye exam today. First one in four years. My doctor was curt, to be polite, and just short of rude to be more honest. My appointment was for 10. at 10:37, I went to the receptionist to find out if there was any way I could get an estimate as to when I'd be seen. I asked politely, because I don't want to piss off the office of the doctor who's going to be doing things to my eyes (if I have any true phobias, it would be irrational fear of eye trauma), but I thought to myself as I was inquiring, "you know, I had an appointment on Friday that I missed because I was downtown and they said they couldn't fit me in. I could have gotten back in time to be 45 minutes late, which apparently is about when I'm going to get seen for this appointment. I always operated under the premise of you set appointments so that people know when to be in and out of the clinic. If you are 45 minutes late 2 hours into your workday, then perhaps you need to schedule fewer appointments." Anyway, I had an eye pressure test. I hate eye pressure tests. This one included taking a machine roughly the size of Gerard Depardieu and putting it in my eye socket, without first removing my eye. I got to look at a shiny blue light, but I could not walk towards it, because like all good eye exams, they first put my head in traction. Then I got to look at all the rows of letters with the flipping of the lenses - "which looks better, one, or two?" Seriously, in the history of recorded civilization, has there ever been a one that looked better than a two, or vice versa? I think the doctors are pretty much just flipping a piece of fuzzy glass over and over to mess with us. Anyway, I got my exam done, I need a new prescription (which I got) and after a bunch of toussling with the insurance folks, figured out the reimbursement program for my new frames, which should be ready Wednesday, Thursday at the latest.

All this meant I missed my first two classes of the day (I could have been on time for the second one, but I was 45 minutes late getting seen). Then, I had to rush through the school trying to find the phone number of the opposing counsel to whom I had to deliver the discovery requests and pre-negotiate a plea agreement that he didn't seem too keen on prenegotiating, which I think bites, because, really, I've worked my tail off for that class and just once I'd like to have a week where I didn't really have to work so hard to prepare for class. Anyway, I got that stuff turned in to him, then I had to rush to work to find out how my GLBA went - horribly. I don't think I could have been more wrong, unless I'd done a HIPAA agreement instead. Anyway, I had an hour to fix what took me 3 hours to mess up, and somehow I managed to do it right this time. I actually had a big thing on here that I just deleted regarding this topic; I figured it better to leave it at this.

Then I went back to the daughter's school to pick her up and take her to daycare. She got in the car and immediately asked for her lip-talk. I asked her what she meant, she said lip-talk. I tried to hand her the apple's styrofoam cup "telephone," but that's not a lip-talk. I looked on the chair she was pointing to and saw my folder, a cushion, two CD jewel cases, and a laptop. She wanted the laptop. It's her Barbie Laptop. When she turns it on, Barbie's head comes on the screen and says something to the effect of "welcome to my super-fab laptop." I can see how to a 5 year old listening to a digitized barbie voice emanating from a head with moving mouth that it could sound like lip-talk. So I gave it to her. She played with it. I listened to ESPN Radio. I love having the stereo back, but I've turned into an old man - I no longer listen to music, I listen to talk radio. I'm not an angry old man yet, though, because I don't listen to Rush (who I don't care for) or Savage (who I really don't like).

Then I went back to class. I didn't read for class. I had been too busy with my drafts for my transactional skills class and my mini trial for advocacy that reading kind of took a back burner. Fortunately I didn't get called on, because I was completely unready - first time all semester in that class. Then I had my transactional skills class. I have my review for my first drafts tomorrow. We were supposed to e-mail those in today so that the professors would have time to review. I forgot the 24 hour requirement, but I e-mailed what I had - I'd spent about 4 hours working on my JV this weekend, and had a good bit done. After I e-mailed it 23:50 before the appointment, I opened my JV to see how it looked. There was nothing. All the work I'd done over the weekend was gone. So I spent class not listening to the professors, frantically trying to reconstruct all that I'd done over the weekend. I got a good bit in, a lot of boilerplate, and whatnot, so I went up after class to tell the professors that I'd work on it for an hour or so this evenign and turn it in before I went to bed. The professors both had other obligations for tomorrow (as do I with advocacy), so they suggested we just reschedule. My partner and I agreed heartily. So I have a bunch more time to put together a licensing agreement to go along with my JV. It looks (as of now) that my partner will be doing the distribution agreement, so I have the long of it, but I don't mind.

