I've gone to several blogs over the past several days that have addressed President Bush's handling of the Scooter Libby sentence. What I've noticed, mostly from anonymous commentators, because the anonymous usually are the loudest and most ignorant, wishing to spew bile without anyone knowing who they are, is that there are a couple basic arguments that are going through the system in defense of the President.
First - "The President has absolute power to grant pardons." Yes. That is true. Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." However, Libby was not pardoned. His prison sentence was commuted. To clarify that he was not pardoned, the president himself has said that he has not ruled out pardoning Libby at a later time. This means, necessarily, that President Bush did not use his Pardoning power. Perhaps is granted a reprieve, but that seems to be more a matter of semantics, and there seems to still be a potentially legitimate question as to the Constitutionality of the President's act, though most people also seem to agree that it is within his power.
Second - "Clinton granted 450 pardons" aka the Clinton did it too defense. I feel it would be remiss to let this defense go without noting that this administration rode into Washington under the premise that it would "restore honor to the White House," that Bush would be a different President, a better President, than Clinton was. It boggles my mind how on the one hand, the President can express a desire to be better than his predecessor while on the other, his supporters insist that people should not criticize his actions because "Clinton did it, too." It rings hollow, and does not address the fact that President Bush is a poor President.
Third - "Congress's approval ratings are worse than the President's. They should just shut up." This is apparently true, according to recent polls. But what it fails to mention is that Congress' approval ratings are as low as they are because, in the minds of many Americans, Congress has not done enough to pull in the reins on President Bush, and they view this Congress as weak in the face of the President. This isn't a dislike of the "Democrat Congress," it's a dislike of the "Do nothing to stop an unpopular President and an unpopular war-stonewalling Congress." Ultimately, the digust goes back to the President.
Perhaps the act of commuting Libby's sentence would not be so difficult to swallow on the premise of the President's explanation if he had used his authority and discretion a little more prior to now. According to the internet research I've done (admittedly cursory), while he was Governor of Texas, President Bush pardoned 19 people, six of whom proved their innocence, something Libby didn't do. He has pardoned 113 as president, as of March 11 2007. All the while, the president has expressed as his rationale the importance of the rule of law and the decisions reached by the people. That is what makes the pre-incarceration sentencing of Libby all the more bizarre and seemingly hypocritical, and reeks of cronyism.
President Bush isn't the first president to be unpopular. He's also not the first president to engage in apparent (or outright) cronyism. That said, it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't do anything but preserve a few popularity points from his base. But, when you're near the bottom, you do what you must to keep from hitting it, regardless of how it looks.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Independence Day, 2007
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Random Trivia
More shoplifters are arrested on Wednesdays in January than any other time of the year.
Monday, July 02, 2007
"I respect the jury's verdict"
That's what the Decider said. Then he said, "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."
Let's rephrase that. What the President said, in essence, is "While I know that the Jury found the defendant guilty, I don't think he should go to prison, because he's my VP's former aide. But, since I'm going to get too much backlash if I pardon him, I'm just going to see to it that he doesn't go to jail. In other words, he's not going to be fully punished for breaking the law."
So, it's easy to see that he respects the jury's decision, so much so that he's going to reverse part their decision. Now, he's not getting off scot-free. He does still have probation, and a $250,000 fine. And let's not forget the damage to his reputation, and professional work in the legal community (why not keep him off the bar altogether?) But, the meat of the punishment is the prison sentence, and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of blowing smoke. What this act by the President does, in essence, is show that he feels his administration is not subject to the checks and balances provided for by the Constitution, and that the People have no say in how his office is governed. "I respect their decision. I considered their decision. They are wrong. Only I know the right punishment." The Decider, indeed. By the people, for the people be damned, this is his show, and he wants to make sure EVERYONE knows it. I for one am disgusted at this. Shame on President Bush.
CROSS POST: Check out Just Wondering's post on Vim and Vinegar - she has another view on this, and is equally unhappy with the result.
Let's rephrase that. What the President said, in essence, is "While I know that the Jury found the defendant guilty, I don't think he should go to prison, because he's my VP's former aide. But, since I'm going to get too much backlash if I pardon him, I'm just going to see to it that he doesn't go to jail. In other words, he's not going to be fully punished for breaking the law."
So, it's easy to see that he respects the jury's decision, so much so that he's going to reverse part their decision. Now, he's not getting off scot-free. He does still have probation, and a $250,000 fine. And let's not forget the damage to his reputation, and professional work in the legal community (why not keep him off the bar altogether?) But, the meat of the punishment is the prison sentence, and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of blowing smoke. What this act by the President does, in essence, is show that he feels his administration is not subject to the checks and balances provided for by the Constitution, and that the People have no say in how his office is governed. "I respect their decision. I considered their decision. They are wrong. Only I know the right punishment." The Decider, indeed. By the people, for the people be damned, this is his show, and he wants to make sure EVERYONE knows it. I for one am disgusted at this. Shame on President Bush.
CROSS POST: Check out Just Wondering's post on Vim and Vinegar - she has another view on this, and is equally unhappy with the result.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Price Wars and Judicial Activism, Conservative Style
I've been reluctant to really jump on the Court-bashing bandwagon, because I think a lot of the time, people are more prone to calling a decision bad based on what they want the law to be, not because they disagree with the rationale behind the law.
However, I think that when you have two recently appointed members to the Supreme Court who, during confirmation hearings insisted they respected stare decisis (precedent), and they make up 40% of the majority decision in a case that overturns a 96 year old precedent, then there is evidence of a problem.
The case decided was Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS Inc. In the decision, the Court overruled the "Dr. Miles Rule," which held that minimum price standards established by manufacturers were per se violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The decision was written by Justice Kennedy, who determined that the per se rule was of "slight relevance," and that "Vertical price restraints are to be judged according to a rule of reason."
What this decision essentially does is place the burden on the consumer (i.e. you) to show collusion on the part of the manufacturers (i.e. business). It allows the manufacturers to set the minimum price for a product, and to sell the product at that price, until that price is proven in a court of law to be unreasonable. The burden of proving that it's unreasonable is on the person buying the product, who, probably doesn't have the means to try a case on the price of a shirt, or vase. This thought process is voiced by the lead dissenter, Justice Breyer, who said "The only safe predictions to make about today's decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail and that it will create considerable legal turbulence." Who's going to pay for that legal turbulence? Not the manufacturers, who will pass the price on to you.
Of course, there are those who say that this decision is all well and good. For example, Quentin Riegel, the National Association of Manufacturers vice president for litigation said "[T]his ruling does not legalize resale price maintenance. ... Resale price maintenance will be illegal, and subject to triple damages and attorneys' fees, if the manufacturer can provide no reasonable, pro-competitive justification for it." (emphsasis mine) That is not a tough standard to meet, and it's shameful that the Court would make such an activist decision in the absence of Congressional action on the matter. This is exactly what Justice Scalia complains about time and again, that if the people are unhappy with a decision, they need to seek remedy through the legislature, yet, when the people clearly are not unhappy with a decision, and legislature has had ample time to reverse through legislation what the Court did in interpreting prior legislation, what does he do? He throws the decision out the door, whimsically, hypocritically. It weakens his arguments in past Court decisions, where he's dissented on the point that the People have a legislative remedy, and it hurts his credibility in my eyes, just a little bit. (I single Scalia out because he's opined on this precise issue time and again over the past 20 years, yet apparently determined that he needn't practice what he preaches when he has the majority vote.)
I will still look at each decision independently, and won't skewer the Court as a whole, but this one was bad, in my opinion.
However, I think that when you have two recently appointed members to the Supreme Court who, during confirmation hearings insisted they respected stare decisis (precedent), and they make up 40% of the majority decision in a case that overturns a 96 year old precedent, then there is evidence of a problem.
The case decided was Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS Inc. In the decision, the Court overruled the "Dr. Miles Rule," which held that minimum price standards established by manufacturers were per se violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The decision was written by Justice Kennedy, who determined that the per se rule was of "slight relevance," and that "Vertical price restraints are to be judged according to a rule of reason."
What this decision essentially does is place the burden on the consumer (i.e. you) to show collusion on the part of the manufacturers (i.e. business). It allows the manufacturers to set the minimum price for a product, and to sell the product at that price, until that price is proven in a court of law to be unreasonable. The burden of proving that it's unreasonable is on the person buying the product, who, probably doesn't have the means to try a case on the price of a shirt, or vase. This thought process is voiced by the lead dissenter, Justice Breyer, who said "The only safe predictions to make about today's decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail and that it will create considerable legal turbulence." Who's going to pay for that legal turbulence? Not the manufacturers, who will pass the price on to you.