Anyway, I got home, played with the kids for a few minutes, and then got them shuffled into bed at 8. Now, at 10:00, I think The Boy finally fell asleep.

A tale of two hypotheses

The first one comes from a while back, when the President insisted that he did not need a Warrant to listen in on the telephone conversations of United States Citizens, despite Supreme Court rulings otherwise, the Fourth Amendment, and an unquestionably reasonable alternative to his program (the FISA courts which have a 99.96% Warrant Approval rate and are available post facto). The president's position was that this was a necessary tool in the war against terror and that it's not unconstitutional as he understands the Constitution, and besides, if you have nothing to hide, then why the concern if someone is listening, but they won't be listening anyway, because the NSA follows strict guidelines, but we can't tell you what those are because it would help the Enemy (you know, Terror, which is not an entity, but a theory and therefore the War on Terror could conceivably never end). i can't begin to tell you how many people (all Bush apologists) who argued that this is a minor inconvenience - yes, facially violating the Fourth Amendment is a "minor inconvenience" - and I need to be "rational."

Now, these same people are defending Alberto Gonzalez and the administration in defending him against requests to go up before Congress pursuant to a subpoena to testify as to the involvement regarding the firing of 8 US Attorneys for, what the document dumps have illustrated, appear to be partisan reasons (i.e. they weren't "loyal bushies"). The president has gone so far as to say that he has proposed "reasonable" alternatives to testifying under oath, which is, talking off the record, and that the information Gonzalez et al. possess is protected under "executive privilege." This is a separation of powers issue, and there is certainly an issue to consider as to whether or not this is something that could be protected by executive privilege. I would like to limit executive privilege, and I fear that the administration's attempts to expand it would impermissibly extend the power of the executive branch to such point that there may no longer be co-equal branches in government, which is, in my estimation, exactly what this president wants - expansion of Presidential powers under a Unitary Executive Theory. For those Republicans who support this concept, I ask you, are these the keys you'd be willing to hand Hillary should she win in '08? That scares me almost as much as Bush operating under this theory, but I digress. The point is that in this case, the President has essentially been asked - "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you resist these people going under oath to testify?" One idea, as John Dean, the author of the link above says: "[Y]ou show me a White House aide who does not want his conversations and advice to the president revealed, and I will show you someone who should not be talking with or advising the president."

Anyway, here's the contrast - the first problem is a Constitutional issue - the administration violated the Fourth Amendment - the rights preserved for the protection of the People from the overreaching of the Government. The second one is a personal issue. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is there any mention of "executive privilege." The concept, such as it exists, is a creature of the Administrations past (Nixon and Clinton relied on this concept), and any reach it does have is limited and should remain limited - lest we become a nation of subjects and no longer a nation of the Free.

Busy Morning

The last few weeks have been rather busy. Today, I had to notarize and mail out my bar application, finish drafting a GLBA, and still have to work on a licencing agreement, a distribution agreement and a Joint Venture agreement.

On the bright side, my bar application is mailed in - late fee and everything. I elected to send the payment via teller's check, so that I could be sure that the group I was paying (the board of law examiners) was the only group that could pay, and that the money would definitely be there when they tried to cash it.

I interviewed for the job in the office in which I'm interning on Thursday - long story short, I won't be getting the job and I'm ok with that. Yesterday, we went and met the audit department - it's much lower stress, and the pay would be about the same, maybe a LITTLE bit higher, but not much. And when my boss heard that I'd be willing to move to Utah for the right price, she sent my resume up to the general counsel office up there. That's probably chasing a rainbow, but it would be much closer to gramma, papa, the aunt and uncle and cousin(s).

Anyway, that's the current update - I need to get my resume out to more people. And I'm tired. And I have to get ready for Plea Bargaining and hearings on motions for Tuesday, and to meet with the model corporation regarding the agreements. And the reading. Always the reading.