Of course, there are those who say that this decision is all well and good. For example, Quentin Riegel, the National Association of Manufacturers vice president for litigation said "[T]his ruling does not legalize resale price maintenance. ... Resale price maintenance will be illegal, and subject to triple damages and attorneys' fees, if the manufacturer can provide no reasonable, pro-competitive justification for it." (emphsasis mine) That is not a tough standard to meet, and it's shameful that the Court would make such an activist decision in the absence of Congressional action on the matter. This is exactly what Justice Scalia complains about time and again, that if the people are unhappy with a decision, they need to seek remedy through the legislature, yet, when the people clearly are not unhappy with a decision, and legislature has had ample time to reverse through legislation what the Court did in interpreting prior legislation, what does he do? He throws the decision out the door, whimsically, hypocritically. It weakens his arguments in past Court decisions, where he's dissented on the point that the People have a legislative remedy, and it hurts his credibility in my eyes, just a little bit. (I single Scalia out because he's opined on this precise issue time and again over the past 20 years, yet apparently determined that he needn't practice what he preaches when he has the majority vote.)
I will still look at each decision independently, and won't skewer the Court as a whole, but this one was bad, in my opinion.
Cats
I've been fortunate enough to have three children, all of whom have loved the musical Cats at some point in their young lives (usually between 2 and 4).
Right now the Apple is going through his Cats phase. He loves dancing to the introduction, as well as for the Rum Tum Tugger. His favorite cat is Mr. Mistoflees, and he gets animated and excited EVERY TIME McCavity shows up (Daddy! Macabidy! Macabidy dere! Oh no!). Then when McCavity leaves after the big fight, ("Daddy, where Macabidy go? Macabidy not dere!")
I find I prefer Mungojerry and Rumpleteaser myself, though I do enjoy Gus's story. There's just something about the poor old guy remembering what it was like when he was in his prime. Perhaps its the sense of inevitability to it; I don't know.
Anyway, we're watching Cats again. To be honest, I'm surprised the tape isn't dead yet, as much as it's been played over the past six years. Maybe I can assist it's demise one night while the kids are asleep...
Right now the Apple is going through his Cats phase. He loves dancing to the introduction, as well as for the Rum Tum Tugger. His favorite cat is Mr. Mistoflees, and he gets animated and excited EVERY TIME McCavity shows up (Daddy! Macabidy! Macabidy dere! Oh no!). Then when McCavity leaves after the big fight, ("Daddy, where Macabidy go? Macabidy not dere!")
I find I prefer Mungojerry and Rumpleteaser myself, though I do enjoy Gus's story. There's just something about the poor old guy remembering what it was like when he was in his prime. Perhaps its the sense of inevitability to it; I don't know.
Anyway, we're watching Cats again. To be honest, I'm surprised the tape isn't dead yet, as much as it's been played over the past six years. Maybe I can assist it's demise one night while the kids are asleep...
Friday, June 29, 2007
The Darndest Things
The kids had splash day at daycare today, while I had Bankruptcy in BarBri. Would that I could have swapped.
When the kids got home this evening, I asked the Apple (little boy) a few questions about his day:
"Did you have splash day today?"
"Yes"
"Did you get wet?"
"Yes"
"Did you have fun?"
"Yes"
"Do you like playing in the water?"
"Yes"
"Do you love daddy?"
"Nope."
But I'm pretty sure he does.
When the kids got home this evening, I asked the Apple (little boy) a few questions about his day:
"Did you have splash day today?"
"Yes"
"Did you get wet?"
"Yes"
"Did you have fun?"
"Yes"
"Do you like playing in the water?"
"Yes"
"Do you love daddy?"
"Nope."
But I'm pretty sure he does.
Taking a Break From All Your Worries Sure Would Help a Lot
I need to get to the Y. But my Gym clothes are in the dryer.
I'm so tired - I need to rest, but I really can't nap - not enough time.
I shouldn't be blogging, but I need to work myself back up to studying, which I'll do once I get to the Y.
I should be reviewing Bankruptcy, though, or at least previewing Agency and Partnership.
Does anyone want my kids for three weeks in July? I promise I'll try to remember to take them back.
I'm so tired - I need to rest, but I really can't nap - not enough time.
I shouldn't be blogging, but I need to work myself back up to studying, which I'll do once I get to the Y.
I should be reviewing Bankruptcy, though, or at least previewing Agency and Partnership.
Does anyone want my kids for three weeks in July? I promise I'll try to remember to take them back.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
"Nixonian Stonewalling"
I like that term. It's the term used by Senator Pat Leahy in reference to the President and the Vice President, who are refusing to produce documents ordered by subpoena under the claim of executive privilege.
The President and vice president claim that they are entitled to use executive privilege to keep secret the documents and conversations that they produced with regard to the US Attorneys who lost their jobs, as well as Dick Cheney's office with regard to warrantless wiretapping.
When in trouble, what does the executive branch do? He sends out his press voice, with instructions to throw stones and call names: "It's pretty clear that again members of Congress are engaged in an attempt ... to try to do what they can to make life more difficult for the White House. It also explains why this is the least popular Congress in decades, because you do have what appears to be a strategy of destruction rather than cooperation."
I suppose, from the executive's perspective, that is what you have. You have a Congress, a coequal branch of government exercising its Oversight powers to attempt to ensure that what the president and his staff have done was not illegal or unconstitutional. The president has asked Congress to trust him and give him unfettered discretion to do what he needs to do. He also seems to believe that United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), where the Court specifically rejected the idea that the Executive alone should determine the scope of executive privilege, means that he gets to determine the scope of executive privilege. Since Congress is not doing what the president wants, they are, by definition, not cooperating. Conversely, the Executive Branch, by not doing what Congress wants vis a vis the subpoenas, is not cooperating. But we're not supposed to see that - just like we're not supposed to see that this is the most unpopular president in decades, and the reason this Congress is as unpopular as it is is because it has not done enough in the public eye to rein in the President and hold the executive branch accountable (which is what it's trying to do here).
I don't like President Bush. I believe he is acting with disregard for the laws of this country, and I believe that he, and those he appoints should be held accountable for that disregard.
The President and vice president claim that they are entitled to use executive privilege to keep secret the documents and conversations that they produced with regard to the US Attorneys who lost their jobs, as well as Dick Cheney's office with regard to warrantless wiretapping.
When in trouble, what does the executive branch do? He sends out his press voice, with instructions to throw stones and call names: "It's pretty clear that again members of Congress are engaged in an attempt ... to try to do what they can to make life more difficult for the White House. It also explains why this is the least popular Congress in decades, because you do have what appears to be a strategy of destruction rather than cooperation."
I suppose, from the executive's perspective, that is what you have. You have a Congress, a coequal branch of government exercising its Oversight powers to attempt to ensure that what the president and his staff have done was not illegal or unconstitutional. The president has asked Congress to trust him and give him unfettered discretion to do what he needs to do. He also seems to believe that United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), where the Court specifically rejected the idea that the Executive alone should determine the scope of executive privilege, means that he gets to determine the scope of executive privilege. Since Congress is not doing what the president wants, they are, by definition, not cooperating. Conversely, the Executive Branch, by not doing what Congress wants vis a vis the subpoenas, is not cooperating. But we're not supposed to see that - just like we're not supposed to see that this is the most unpopular president in decades, and the reason this Congress is as unpopular as it is is because it has not done enough in the public eye to rein in the President and hold the executive branch accountable (which is what it's trying to do here).
I don't like President Bush. I believe he is acting with disregard for the laws of this country, and I believe that he, and those he appoints should be held accountable for that disregard.
Trains of thought
I tend to jump around a lot in my conversations. I will have a discussion on one topic, then switch to another topic in the natural progression of the conversation, then I will suddenly bring up the prior topic as though we had never left that subject. It takes my friends some time to get used to that.
Another thing I do is think about something while I'm talking, and use that as a random jump from one point to another, which makes perfect sense to me, but none to the person with whom I'm conversing. For example, We could be discussing lunch, and perhaps we had chinese food with shrimp. I would then (in rapid succession) think about how I once had shrimp at Bennigan's and thought that the batter was bland. Then I would think about how there is a Bennigan's in Seoul, and how we never went there, but we did go to OB Station, which had all you could eat Mongolian BBQ, and that there wasn't an all you can eat at Osan, or in Songtan (the city next to Osan AB), and that we often would just hang out at the Skivvy-9 lounge on base, and then I would remember that we almost always played Euchre while at the lounge, which would remind me that just about everyone in Michigan plays Euchre, and then I would think about how it would be nice to go back to Michigan to visit again sometime, and how the last time I went, my pa and I went fishing with my uncle Bill up at the folks' cabin on Mud Lake, where I caught three Pike, though none of them were keepers. I would then say to my friend "Pike have some sharp teeth," to which my friend would reply "uh, random." But as you can see - it's not random; it makes perfect sense.
Recently, I've taken to explaining my train of thought for my friends. They seem to enjoy the destination more after they've travelled the path.
Another thing I do is think about something while I'm talking, and use that as a random jump from one point to another, which makes perfect sense to me, but none to the person with whom I'm conversing. For example, We could be discussing lunch, and perhaps we had chinese food with shrimp. I would then (in rapid succession) think about how I once had shrimp at Bennigan's and thought that the batter was bland. Then I would think about how there is a Bennigan's in Seoul, and how we never went there, but we did go to OB Station, which had all you could eat Mongolian BBQ, and that there wasn't an all you can eat at Osan, or in Songtan (the city next to Osan AB), and that we often would just hang out at the Skivvy-9 lounge on base, and then I would remember that we almost always played Euchre while at the lounge, which would remind me that just about everyone in Michigan plays Euchre, and then I would think about how it would be nice to go back to Michigan to visit again sometime, and how the last time I went, my pa and I went fishing with my uncle Bill up at the folks' cabin on Mud Lake, where I caught three Pike, though none of them were keepers. I would then say to my friend "Pike have some sharp teeth," to which my friend would reply "uh, random." But as you can see - it's not random; it makes perfect sense.
Recently, I've taken to explaining my train of thought for my friends. They seem to enjoy the destination more after they've travelled the path.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Just a Reminder
CSI Miami is the worst show on television.
Every now and then I try to watch an episode, in the hopes that maybe someone who knows how to write a script, or understand the substantial unlikelihood of so much of the evidence they uncover, might have gotten hired.
Then I watch it for a few minutes and realize how wrong I am.
David Caruso cannot act.
The rest of the characters pose and grin and we are supposed to believe that they are superintelligent, smooth characters.
This past episode, I happened to tune in while Caruso and one of the brain-dead grinners were interviewing a baseball player who was hispanic. The show decided to subtitle the guy's dialog for us. This is a nice idea - if the guy was speaking spanish, or perhaps a really freaking thick brogue that nobody could understand unless they were from the same Scottish highland village. But this guy was speaking English, with a slight hispanic accent. Putting subtitles here is not cool - it's insulting to the viewer.
Maybe one of these days I'll catch on and stop watching this insult to brain cells altogether. Perhaps I'll be even luckier, and the idiots who tune in for the glitz and glamor of Forensics specialists driving in Hummers to crime scenes where the lead actor can dramatically pull off his glasses and make some corny one-liner to the vacuous character mugging for the camera next to him will realize that there's absolutely no substance to this show, and that there's maybe 20 minutes of story packed into an hour with completely unnecessary and repetitive special effects footage to flesh it out, and quit watching the show - and I'll be saved.
But I won't hold my breath. There are too many stupid people in the world who live for crap like this.
Every now and then I try to watch an episode, in the hopes that maybe someone who knows how to write a script, or understand the substantial unlikelihood of so much of the evidence they uncover, might have gotten hired.
Then I watch it for a few minutes and realize how wrong I am.
David Caruso cannot act.
The rest of the characters pose and grin and we are supposed to believe that they are superintelligent, smooth characters.
This past episode, I happened to tune in while Caruso and one of the brain-dead grinners were interviewing a baseball player who was hispanic. The show decided to subtitle the guy's dialog for us. This is a nice idea - if the guy was speaking spanish, or perhaps a really freaking thick brogue that nobody could understand unless they were from the same Scottish highland village. But this guy was speaking English, with a slight hispanic accent. Putting subtitles here is not cool - it's insulting to the viewer.
Maybe one of these days I'll catch on and stop watching this insult to brain cells altogether. Perhaps I'll be even luckier, and the idiots who tune in for the glitz and glamor of Forensics specialists driving in Hummers to crime scenes where the lead actor can dramatically pull off his glasses and make some corny one-liner to the vacuous character mugging for the camera next to him will realize that there's absolutely no substance to this show, and that there's maybe 20 minutes of story packed into an hour with completely unnecessary and repetitive special effects footage to flesh it out, and quit watching the show - and I'll be saved.
But I won't hold my breath. There are too many stupid people in the world who live for crap like this.
The thing I dislike most about basketball
Kobe Bryant.
But I actually have a few reasons. First is the whole Colorado Hotel thing, but I won't mention that anymore.
The second issue I have comes from his narcissistic approach to life. He had a very good thing in Los Angeles for several years - he was a three time NBA champion with a first ballot hall of famer center and a first ballot hall of fame coach. Yet he couldn't handle sharing the spotlight, and believed that he could do just as well without them. So he sits back and lets them go.
Three years later, and Kobe has had two first round playoff exits, and he bitches that his team hasn't built a winner around [his enormous talent (my words)]. So he demands a trade, then undemands, then demands, then, well, you get the idea. Because he wants to go to a city where they want to win.
Except, he was in a city where they wanted to win. He had a teammate that could help him win. He had three championships and four finals appearances. But he didn't want that. He wanted to be the guy. So now that his little experiment where he got what he wanted didn't work, he's going to use his influence as a high profile player to hold his team hostage while he demands they do what he wants, with the implication that if they don't do what he wants and instead hold him to his contract, he's not going to work as best he can (remember Tracey McGrady admitting to taking games off?). So the owners have a choice - give the prima donna pissy crybaby what he wants (again) and bow to his pressure, or keep him and lose because you have the one of the best players and he's not going to play like he is, and thus lose fan support - which will be lost if he leaves anyway.
It apparently doesn't matter to Kobe that he's not a good teammate. It's apparently ok, in his eyes, for him to tear apart his teammates. It's apparently ok for him to complain openly about his team and the ownership's direction. And all this is supposed to make him more attractive to other teams, who can't afford him because of his freaking humongous salary, which means that they can't build a complimentary package around him that would put him where he wants, but that's irrelevant to him now; what matters is that his current ownership (his boss) isn't doing what he (the obligee) wants, so he has to make them look like the bad guys and convince everyone else that he'd be fine if the situation weren't so crappy in LA.
Kobe Bryant needs to shut up and color, grow up, and be the leader he asked to be.
But I actually have a few reasons. First is the whole Colorado Hotel thing, but I won't mention that anymore.
The second issue I have comes from his narcissistic approach to life. He had a very good thing in Los Angeles for several years - he was a three time NBA champion with a first ballot hall of famer center and a first ballot hall of fame coach. Yet he couldn't handle sharing the spotlight, and believed that he could do just as well without them. So he sits back and lets them go.
Three years later, and Kobe has had two first round playoff exits, and he bitches that his team hasn't built a winner around [his enormous talent (my words)]. So he demands a trade, then undemands, then demands, then, well, you get the idea. Because he wants to go to a city where they want to win.
Except, he was in a city where they wanted to win. He had a teammate that could help him win. He had three championships and four finals appearances. But he didn't want that. He wanted to be the guy. So now that his little experiment where he got what he wanted didn't work, he's going to use his influence as a high profile player to hold his team hostage while he demands they do what he wants, with the implication that if they don't do what he wants and instead hold him to his contract, he's not going to work as best he can (remember Tracey McGrady admitting to taking games off?). So the owners have a choice - give the prima donna pissy crybaby what he wants (again) and bow to his pressure, or keep him and lose because you have the one of the best players and he's not going to play like he is, and thus lose fan support - which will be lost if he leaves anyway.
It apparently doesn't matter to Kobe that he's not a good teammate. It's apparently ok, in his eyes, for him to tear apart his teammates. It's apparently ok for him to complain openly about his team and the ownership's direction. And all this is supposed to make him more attractive to other teams, who can't afford him because of his freaking humongous salary, which means that they can't build a complimentary package around him that would put him where he wants, but that's irrelevant to him now; what matters is that his current ownership (his boss) isn't doing what he (the obligee) wants, so he has to make them look like the bad guys and convince everyone else that he'd be fine if the situation weren't so crappy in LA.
Kobe Bryant needs to shut up and color, grow up, and be the leader he asked to be.
Wednesday is Haiku Day
So glad for the gym
It lets me burn off some stress
Without killing kids
As always, I look forward to your submissions!
It lets me burn off some stress
Without killing kids
As always, I look forward to your submissions!
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
An idea
One of the problems I see in law is the number of people who graduate from law school, pass the bar, and then hang out a shingle, while really not knowing much about the actual practice of law. I'm sure I'm not the first person to have such concerns, but I have this blog, so I can write about it here from my perspective.
I do not want to go into sole practitionership, at least, not now. I want to get a job with a law firm - a job where I can learn what it's like to actually lawyer - to have to meet deadlines, to write, to brief, to argue, what motions need to be filed when, which clients to accept and which to reject, etc. Then, after I've gotten some experience doing that, I would like to maybe look into starting my own firm - take my knowledge, and go into business myself.
Part of me thinks that there is a way around this issue - the country is hurting for public defenders - attorneys for the indigent. These people often end up with poor representation, or no representation because the public defenders are painfully overworked. My solution? Pass a law in the state requiring that after passing the bar, baby lawyers are required to work in the public defender's office (or some other type of agency) where they will learn how to be a lawyer while getting paid - practical work doing what they've been training to do.
I don't see this as any different, really, than a residency requirement for doctors. Yes, the pay would stink, and yes, the hours would be bad, but it would alleviate a lot of the congestion for public defenders and the like, and provide invaluable experience from attorneys (there'd have to be some sort of supervision) on how to ply the trade - before moving on to private practice or big firms.
There are sure to be hundreds of reasons why this can't work, but I wonder - what do you think?