Every Little Thing

When I was a senior in high school, I was selected to play with the University of Washington band at a basketball game. At the time, a girl that I'd had a big thing for in Junior High and High School, who had graduated two years before me attended UW. One of the pieces we played was "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic," and while I played it, it reminded me of the girl who I had the crush on. And, ever since then, whenever I hear the song, it reminds me of the University of Washington, which reminds me of the girl I had the crush on, who I married 9 years later.

I like the Police a bit more today than I did in 1991.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

I'm going fishing!
After graduation, yay
I've waited too long!

I look forward to reading your submissions

Flip-flopping

I remember hearing my whole life that gay was a choice, that a person decided to be gay. It was a conscious decision, not a product of nature. I remember this being the prevailing thought process for many, many years.

But, apparently, there has been a switch in thinking. No longer is gay a choice, you are born gay. It's not something you catch, it's something that's inside you. That's the only logical conclusion, isn't it, when a president of a seminary suggests that there should be "prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation," and that such treatment would be biblically justified.

I can't begin to conceive of how insane this is...
If God made man in his image, and gay is a biological trait, then how is it a sin to be born the way God made you? Am I oversimplifying? Perhaps, instead of trying to cure what God made, we should reconsider what man wrote in His Book...

Bushspeak?

The administration said that "mistakes were made" regarding the firing of eight federal prosecutors pursuant to e-mails that indicated they were not "loyal bushies." However, the President is not on record as saying that "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

Read that for a minute - it's not improper, in the Executive branch of the United States Federal Government, to make mistakes that result in the termination of individuals who received excellent assessments.

I don't really care if the President fires US Attorneys. That's part of his job. I don't like that the attorneys were fired pursuant to a PATRIOT ACT provision that seems unrelated to the reason the attorneys were fired. I don't like that the administration first blamed Harriet Miers, and said that Karl Rove had nothing to do with it, when he in fact, did, and I really don't like the "reasonable alternative" that the president has offered - that it is unnecessary to put these individuals under oath to testify as to the role of the firings. I really hate the idiotic "but Clinton did it, too." So what? President Bush ran on a platform that he was going to bring respectibility back to the White House. He has not done so. And he needs to start holding those who work for him accountable to the American Public when they make "mistakes." If Congress believes that putting them under oath to have a record of their testimony, then that's what should happen.

I certainly don't want the precedents that this administration has suggested here and in other issues to move on to a potential Hillary White House - bad bad bad.

Not a Kafka Dream

So, I had spring break. Sort of. I worked every day, I have a contract I need to finish drafting for review by the Contracts department, I have to apply for the position for which I'm interviewing on Thursday, and I have not been sleeping as much as I'd like. Over spring break, I had over 150 pages I was supposed to read for class on Monday and Tuesday, plus a licensing agreement and a joint venture agreement that I had to start drafting, plus I was selected to be the attorney for the pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress for class today, when I entered into spring break thinking I'd finally get a week off (I've been lawyer 6 of 9 weeks, more than anyone else in class except one, who also has 6), so I had to draft a bench brief - I finally got one done, but it's not very good and I didn't rely on it for my argument. I had to draft questions to interview my client and to conduct the direct on her and the cross on the police officer, and I didn't fully understand what we were doing, and didn't get much guidance in the support materials.

After 10 hours at school yesterday, I got home and started writing. I wrote and I drafted, and I swore and I hit the table and the chair and the computer and the c- well, I couldn't catch the cats to hit, but I would have (note to PETA people, I'm joking). Anyway, I got to bed at about 11:35 last night, too tired to fall asleep and too stressed about the case for today to be able to relax enough to drift off. So instead, my subconscious goes into overdrive.

I dream that I'm having a conversation about work and contract drafting with a dead bird. It looked like an Amazon bird, very colorful, but without the big Toucan beak. It was laying flat on its side, and (someone?) was holding it so that it was a straight line from the beak to the feet. (They?) were going to cut its head off for some reason, and I kept trying to stop them from doing so because it was the only thing that could guide me through my contract issues and prepare me for trial the next day.

Then I realized I was going insane. And I tried to relax, but I couldn't, because all I could think about was why I was thinking about some dead talking bird.

Shocked and Appalled

Wrestlers use steroids?! In what world? I can't believe this would ever happen.