I do not want to go into sole practitionership, at least, not now. I want to get a job with a law firm - a job where I can learn what it's like to actually lawyer - to have to meet deadlines, to write, to brief, to argue, what motions need to be filed when, which clients to accept and which to reject, etc. Then, after I've gotten some experience doing that, I would like to maybe look into starting my own firm - take my knowledge, and go into business myself.
Part of me thinks that there is a way around this issue - the country is hurting for public defenders - attorneys for the indigent. These people often end up with poor representation, or no representation because the public defenders are painfully overworked. My solution? Pass a law in the state requiring that after passing the bar, baby lawyers are required to work in the public defender's office (or some other type of agency) where they will learn how to be a lawyer while getting paid - practical work doing what they've been training to do.
I don't see this as any different, really, than a residency requirement for doctors. Yes, the pay would stink, and yes, the hours would be bad, but it would alleviate a lot of the congestion for public defenders and the like, and provide invaluable experience from attorneys (there'd have to be some sort of supervision) on how to ply the trade - before moving on to private practice or big firms.
There are sure to be hundreds of reasons why this can't work, but I wonder - what do you think?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Yugiyoh
The Korean term for June 25 is Yugiyoh, which literally translates to 6 - 2 - 5. This date has a particular significance in Korea, as it is the day that North Korean soldiers with the support and blessing of Stalin and Mao crossed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea in 1950. Between 1950 and 1953, approximately 900,000 Chinese, 520,000 North Korean, 400,000 UN and South Korean, and 155,000 U.S. soldiers were either killed or wounded. Though a cease-fire has been declared, there still has been no treaty signed, and the two countries are still technically at war.
For those of you who view Yugiyoh as a kid's card game, remember for a moment that for millions of people, it means much, much more.
For those of you who view Yugiyoh as a kid's card game, remember for a moment that for millions of people, it means much, much more.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
I'm not reassured
I took the simulated MBE today. I got more than half right. I don't like that I missed as many as I did.
Time to get some rest; more studying tomorrow.
Time to get some rest; more studying tomorrow.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
I lost my cell phone today
In other news, the little boy wanted some milk after I got home from bar review, but I wasn't sure how long the milk in his cup had been out. I asked The Boy, and he told me "I think it's been there for about 11 days." I mentioned that I had just washed that cup this morning, and he says, "Oh, in that case probably about an hour."
Friday, June 22, 2007
Eating Crow
I have long complained against the voucher program on grounds that I thought it would result in the students most in need of help falling further behind those deemed "touchable" enough to allow into private schools. It turns out, I was wrong.
According to the Department of Education (via this Washington Post article), the students in DC who received the vouchers to receive private education in general scored no better than the students they left behind in public school. Of course, this is not an absolute. The students who went to private school from well performing public schools, and those who already scored high on tests did perform better.
I view this as evidence that the voucher program does not help the students who most need help. I also think that this shows that the money could better be spent elsewhere, such as providing services to students in public schools that need such assistance as counseling (funding cut due to diversion to No Child Left Behind), remedial education programs, as well as fine arts programs whose funding has been slashed.
There are those who look at it differently, though. One such person is Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who argues that it's too soon to judge noted in the above article, "The report's findings are in step with rigorous studies of other voucher programs which have not typically found impacts on student achievement in the first year." In other words, DC is not an anomaly. She continues to gauge the effectiveness of the program: "We know that parents are pleased with the program in providing effective education alternatives." What she didn't say was that many of the parents who were pleased were the ones who wanted their children to receive a parochial education on the government's dime, and that almost none of the pleased parents were the ones whose children were left behind in public school, which they have been told is inferior to the private schools that a select few students get to go to and perform the same.
How few students? The program allows funding to provide vouchers for 1800 students. While I don't know the student population of Washington DC, I can say that my son's elementary school contained about 650 students last year, and the two schools my mother now must split time between due to budget cuts for counseling average about 550 students each. The Washington DC population is about 557,000, and I'd be willing to bet that there are a few more than 1800 school age children there.
How can a program enacted to support No Child Left Behind not provide enough support for all children, thus requiring children to be left behind?
According to the Department of Education (via this Washington Post article), the students in DC who received the vouchers to receive private education in general scored no better than the students they left behind in public school. Of course, this is not an absolute. The students who went to private school from well performing public schools, and those who already scored high on tests did perform better.
I view this as evidence that the voucher program does not help the students who most need help. I also think that this shows that the money could better be spent elsewhere, such as providing services to students in public schools that need such assistance as counseling (funding cut due to diversion to No Child Left Behind), remedial education programs, as well as fine arts programs whose funding has been slashed.
There are those who look at it differently, though. One such person is Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who argues that it's too soon to judge noted in the above article, "The report's findings are in step with rigorous studies of other voucher programs which have not typically found impacts on student achievement in the first year." In other words, DC is not an anomaly. She continues to gauge the effectiveness of the program: "We know that parents are pleased with the program in providing effective education alternatives." What she didn't say was that many of the parents who were pleased were the ones who wanted their children to receive a parochial education on the government's dime, and that almost none of the pleased parents were the ones whose children were left behind in public school, which they have been told is inferior to the private schools that a select few students get to go to and perform the same.
How few students? The program allows funding to provide vouchers for 1800 students. While I don't know the student population of Washington DC, I can say that my son's elementary school contained about 650 students last year, and the two schools my mother now must split time between due to budget cuts for counseling average about 550 students each. The Washington DC population is about 557,000, and I'd be willing to bet that there are a few more than 1800 school age children there.
How can a program enacted to support No Child Left Behind not provide enough support for all children, thus requiring children to be left behind?
Crime and Punishment
The Boy got in trouble tonight. He got in trouble for a couple reasons. First, he took too many tomatoes on his taco. While this seems like a silly thing to get in trouble for (it is), this is the umpteenth time he's taken so many tomatoes the other four people in the family did not have enough.
Then, after getting a talking to (I did not raise my voice), it was time to say our prayers. He slouched down in his chair threw his legs over his arms, and started mumbling. When we reminded him that he was talking to the Lord, and not his parents, he got even more upset, turned around in his chair and refused to move. This got him sent to his room. I would hesitate quite a while before using the adjective "sanctimonious" to describe us, but we have our habits.
Fast forward about 15 minutes, and The Boy comes downstairs and sits in his chair. He pretends nothing has happened, and starts asking for condiments for his dinner. We then spoke for a couple minutes regarding how he had been sent to bed without dinner, and apparently, he presumed he'd been there long enough, as his demeanor suggested he was entitled to dinner by right (not that I blame him, past behavior on our part has suggested this, despite the "this is the last time" he got last time). This of course got him another talking to, which ultimately resulted in his being sent to his room without dinner (again).
I feel bad. I also think that had he not acted so entitled on his return to the dinner table, perhaps he would have ended up eating, so maybe it was for the best. I don't like punishing - it's not as much fun for me as it was for my parents, who I think danced with glee when they got to punish me. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong...
Then, after getting a talking to (I did not raise my voice), it was time to say our prayers. He slouched down in his chair threw his legs over his arms, and started mumbling. When we reminded him that he was talking to the Lord, and not his parents, he got even more upset, turned around in his chair and refused to move. This got him sent to his room. I would hesitate quite a while before using the adjective "sanctimonious" to describe us, but we have our habits.
Fast forward about 15 minutes, and The Boy comes downstairs and sits in his chair. He pretends nothing has happened, and starts asking for condiments for his dinner. We then spoke for a couple minutes regarding how he had been sent to bed without dinner, and apparently, he presumed he'd been there long enough, as his demeanor suggested he was entitled to dinner by right (not that I blame him, past behavior on our part has suggested this, despite the "this is the last time" he got last time). This of course got him another talking to, which ultimately resulted in his being sent to his room without dinner (again).
I feel bad. I also think that had he not acted so entitled on his return to the dinner table, perhaps he would have ended up eating, so maybe it was for the best. I don't like punishing - it's not as much fun for me as it was for my parents, who I think danced with glee when they got to punish me. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong...
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Intentional Torts
To make a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the following elements must be met:
The tortfeasor must have acted intentionally or recklessly
The act must have been extreme and outrageous
The act must have caused emotional distress
and that distress must be severe.
In order to prove causation, there generally must be some physical manifestation of the distress. An example could be the development of a tic. Another example, could be nausea.
Nausea is what occurred to a woman at the Austin, Minnesota police department who opened a box containing a man's traffic ticket and dog feces. The man pled guilty to misdemeanor misconduct, while the woman became ill, missed two days of work with nausea and a headache, and was hospitalized for two days.
Since the man pleaded guilty, under the Federal Rules, his plea would be admissible in any subsequent civil suit. Specific intent in this case would not be necessary, as it's an IIED claim. I don't know if she'd be able to sue in person, since she was acting in her capacity with the police department when she suffered any injury, but if she were, all this hypothetically should be accurate. If not, I'm really in trouble next month for the bar.
The tortfeasor must have acted intentionally or recklessly
The act must have been extreme and outrageous
The act must have caused emotional distress
and that distress must be severe.
In order to prove causation, there generally must be some physical manifestation of the distress. An example could be the development of a tic. Another example, could be nausea.
Nausea is what occurred to a woman at the Austin, Minnesota police department who opened a box containing a man's traffic ticket and dog feces. The man pled guilty to misdemeanor misconduct, while the woman became ill, missed two days of work with nausea and a headache, and was hospitalized for two days.
Since the man pleaded guilty, under the Federal Rules, his plea would be admissible in any subsequent civil suit. Specific intent in this case would not be necessary, as it's an IIED claim. I don't know if she'd be able to sue in person, since she was acting in her capacity with the police department when she suffered any injury, but if she were, all this hypothetically should be accurate. If not, I'm really in trouble next month for the bar.
Random Trivia
The United States maintained (and still maintains) forces in Germany, Italy, Korea, Japan, and other nations for the purpose of allowing the president to invoke his plenary defensive/rescue power in the event those nations were attacked - it was an end around to circumvent the need for congressional action in the event of future wars.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Just Say No
President Bush vetoed an Embryonic Stem Cell bill that would have allowed for federal funding for stem cell research. This is yet another example of President Bush working with the Democratically controlled Congress, and listening to the majority of the people.
In vetoing the bill, President Bush said "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers ... to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."
I'd be more impressed with the president's convictions, except while he has "made it clear" that he won't allow the destruction of embryos that will never become people, he has no compunction about killing actual people (never granted clemency to individuals on death row in Texas, not to mention the hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis and 3000+ dead American servicemembers), and taking the lives away from people he considers evil, simply for looking like a terrorist.
I think vetoing this bill was irresponsible of a president who has shown a complete inability to listen to anyone except those who will tell him what he wants to hear and who does not understand that the government is his on loan. If the people spoke out loudly in opposition to research that has the potential to save millions of lives and Congress passed the bill anyway, then I could understand his stance. In this particular instance, though, he's voting his sense of morality on 300 million people. I don't like this use of a presidential veto, but I think it's unsurprising that this president doesn't know how to use a veto.
In vetoing the bill, President Bush said "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers ... to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."
I'd be more impressed with the president's convictions, except while he has "made it clear" that he won't allow the destruction of embryos that will never become people, he has no compunction about killing actual people (never granted clemency to individuals on death row in Texas, not to mention the hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis and 3000+ dead American servicemembers), and taking the lives away from people he considers evil, simply for looking like a terrorist.
I think vetoing this bill was irresponsible of a president who has shown a complete inability to listen to anyone except those who will tell him what he wants to hear and who does not understand that the government is his on loan. If the people spoke out loudly in opposition to research that has the potential to save millions of lives and Congress passed the bill anyway, then I could understand his stance. In this particular instance, though, he's voting his sense of morality on 300 million people. I don't like this use of a presidential veto, but I think it's unsurprising that this president doesn't know how to use a veto.
Wednesday is Haiku Day
Fifty Two Percent
On Evidence - not good enough
Stress taking over.
As always, I look forward to your contributions
On Evidence - not good enough
Stress taking over.
As always, I look forward to your contributions
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Don't Read This
The Houston Civic Council on Decency has set its sights on the Houston Symphony. They seek to shut it down. When asked why the dislike for the symphony, the Council's spokesperson said "We are concerned about the effects on the community's well-being from all the sax and violins."
Memories
I'm a native Michigander. I was born in Michigan, and lived there for several years. I still have family in Michigan, and, though it's been 7 years since my last visit, I still fondly remember the state.
When I was a child, we'd go and visit in June. This coincided with fish fly season. The fish flies would come in, cover everything, and die. When they died, they smelled like fish (hence the name). The fish flies are harmless, but there sure are a bunch of them. They're more of a nuisance than anything else, but fortunately they only stuck around a few days.
At least, they used to. Now, reports are saying that Fruit Flies are staying longer, from three to six weeks. And they're thicker, too. One anecdote in the Free Press Article I've linked above mentions a dockworker who slipped on a giant pile of fish flies and fell into the Clinton River (while not the River Rouge, still not the best body of water to fall into).
Sometimes I really miss Michigan.
When I was a child, we'd go and visit in June. This coincided with fish fly season. The fish flies would come in, cover everything, and die. When they died, they smelled like fish (hence the name). The fish flies are harmless, but there sure are a bunch of them. They're more of a nuisance than anything else, but fortunately they only stuck around a few days.
At least, they used to. Now, reports are saying that Fruit Flies are staying longer, from three to six weeks. And they're thicker, too. One anecdote in the Free Press Article I've linked above mentions a dockworker who slipped on a giant pile of fish flies and fell into the Clinton River (while not the River Rouge, still not the best body of water to fall into).
Sometimes I really miss Michigan.
Monday, June 18, 2007
It's fun to stay at the...
We joined the Y at the beginning of the month. I needed an outlet for my stress, and the kids can use the time away from home (and the swimming lessons).
I've actually been pretty good at getting a somewhat regular schedule down for going to the gym to exercise. I do 3o minutes of cardio on the elliptical machine, and have even bumped up the resistance a notch, so I'm getting better. Additionally, I try to do crunches each time I go in - I need the ab work, to be certain. And I have been working on upper body weights, arms and chest, as well as calves (I can max out the calf machine, so it makes me feel good).
I notice I feel better now than I did a couple weeks ago - not as lethargic, not (quite) as crochety. I've not lost any weight yet, from what I can tell on the Y's broken scale, but that's OK, if I'm getting in better physical shape - the weight will follow. As it is, I'll keep up with the exercise.
We also bought a couple tennis rackets this weekend. I've not played tennis in about 10 years, though I still know how to hold a racket and hit a ball. I like racquetball better, but tennis is a little more accessible, especially since the Y doesn't have a racquetball court where we live. Now I just have to find someone to play tennis with. The daughter is cute, watching her swing her little racket, but she's not able to serve and volley yet, and she gets intimidated returning serve. Five years old, and such a wimp. ;-)
All right, my break is done - back to studying. Woo. Hoo.
I've actually been pretty good at getting a somewhat regular schedule down for going to the gym to exercise. I do 3o minutes of cardio on the elliptical machine, and have even bumped up the resistance a notch, so I'm getting better. Additionally, I try to do crunches each time I go in - I need the ab work, to be certain. And I have been working on upper body weights, arms and chest, as well as calves (I can max out the calf machine, so it makes me feel good).
I notice I feel better now than I did a couple weeks ago - not as lethargic, not (quite) as crochety. I've not lost any weight yet, from what I can tell on the Y's broken scale, but that's OK, if I'm getting in better physical shape - the weight will follow. As it is, I'll keep up with the exercise.
We also bought a couple tennis rackets this weekend. I've not played tennis in about 10 years, though I still know how to hold a racket and hit a ball. I like racquetball better, but tennis is a little more accessible, especially since the Y doesn't have a racquetball court where we live. Now I just have to find someone to play tennis with. The daughter is cute, watching her swing her little racket, but she's not able to serve and volley yet, and she gets intimidated returning serve. Five years old, and such a wimp. ;-)
All right, my break is done - back to studying. Woo. Hoo.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Bad Jokes
Two Boll weevils grew up in Alabama. The first one went to Hollywood and became a big star. The other one stayed behind, and never really amounted to much. He became known as the Lesser of Two Weevils.
The receptionist walks in to the psychiatrist's office - "Doctor, there's a man out here who claims he's invisible." The psychiatrist said, "Tell him I can't see him now."
Some people say that sheep and goats are nothing alike. The truth is, they have mutton in common.
Two eskimos are fishing in their boat. They get cold, and to heat up decide to build a little fire. They light the fire, which ignites the rest of the canoe, and the eskimoes sink. Thus proving, you can't have your kayak and heat it, too.
In order to raise some funds for their monastery, two monks decided to open a flower shop in the nearby village. The friars were so kind and the flowers so nice that quickly they developed a large clientele and started taking customers from the other flower shops. The owners of these shops begged, pleaded, and threatened the monks to close shop and leave, but the monks stayed. Finally, the other owners hired a local thug named Hugh McTaggart, who went to the monk's shop, tore it up, beat up the monks, and ran them out of town. The moral of the story is "Hugh, and only Hugh, can prevent florist friars."
The receptionist walks in to the psychiatrist's office - "Doctor, there's a man out here who claims he's invisible." The psychiatrist said, "Tell him I can't see him now."
Some people say that sheep and goats are nothing alike. The truth is, they have mutton in common.
Two eskimos are fishing in their boat. They get cold, and to heat up decide to build a little fire. They light the fire, which ignites the rest of the canoe, and the eskimoes sink. Thus proving, you can't have your kayak and heat it, too.
In order to raise some funds for their monastery, two monks decided to open a flower shop in the nearby village. The friars were so kind and the flowers so nice that quickly they developed a large clientele and started taking customers from the other flower shops. The owners of these shops begged, pleaded, and threatened the monks to close shop and leave, but the monks stayed. Finally, the other owners hired a local thug named Hugh McTaggart, who went to the monk's shop, tore it up, beat up the monks, and ran them out of town. The moral of the story is "Hugh, and only Hugh, can prevent florist friars."