Oh, and CSI Miami is on. They just did a test to recover fingerprints from a pair of sunglasses - there was exactly ONE print on them, and it was a whole print recovered from one of the lenses. Because when I commit a crime and then touch glasses, I make sure to touch one lens and only with one finger. I HATE THIS SHOW!

New Links

I've started reading a couple new blogs. The first one, Vim and Vinegar, is written by a former bar member in North Carolina (I believe), who writes far better than I could hope to match. She's got good insight, and I've enjoyed reading her comments at the Gun Toting Liberal for some time now.

The second blog, which I've not yet blogrolled, is Dick Polman's blogspot. He's a political journalist from Philadelphia, so he's got the writing and research skills of a seasoned journalist combined with the personal involvement that comes with a blog. His writing is quite good, and his points are very well made. The most recent example can be found here. If you have an eye for politics (and are critical of the current administration) then I think you'd enjoy this blog.

And the Boy is No Slouch, Either

The Boy took the test today - not too shabby!

Remember the Sabbath Day, and Keep it Holy

Just in case people forget, last week, General Pace condemned homosexuality as "immoral," in support of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

I think that at this time DADT is the best policy for the military simply because I don't think war is the time to integrate open homosexuality to a hostile group in a hostile environment. But that's beside the point.

The point is that the general pointed out that Homosexuality is immoral, and Sam Brownback agreed. Because it's immoral, and the military shouldn't condone immorality. The military needs to stick to the teachings of the bible, which condemns homosexuality - hence the source of the "immoral" concept. So, I think the military must do a better job of following the teachings of the bible. This means that the military should stop killing - it's one of the ten commandments. And let's not forget adultery - I seem to remember a lot of husbands and wives cheating while they were overseas while the command "officially" condemned it then turned the other way. And of course, remembering the Sabbath Day - I don't believe breaking the Lord's commandments on Sunday is in keeping with this commandment either. And Thou Shalt Not Lie? Don't we partake in disinformation in the military? How is that not lying?

Or is it just that morality is relative? And these aren't breaking the commandments, because they still believe in the spirit of the commandments, and thus they are not immoral?

Or, if breaking the commandments is a sign of immorality, then why would we not way the immoral gays fighting and killing and lying and breaking all those laws that were written by the Lord?

As If It Were Ever In Doubt...

Thanks to Good Enough Mom for the link!

Isn't it Ironic?

President Bush accused Democrats of using troops as leverage to win political battles.

He then said that the budgets for Afghanistan and Iraq must be approved "without strings and without delay," so that Congress can prove that they support the troops. Because the only way to support the troops is by giving President Bush exactly what he demands, even though his direction has, by his own admission, not gone well.

I think it's high time Congress showed the President, through its at least six separate Constitutionally granted national defense provisions, that troop support does not equate to blind allegiance to a general who declared Mission Accomplished in 2003 to a job we're still working on today.

And perhaps the President should not suggest that those who don't follow him blindly do not support the troops. Someone might consider that using the troops as leverage.

How I Spent My Spring Break

This was my last Spring Break in school. So I spent it the way anyone would spend their last bit of freedom: I worked. And I studied. And I wrote for class. And I'm going to look over a midterm tomorrow. And I still have to figure out what a bench brief is and how to draft one. And I have to write the critiques of the opening statements and jury arguments from last week. Spring Break, my foot.

But, we did take some time to do some fun things. Last Sunday we went to the Zoo, and the kids had a blast. And yesterday, after work, the wife and I took the kids to the Rodeo. It's about 20 miles away, and it took us over an hour to get there. Traffic in Houston sucks. But it was pretty cool. We didn't actually get in to the Rodeo itself, but we spent time at the livestock show, where we got to see a gaggle of swooning girls standing on various tractors and other equipment to try to get a picture of some Country Singer guy - don't ask me who, as far as I can tell there's only one country singer and he wears different wigs and or outfits to pretend he's a different singer.

Then we went to the food circus. This is similar to any other food circus at any annual event. The kids had alligator, I had a pulled pork sandwich and fries, and the wife had a sausage on a bun with fried, and we had 3 drinks, so we spent about $31. The gator was the cheapest part of the meal.