Leaving all the other children behind
The state's Constitution says, "no public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction," and elsewhere bars the use of public funds "in aid of ... any private or sectarian school."
The program allows government-issued vouchers, paid for out of government tax dollars paid from the state's treasury, to be used at parochial schools for education.
The judge hearing the case decided that the program was not a violation of the Constitution. Of course. The logic behind the decision was that the funds were for the benefit of the parents, not the schools, and that the parents had the choice as to whether or not to use the funds.
Of course this is nonsense. The fact is, government funds are being used to fund private education for a few students, while stripping those same funds from the masses of students who don't qualify for the vouchers. The judge and the defendants take the position that the vouchers do not qualify as government funds because they are provided to the parents, but in actuality, the parent is little more than a holding company for the check between the school and the state. The parent has the choice of what private school to enroll his or her child in (perhaps), but the funds are not to be used to pay for parochial education, per the constitution.
Consider this - these vouchers are for education - in other words, there is no other way for the parents to use the funds except to pay for private school. They have no property right in the money, they have a property right in the education. If they choose not to spend the voucher on private school, they may not use the funds for anything else. There is no real way to view this other than a government check for private education, and in the majority of cases, that equates to a religious education. It strikes me funny that the judge somehow managed to convince herself that this in no way violated the First Amendment or the Arizona Constitution.
I'm not opposed to parochial education, and I'm not opposed to a voucher program, per se. I think everyone should have the right to attend private school if they want, at their own expense. However, I am opposed to a program where the state gives money to some individuals at the expense of the majority of individuals so that those students don't have to pay for a religious education (and resulting in fewer funds to help the majority of students left behind). I think any program that results in a masked government funding program for religious education is violative of the First Amendment, and in this case, the state's constitution, and that this needs to not happen.
The program allows government-issued vouchers, paid for out of government tax dollars paid from the state's treasury, to be used at parochial schools for education.
The judge hearing the case decided that the program was not a violation of the Constitution. Of course. The logic behind the decision was that the funds were for the benefit of the parents, not the schools, and that the parents had the choice as to whether or not to use the funds.
Of course this is nonsense. The fact is, government funds are being used to fund private education for a few students, while stripping those same funds from the masses of students who don't qualify for the vouchers. The judge and the defendants take the position that the vouchers do not qualify as government funds because they are provided to the parents, but in actuality, the parent is little more than a holding company for the check between the school and the state. The parent has the choice of what private school to enroll his or her child in (perhaps), but the funds are not to be used to pay for parochial education, per the constitution.
Consider this - these vouchers are for education - in other words, there is no other way for the parents to use the funds except to pay for private school. They have no property right in the money, they have a property right in the education. If they choose not to spend the voucher on private school, they may not use the funds for anything else. There is no real way to view this other than a government check for private education, and in the majority of cases, that equates to a religious education. It strikes me funny that the judge somehow managed to convince herself that this in no way violated the First Amendment or the Arizona Constitution.
I'm not opposed to parochial education, and I'm not opposed to a voucher program, per se. I think everyone should have the right to attend private school if they want, at their own expense. However, I am opposed to a program where the state gives money to some individuals at the expense of the majority of individuals so that those students don't have to pay for a religious education (and resulting in fewer funds to help the majority of students left behind). I think any program that results in a masked government funding program for religious education is violative of the First Amendment, and in this case, the state's constitution, and that this needs to not happen.
Friday, June 15, 2007
So Much Fun
I have had a busy day. I started by getting up and renewing the registration on my Escort - I had to renew it, so that I could keep from having it towed from the apartment complex, based on their threat of an express breach of our contract (and the potential for trespass to chattel or possibly conversion). Interesting sidenote - in Texas, you are required to get new license plates on your car every seven years.
Then I had to get from the courthouse to the Arabia Shrine Temple so that I could make it to Bar Review - this turned into "what's the longest amount of time one person can take to drive 15 miles?" I had to avoid the freeway, thanks to a nice sized backup on the Katy (this is the freeway that made headlines because it's being expanded to 24 lanes), and had to resort to side roads to get down to the temple. Surprisingly, I made it in 45 minutes, which is not bad, considering.
Then we had the MPT review at Bar review - talk about a scintillating 3 hours!
Then it was a 35 minute drive up to the general vicinity of the Title office - so I could get a replacement title for my Ford Escort, so that I can sell it to some junkyard. Well, after getting in the general vicinity of the title place, I had to drive around it (seriously, I drove more than all the way around it, because the entry I could have taken was not labeled, and it took me an extra 10 minutes, and a stop at the license office, which I didn't need to visit today) to get to the parking area. Then, I got to wait in line for half an hour to be told that I couldn't get a title, because my title is in Maryland, and I hadn't released the title to Texas when I registered here, which was odd, because I did have a Texas title at one point in time... I decided not to argue, I was tired and winded from having to run to my car and back to get the new license plate numbers I'd received this morning. So I have to call Maryland and ask them nicely to send me a replacement title, to a new address, which is about 6 addresses removed from where I lived when I got the first title.
Then I got home, had lunch, got a message from my wife who had a shorter day at work today than normal. She was on her way home, and we decided we should go get presents for the Apple, whose birthday is coming up. So she got here, we got in the car and drove out to the store, where every person in the store was determined to stop their cart right in front of us, block the entire aisle, and keep us from getting by while they either (1) looked at stuff directly across from where they stopped, or (2) had a leisurely conversation about such important topics as what new lotion they used, how aunt Mae is doing on her new diet, or if they had a pulse...
We finally finished, and even managed to get some cat litter (I still think that we can solve the "cat peeing and pooping on everything" problem by not feeding it, but I keep getting trumped). Then we proceeded home for an hour of quiet time before we had to pick up the kids from daycare. My wife fell asleep, and I watched Cyberchase - don't tell me married parents don't know how to have fun.
Then we picked up the kids. The Boy apparently decided that he was going to see Nancy Drew this evening - I'm not sure how he figured that out, but whatever. We told him we'd think about it after dinner, Chicken and Dumplings, which he decided was worth the torture of eating for the opportunity to go see a movie. Turned out the movie started too late for myself of the wife to take him to see, so I think he'll get to go tomorrow after bar review.
This led to the most insane hour of any human being's evening - the hour before bedtime for three children. For some reason, all three of them have decided that they 1 - cannot play any games that are quiet, 2 - cannot read any books, 3 - cannot do anything below 120 decibels, 4 - cannot listen to their parents until they are being yelled at with the requisite vein-popping, or 5 - keep from injuring the others, or being injured themselves. You might be surprised at the new, numerous, and ingenious ways these three children find to injure themselves. It's quite a feat, and I think Guinness might have to make a visit here shortly...
Anyway, now I'm studying for class tomorrow - I'm exhausted, and probably should be asleep, but the kids are still awake and I'm pretty sure they're just waiting for me to fall asleep so that they can start their experiments.
Then I had to get from the courthouse to the Arabia Shrine Temple so that I could make it to Bar Review - this turned into "what's the longest amount of time one person can take to drive 15 miles?" I had to avoid the freeway, thanks to a nice sized backup on the Katy (this is the freeway that made headlines because it's being expanded to 24 lanes), and had to resort to side roads to get down to the temple. Surprisingly, I made it in 45 minutes, which is not bad, considering.
Then we had the MPT review at Bar review - talk about a scintillating 3 hours!
Then it was a 35 minute drive up to the general vicinity of the Title office - so I could get a replacement title for my Ford Escort, so that I can sell it to some junkyard. Well, after getting in the general vicinity of the title place, I had to drive around it (seriously, I drove more than all the way around it, because the entry I could have taken was not labeled, and it took me an extra 10 minutes, and a stop at the license office, which I didn't need to visit today) to get to the parking area. Then, I got to wait in line for half an hour to be told that I couldn't get a title, because my title is in Maryland, and I hadn't released the title to Texas when I registered here, which was odd, because I did have a Texas title at one point in time... I decided not to argue, I was tired and winded from having to run to my car and back to get the new license plate numbers I'd received this morning. So I have to call Maryland and ask them nicely to send me a replacement title, to a new address, which is about 6 addresses removed from where I lived when I got the first title.
Then I got home, had lunch, got a message from my wife who had a shorter day at work today than normal. She was on her way home, and we decided we should go get presents for the Apple, whose birthday is coming up. So she got here, we got in the car and drove out to the store, where every person in the store was determined to stop their cart right in front of us, block the entire aisle, and keep us from getting by while they either (1) looked at stuff directly across from where they stopped, or (2) had a leisurely conversation about such important topics as what new lotion they used, how aunt Mae is doing on her new diet, or if they had a pulse...
We finally finished, and even managed to get some cat litter (I still think that we can solve the "cat peeing and pooping on everything" problem by not feeding it, but I keep getting trumped). Then we proceeded home for an hour of quiet time before we had to pick up the kids from daycare. My wife fell asleep, and I watched Cyberchase - don't tell me married parents don't know how to have fun.
Then we picked up the kids. The Boy apparently decided that he was going to see Nancy Drew this evening - I'm not sure how he figured that out, but whatever. We told him we'd think about it after dinner, Chicken and Dumplings, which he decided was worth the torture of eating for the opportunity to go see a movie. Turned out the movie started too late for myself of the wife to take him to see, so I think he'll get to go tomorrow after bar review.
This led to the most insane hour of any human being's evening - the hour before bedtime for three children. For some reason, all three of them have decided that they 1 - cannot play any games that are quiet, 2 - cannot read any books, 3 - cannot do anything below 120 decibels, 4 - cannot listen to their parents until they are being yelled at with the requisite vein-popping, or 5 - keep from injuring the others, or being injured themselves. You might be surprised at the new, numerous, and ingenious ways these three children find to injure themselves. It's quite a feat, and I think Guinness might have to make a visit here shortly...
Anyway, now I'm studying for class tomorrow - I'm exhausted, and probably should be asleep, but the kids are still awake and I'm pretty sure they're just waiting for me to fall asleep so that they can start their experiments.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Fin
Well, I finally received my final two grades today. I needed 16 quality points (your grade times the number of credit hours the class is worth) to reach my goal; I earned 15. What this means, basically, is that I did not increase my GPA to the next grade increment - I finished .007 points away. Really, this means nothing, as I'm the same lawyer now as I would be .007 points higher. Still, it would have been nice to have been able to have the extra points.
Anyway, I passed all my classes, I finished with a B+ average for the semester, my best semester of law school, and have completed all my requirements for my Doctor of Jurisprudence. What I've noticed is that I'm far more capable at what I'm doing than I believe I am, and I am too quick to think that others are better at what we're doing than I am. I'm more confident now than I was three years ago, but I still have room to grow, and have to remember what I can do.
Anyway, I passed all my classes, I finished with a B+ average for the semester, my best semester of law school, and have completed all my requirements for my Doctor of Jurisprudence. What I've noticed is that I'm far more capable at what I'm doing than I believe I am, and I am too quick to think that others are better at what we're doing than I am. I'm more confident now than I was three years ago, but I still have room to grow, and have to remember what I can do.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Wednesday is Haiku Day
Me? Narcoleptic?
Au Contraire, but wait, so tired
Could I be Narc- zzzzzzzzzz......
As always, I look forward to your contributions
Au Contraire, but wait, so tired
Could I be Narc- zzzzzzzzzz......
As always, I look forward to your contributions
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Perhaps this is why I always finish last...
I went to my friend Bookworm's Room, where I found a quiz that tells me that I am most like. I'm not quite sure what to say about that.
Your Score: Jimmy Stewart
You scored 14% Tough, 14% Roguish, 61% Friendly, and 14% Charming!
You are the fun and friendly boy next door, the classic nice guy who
still manages to get the girl most of the time. You're every nice
girl's dreamboat, open and kind, nutty and charming, even a little
mischievous at times, but always a real stand up guy. You're dependable
and forthright, and women are drawn to your reliability, even as
they're dazzled by your sense of adventure and fun. You try to be tough
when you need to be, and will gladly stand up for any damsel in
distress, but you'd rather catch a girl with a little bit of flair.
Your leading ladies include Jean Arthur and Donna Reed, those sweet
girl-next-door types.
Find out what kind of classic dame you'd make by taking the
Classic Dames Test.
| Link: The Classic Leading Man Test written by gidgetgoes on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test |
Monday, June 11, 2007
Of the People, For the People...
Senate Republicans blocked a no-confidence vote headed by Senate Democrats today. The vote would have had no actual authority, however, it would have served to further pave the road towards impeachment of the Attorney General.
While I understand why the Democrats tried to push this forward, I think it was a waste of time from the start. That said, it did provide yet another instance of President Bush displaying how he feels about the concepts of coequal branches of one government. Commenting on the blocked vote, the President said, "[t]hey can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government."
I beg you pardon, Mr. Bush, but it's not *your* government. You are a president, not a dictator, emperor, king, shah, deity, or other incarnation of a totalitarian government. You have shown for the past six years that you believe that your way is the only way, and that the terms compromise and diplomacy don't ring in your ears. But this is not your government. This is our government, and we dislike your pouting demeanor when people don't acquiesce to your demands. We don't like that you expect supplication from those for whom you work. And we find it deplorable that you still seem to believe that three co-equal branches means your word rules and everyone else should fall in line behind you.
Mr. President, start acting like a president, like a representative, and quit acting like a pissy, snotty, spoiled brat.
While I understand why the Democrats tried to push this forward, I think it was a waste of time from the start. That said, it did provide yet another instance of President Bush displaying how he feels about the concepts of coequal branches of one government. Commenting on the blocked vote, the President said, "[t]hey can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government."
I beg you pardon, Mr. Bush, but it's not *your* government. You are a president, not a dictator, emperor, king, shah, deity, or other incarnation of a totalitarian government. You have shown for the past six years that you believe that your way is the only way, and that the terms compromise and diplomacy don't ring in your ears. But this is not your government. This is our government, and we dislike your pouting demeanor when people don't acquiesce to your demands. We don't like that you expect supplication from those for whom you work. And we find it deplorable that you still seem to believe that three co-equal branches means your word rules and everyone else should fall in line behind you.
Mr. President, start acting like a president, like a representative, and quit acting like a pissy, snotty, spoiled brat.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Studdy Buddies
I'm going to go to school today, where I will review with a couple of my classmates the stuff we covered in class last week. This is something I think is going to be necessary for me to pass the bar.
This puts a bit of a burden on the wife, though, as she will be forced to watch the kids while I'm gone. I think I owe her.
Oh, and I got my graduation gifts on Friday. The spouse got me a money clip, which should serve me better than stuffing random dollar bills in my pockets, and she got me cufflinks (I've never owned cufflinks before). Both gifts were sterling silver, and monogrammed, though the initials were GWB, and not my initials. I'm not sure who she was thinking of when she ordered them, but she must really have a thing for him...
(Note: I'm kidding about the wrong initials)
This puts a bit of a burden on the wife, though, as she will be forced to watch the kids while I'm gone. I think I owe her.
Oh, and I got my graduation gifts on Friday. The spouse got me a money clip, which should serve me better than stuffing random dollar bills in my pockets, and she got me cufflinks (I've never owned cufflinks before). Both gifts were sterling silver, and monogrammed, though the initials were GWB, and not my initials. I'm not sure who she was thinking of when she ordered them, but she must really have a thing for him...
(Note: I'm kidding about the wrong initials)
The Times, They Are A-Changin'
My children are currently watching the Berenstain Bears, on PBS, based on the books by Stan and Jan Berenstain. I remember reading a book called "The Spooky Old Tree," when I was the Boy's age. It was a book written by Stan and Jan Berenstein - a Berenstein Bears book.
I don't know when the change came, and I'm not sure (though I have a suspicion as to) why they changed. I think it's unfortunate that whoever made the decision to change the name felt obligated to.
I don't know when the change came, and I'm not sure (though I have a suspicion as to) why they changed. I think it's unfortunate that whoever made the decision to change the name felt obligated to.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Retreads
Several years ago now, Madonna reimagined Don McLean's "American Pie," in one of the worst remakes of all time. When it came out, my friend and I decided that there were some rock classics that just should never be remade by anyone. Some examples we thought of were "Sweet Home Alabama (which is open season for all karaoke bars, but no single releases)," "Hotel California," "Don't Fear the Reaper," "Tears of a Clown," "Good Vibrations," and "Sounds of Silence."
Your assignment is to come up with other songs that should never be remade, or should never have been remade. Feel free to list as many as you can think of.
Your assignment is to come up with other songs that should never be remade, or should never have been remade. Feel free to list as many as you can think of.
Friday, June 08, 2007
The Fun Never Stops
I'm taking a break from studying for the bar tomorrow afternoon. We're taking the family and meeting up with Nuje and his family down at Kemah. It seems he's got a friend in a band that's playing at a family restaurant, and we're going to go down there for the kids to play, and then have a nice, two family dinner.
We're looking forward to it...
We're looking forward to it...
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Shamefully, I forgot
I've been rather busy with the Bar Exam. I didn't even realize until now that it is D-Day.
I've taken a moment to reflect on the task they faced, the courage they showed, and the sacrifices they made so that others could be free. Perhaps we all should.
Thank you.
I've taken a moment to reflect on the task they faced, the courage they showed, and the sacrifices they made so that others could be free. Perhaps we all should.
Thank you.
I hate Stupid People (haiku wednesday)
When you're turning right
like the car ahead of you,
Don't cut him off, jerk.
As always, I look forward to your Contributions
like the car ahead of you,
Don't cut him off, jerk.
As always, I look forward to your Contributions
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
The Next Day
I was complaining yesterday about how I had finally received my first grade. It was a good grade; not my best, but not far from it. Today, though, I got my second grade - from the class I felt least comfortable in - so imagine my surprise that it turned out to be my first A in law school. I'm rather happy about this. I just need 2 Bs and a B+ now and I will have achieved my first goal for the semester. If I can manage 2 A minuses and a B, then I will have accomplished my secondary goal. It's a little late for me to alter what I've done, but here's hoping I did enough. Cross your fingers for me!