Then we went on to the carnival rides. The kids loved the rides, especially the little roller coaster. The little boy and the wife went on a pink elephant ride, which I understand he enjoyed quite a bit. But perhaps the best ride was the 150' ferris wheel, which afforded a great view of the city, and of the area that once was Astroworld (a lot smaller than I'd have thought it would be for an amusement park).

All in all, we had a good time yesterday. Tonight I get to watch the kids and prep for trial while the wife goes out partying. I think we'll have pizza. Or cat food. Whichever is quicker...

The best musical

Well, maybe not the best, but one of my favorites has got to be Man of La Mancha.

If I ever get a horse, I'm going to name her Rosinante.

It's March 14th!

Happy Pi day!

3.14159265-something...

Maintenance

Our guest bathroom toilet leaks. It's been leaking for quite some time now. I put in a repair request twelve days ago.

The refrigerator is not refrigerating. The freezer is not freezing. The air conditioner is not conditioning. We put the work orders in for these yesterday, after which the main office said they'd send someone out "today." Nobody came.

So I went back today and requested they come and fix our air conditioning (it's been in the 80s the last few days), and that they come and fix our refrigerator, lest we lose some $35 in meat and a bunch in other foods. They apologized for not sending someone out yesterday, and that the guy was there, and they'd send him "right over." I said great, I'd be gone for a little bit, but I'd be right home.

I went to the grocery store - we have little food that's not in the freezer, and we were out of milk; I wanted some ready for when the fridge would be repaired so the kids could have breakfast.

I got back from the grocery store, and as I'm bringing in the last of the groceries (Coca-cola - it's a necessity), a maintenance guy shows up. "I have a work order for your toilet, it's leaking?" "Yes, but please tell me you're also here for the refrigerator and A/C." "Sorry, no."

I was happy, let me tell you.

Then the guy offered to look at the refrigerator - thank goodness - nice guy.
Then, while he was working on that, about 20 minutes later, the other maintenance guy shows up, and he fixes the A/C. So now I have a working A/C, a toilet that still runs, but doesn't leak, and a refrigerator that's about to be put back together, hopefully defrosted and working right.

And I'm only halfway through my case for Tuesday, for which I must prepare a bench brief, which I don't even know what it is, let alone how to draft one. Fun fun fun, but I have no T-bird to take away.

Funny

We went out to eat today after going to the zoo. The kids had a great time at the zoo, though I got a little dehydrated, but that's beside the point. We went to Fuddrucker's - which has pretty darn good hamburgers - and ate there.

While we were eating, a family came in and sat down behind my wife and daughter - so I could see them, but wife and daughter couldn't. Anyway, there was a guy who sat down with a shirt that had some clever writing on it, which I thought I'd share with you verbatim:

Stupidity is not a crime. Your free to go.

Even if I had laughed out loud at it, I don't think they guy would have understood why.

The New Math

President Bush a short time ago announced that after listening to the input of such sources as the ISG, the military, and anyone else he could say he talked to, he had decided to increase the troop strength in Iraq by 21,500. He assured us, on national television, that this increase would be all the extra forces we would need to secure Iraq and end the sectarian violence - the violence that didn't exist until we invaded Iraq based on faulty premises (seriously, if the President truly believed that they were responsible for assisting Al Qaeda, as he said he believed after every other reason he fronted fell apart - and don't give me that shit about how democrats believed the same thing, I don't care - THEY DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ BECAUSE OF IT - then why did he insist on a new authorization for use of military force, when the one issued after 9-11 clearly authorized using any means necessary to destroy those who supported the people the president determined were responsible for the 9-11 attacks? I really want to know), and that we would then win the war that he and his administration up until recently insisted was going well and that the damn MSM was losing us this war. He insisted this was the case. I remember, because I posted on it shortly thereafter, saying I hope he's right, but I'm skeptical.

Apparently, he was lying to us. But he's not known for that, so this is a shock to the american public. It seems he approved sending an additional 4400 troops to Iraq for necessary support for the surge. As you can tell by the title, I think I've figured out the way for the President to sell this to his base, since nobody else is likely to believe anything he ever says again (and this was before this latest bit of silliness) - use new math.

You see, we did send 21,500, and that's all that is needed. But we need to augment that number by adding 4400 people. That normally would be 25,900 people, or 100 short of 26,000. Since we're short of that amount, we don't estimate 26,000 - we would estimate low, or 25,000. That of course, leads us to being over by 900 people. You add that to the 100 we were short on the initial estimation to keep us from 26,000, and you get 1000. You subract 1000 from the 4400 that we sent, because they didn't go under our estimate, and you get 3400. Now, you take that 3400 and you subtract them from the 25,000, because we didn't send 3400, we sent 4400. That gets you to 25,000 - 3400 = 21,600, or an increase of only 100 people, which, if you remember is the same number we were short on 26,000, so we can take that off and leads us to the proper equation - 21,500 + 4400 = 21,500.

Can't be simpler than that.

Did I do the right thing?

I intern at a bank, in the contracts analysis department. I like the office I'm in; the people are nice, the hours are more friendly than law-firm hours would be (though with the high volume they're currently experiencing and understaffing they currently face, it's more than a 9-5er), and it's not as adversarial in nature. Additionally, they are looking to hire a new analyst, and have told me that they will pull my resume when I apply.

One of my classmates, a friend, asked me last week how I got involved in the internship, and if I knew of any jobs in this area... I hesitated. Job hunting for soon to be graduates can be rather territorial, and if you get a lead that you want, it can be very tempting to not divulge that to others who are looking. Finally, I did tell her, figuring that if she was better suited for the job than I was, I shouldn't be the reason she doesn't get hired. I also told her to let me know when she sent the resume in so I could tell my supervisor, who could tell HR to pull her resume.

I feel bad, because even though the bank had not yet posted the job opening when my friend asked, I waited to tell her. I still haven't put my resume in - it's going to take a while to get through the application process on the bank's end - and she hasn't suffered any from the delay, but I can't help but feel bad that I didn't tell her because of selfish reasons.

Why don't I feel better about having told her?

Shameful Confessions

I confess that on more than one occasion, I have taken the elevator to go up one floor (e.g. first to second floor).

Your turn.

That Darn MSM

They're attacking the Republicans again. This time, the report announces that Newt Gingrich, the man who led the charge against Clinton during his impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair, was actually carrying on an extramarital affair at the time.

Except, wait - Newt admitted to the affair. So this wasn't undercover MSM work trying to discredit a prominent republican for daring to be republican. And hold on - he admitted to the affair to James Dobson, who, last I checked was nowhere near the MSM.

But here's the strange thing, so me. Dobson didn't vilify Gingrich for failing to obey the 10 commandments, at least, the Methodist version, which says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." That doesn't seem to be a very pro-family action.

I don't presume for a moment that Gingrich and Clinton are the only politicians who have had affairs. I find it interesting that the affair was such a big deal to this hypocrite, which now suggests that it was little more than political posturing, which is exactly what the Neocons are now pleading for the democrats to not do.

I don't like the democrats, and I would not vote for any of them, except maybe a Richardson/Obama ticket, but stuff like this makes me want to cast an opposition vote just to keep the republicans out of office. Still, I'm probably going to vote Libertarian again.

Entering Law School advice

Today, I got to participate in a round table discussion/luncheon at our school. Included were students, faculty, staff, attorneys, and judges, including (in my group) the Honorable Lynn Hughes, and in other groups Texas Supreme Court Justice Medina, and several others.

One of the discussions in our group revolved around what the school needs to do to help produce more effective lawyers. One of the glaring problems mentioned by the lawyers and the judge revolved around professionalism. Future lawyers of the world - appearances matter, not just for you, but for the attorney you work for, the firm you work for, the judge you work for, and the client you work for. What does it say about my law firm if my associate does a client intake/meeting for me and her hair is wet? Or he's not wearing his shoes? Start the habit early, as a 1L of preparing yourself to look like a lawyer - it matters.

Not only will you look better, but you're probably going to be better prepared in class - think better, respond better, and get more out of the educational experience. Don't wear a hat to class, shave, brush your hair, little things go a long way.

Random Trivia

Harry S Truman was the last president to not have a college degree.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Classes nixed Friday
Early start to spring break, but
Saturday test - blah.

As usual, I look forward to reading your contributions

Jurors Talk about the Scooter Libby trial

And why they found him guilty, here.

Pet Peeve

One thing that continuously gets my goat (Besides goat rustlers) are groups of 2 or three people who insist on walking side by side, slow as molasses, oblivious to the fact that there are several people in the hall, or on the sidewalk, or wherever these people are gabbing, trying to get by them. I'm not saying that we are more important than you, but your conversation is certainly not more important than free flow of traffic. Make a hole; let people move, darnit.

Are there any other goat-getters out there?

Opening Statement, First Draft

May it please the Court?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,

Today, you have been called by the state to take a test. This test has but one, true/false question: “Richard Steven Mantooth is guilty of burglary of a habitation.” You don’t have to go this alone, though. We will paint a picture for you, one which will lead you to the correct answer. Consider the facts and evidence carefully, though, because only the correct answer will lead to justice being served.

Joseph and Katharine Bass are your neighbors. Like all of you, they live in Newtown. They are not natives; they came to Newtown pursuing their piece of the American dream – a home of their own in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood, the type of neighborhood we all strive to keep alive. The Basses wanted a yard, a place for their child to play, a place for barbeques, a place with a patio, where they could sit on a warm summer evening and drink lemonade while their son chased fireflies. They wanted a street, with sidewalks upon which their son could learn to ride his bike, and friends with whom to play ball. The Bass family found that home at 316 North Manus Drive, and for three years, they had all this, here in Newtown.

Then, just after they rang in the new year last year, something happened to their serene world. On January 17^th, while her husband was at work, Katharine was called away on an errand, a short jaunt from home, one of those things that we all have to do from time to time. Like most errands, she was not gone long, less than an hour. But that’s all it took to destroy the tranquility the Basses found in our town.

It was like those “what’s different in this picture” invasions – one where everything looked right, but was certainly not. The house seemed normal enough at first glance, but quickly, Katharine noticed something askew. The Bass’ bedrooms, the most private places in their home, where they felt most secure, had heard the steps of foreign feet. Their dressers, probed by strange hands, dirty fingers rifling the private recesses of their home.

These hands didn’t stop at disturbing the security the Basses had come to know in our town. They took from the Basses. The police report said jewelry and radios, total value between $2500 and $300 were stolen, but that’s only because there were no boxes marked security, or memories, and no report could estimate the sentimental value of those items stolen.

The next day, January 18^th, the police receive a call from a local pawn shop. A man was in, trying to sell jewelry and radios – the very same items those foreign footsteps walked off with from the Bass house the day before. That man was Richard Steven Mantooth.

The state will introduce evidence demonstrating that Richard Steven Mantooth entered into the Bass’ home at 316 North Manus Drive on January 17^th of last year, without permission. The state will show that Mr. Mantooth intended to commit a theft from the Bass’ home. It will show that Mr. Mantooth took from the Bass’ home, without permission, two transistor radios, jewelry, including a brooch, an antique lapel watch, and an heirloom watch. The state will offer evidence that Mr. Mantooth then took his ill-gotten gains to a local pawn shop, where he intended to sell the items. The state will show through evidence that Richard Steven Mantooth is guilty of burglary of a habitation.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the state has one question for you to answer: “Richard Steven Mantooth is guilty of burglary of a habitation, true or false?” By the end of this trial, you will have been provided with all the information you will need to reach the right conclusion. If you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Richard Mantooth is guilty of burglary of a habitation, then you will answer true. If there is ANY reasonable doubt, after hearing all the evidence, then you will answer false. Your answer will be the right answer, so make sure you are well prepared to find it.

Weekend Update

The kids played with bubbles today. I don't know what it is about bubbles that kids love so much, but I'm glad for it.

The in-laws came to town Wednesday night. We got the new car Thursday afternoon, and they left Friday morning.

We have a new car. It's a 2001 Chevy Cavalier. It's essentially Chevrolet's version of the Escort, but this one is more recent than the Escort was, had no broken bumper, has a heater, upholstry, and a stereo. So while it's a lateral transfer, it's also a step up, so I guess it's a diagonal transfer.

I like it. It's nice to have something to listen to besides myself in the mornings - I can get boring after 3 years driving downtown.

We're having steak tonight - I'm cooking. Go me.

Random Trivia

When a cat in Egypt died, the cat's owners would shave their eyebrows in mourning.