Monday, June 04, 2007
Disappointment
I finished my last final 25 days ago. I finished my first project on April 24. I graduated on May 19, and I have been in bar review for the last 3+ weeks.
And today I got my first grade for the spring semester.
And I'm disappointed with what I got - I should have done better.
That said, it was not a bad grade.
But I shouldn't have to wait nearly a month to start getting grades (or over a month, depending on how you look at it). This is what frustrates me.
And today I got my first grade for the spring semester.
And I'm disappointed with what I got - I should have done better.
That said, it was not a bad grade.
But I shouldn't have to wait nearly a month to start getting grades (or over a month, depending on how you look at it). This is what frustrates me.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
It's Not Easy, Being Green
Your results:
You are Green Lantern
Click here to take the "Which Superhero am I?" quiz...
You are Green Lantern
| Hot-headed. You have strong will power and a good imagination.  |
Click here to take the "Which Superhero am I?" quiz...
Irony
From Yahoo!: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday cautioned Turkey against sending troops into Northern Iraq."
You see, Turkey claims that terrorists are entering Turkey from Iraq, and they want to invade the country to attack the source. They can't do that. We weren't invaded by Iraq, we had no Iraqi forces attacking us, and were under no imminent threat of attack from Iraq, so we invaded them and brought them freedom - the freedom to launch terrorist attacks against Turkey from Northern Iraq, as it were.
Heaven forbid we accept any help in combating terrorism - the war against which we ostensibly were fighting when we went into Iraq, stopping our search for the leader of Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11. Heaven forbid we allow another nation to defend itself. We empathize with Turkey, but tell them not to defend themselves when attacked.
I thought terrorism was being defeated by the surge? I thought that the president urged other nations to take a stand against terror (the "entity" we are fighting). I think it's ironic, this situation and our position, and I think it's another example of the issues this administration has with anything that isn't done exactly "his way."
You see, Turkey claims that terrorists are entering Turkey from Iraq, and they want to invade the country to attack the source. They can't do that. We weren't invaded by Iraq, we had no Iraqi forces attacking us, and were under no imminent threat of attack from Iraq, so we invaded them and brought them freedom - the freedom to launch terrorist attacks against Turkey from Northern Iraq, as it were.
Heaven forbid we accept any help in combating terrorism - the war against which we ostensibly were fighting when we went into Iraq, stopping our search for the leader of Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11. Heaven forbid we allow another nation to defend itself. We empathize with Turkey, but tell them not to defend themselves when attacked.
I thought terrorism was being defeated by the surge? I thought that the president urged other nations to take a stand against terror (the "entity" we are fighting). I think it's ironic, this situation and our position, and I think it's another example of the issues this administration has with anything that isn't done exactly "his way."
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Random Trivia
George Lucas thought that Star Wars would only make 16 million when it was first released.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Commercial Paper
AKA Consumer Transactions - my favorite.
From Barbri:
In General, An HDC can enforce an instrument subject only to real defenses (i.e., the HDC takes free of personal defenses and claims). Thus, whether an obligated party will be forced to pay depends on whether the holder is an HDC and the nature of the obligated party's defenses. If the holder is not an HDC, the obligated party may assert any of the ordinary contract defenses (e.g., failure of consideration). If the holder is an HDC, the obligated party is limited to so-called real defenses.
And don't you forget it.
From Barbri:
In General, An HDC can enforce an instrument subject only to real defenses (i.e., the HDC takes free of personal defenses and claims). Thus, whether an obligated party will be forced to pay depends on whether the holder is an HDC and the nature of the obligated party's defenses. If the holder is not an HDC, the obligated party may assert any of the ordinary contract defenses (e.g., failure of consideration). If the holder is an HDC, the obligated party is limited to so-called real defenses.
And don't you forget it.
He says what I have been constantly thinking
Jeffrey Goldberg from the New Yorker does, that is, with respect to the current administration. He does an excellent job of citing disaffected republicans and I think he does an excellent job of pointing out that this administration is painfully damaging to the Republican Party.
Wednesday is Haiku Day
I'm reading Contracts
For bar review. It's fun as
a fork in my eye.
As always, I look forward to your submissions.
For bar review. It's fun as
a fork in my eye.
As always, I look forward to your submissions.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Tired
I'm tired. I can't go to bed, because the Apple is still awake. He's a little concerned, because the moon went away. He has been standing at the door asking the moon to come back. Poor kid. He also said he wanted to go with the moon. He just had mom put on his cape (He's Super Apple now), and he's going to go away to be with the moon.
I love the boy. But I wish he'd sleep at bedtime.
I love the boy. But I wish he'd sleep at bedtime.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Why Unions are Necessary
One of the Reasons is what happened at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York in 1911 (the link will take you to Professor Douglas Linder's website from UMKC - excellent collection of important/famous cases throughout history). I remember reading the words of Triangle Factory fire in history class in high school, but never really got what it was I was reading about - I knew it was bad - I didn't realize the purpose behind the story.
I believe in unions, but I believe unions need to be vocal only when necessary, and basically be a strong, silent enforcer outside that.
I believe in unions, but I believe unions need to be vocal only when necessary, and basically be a strong, silent enforcer outside that.
Bar reviewing
I did my last day of PMBR yesterday - I had to take last Saturday off due to graduation (I know, bad excuses are better than no excuses). Anyway, we did Con Law - my best subject, not just in law school, but on Bar Review. Would that I could be a Constitutional Law Attorney - but I don't think I'm going to find myself in a strong enough position to do that, unless I end up working for the government again - I'm not adverse to that idea, but I'm not sure how well the pay would go for something like that...
At any rate, I think my new plan is going to be:
Get the kids to daycare in the morning, go to Barbri, go home and do practice questions, pick up the kids and go to the Y (I'll work out while they're in the play area, then they will do swim lessons), then go home and cook dinner, then preview the next day's BarBri. Take Saturday light reviewing, and Sunday get together with my friend and review the previous week's work. I think that should be a good schedule, but we'll have to see.
I need to get some exercise - I'm too lethargic in the afternoons. I also need to quit drinking coca-cola, but that's going to have to wait until after the bar. I just wish the Y near our apartment had a racquetball court - that's what I most miss playing.
I'm so tired right now.
At any rate, I think my new plan is going to be:
Get the kids to daycare in the morning, go to Barbri, go home and do practice questions, pick up the kids and go to the Y (I'll work out while they're in the play area, then they will do swim lessons), then go home and cook dinner, then preview the next day's BarBri. Take Saturday light reviewing, and Sunday get together with my friend and review the previous week's work. I think that should be a good schedule, but we'll have to see.
I need to get some exercise - I'm too lethargic in the afternoons. I also need to quit drinking coca-cola, but that's going to have to wait until after the bar. I just wish the Y near our apartment had a racquetball court - that's what I most miss playing.
I'm so tired right now.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
I want a boat
I want a boat so I can go fishing. Get me a boat. You want to buy me a boat. I want a boat. I need and deserve a boat. Get me a boat. You want to get me a boat.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Happy Birthday
On this day in 1738, the Methodist Church was established. Potlucks and Committees have never been the same.
Good job, John Wesley.
Good job, John Wesley.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Have you ever gone fishing on a bright and sunny day?
We did, last Sunday. As my graduation gift, my pa chartered a trip for myself, him, my father in law, and the Boy. The Boy, being 8, was perhaps the most excited, yet he handled himself extremely well. He also managed to sleep about half the trip - I think he was a little seasick, and the dramamine warns that it can cause severe drowsiness. Still, when he was awake, he managed to reel in 3 fish - none of them were "keepers," though we did hold on to two of them for bait fish.
We also had a few pictures of him, including one of him holding a 30 inch mackerel, which is about 2/3 his size.
Our charter was with Captain Dan, who we used through Working Man Charters, out of Freeport, Texas. I highly recommend this charter; Captain Dan was outstanding as a captain, Captain Bill was quite personable (we were unable to use his boat, it had a necessary repair on the day we were going out, but he called me personally to explain and apologize - there was no need for the apology, they were really outstanding all around), and Lynn, Bill's wife and booking manager, was terrific in giving us information and letting us know the plans.
This was my second charter, and it was light years better than the first. Captain Dan and the deckhand, Jim, were terrific with the Boy, patient, kind, friendly, and took time to talk to him, not at him. They were both terrific with bait, location, advice, and help. I had a terrific time, the grandfathers had a great time, and the Boy couldn't have had more fun, I don't think, on a boat for 9 hours.
We took home the limit on Red Snapper (good eats), and one mackerel, though we had a couple more mackerel bites, that we couldn't reel in, and several more snapper that we had to toss back, with a few other fish thrown into the mix.
If you find yourself in the greater Houston/Galveston/Freeport area and want something to do to take up your day, Working Man Charters is the place to go.
We also had a few pictures of him, including one of him holding a 30 inch mackerel, which is about 2/3 his size.
Our charter was with Captain Dan, who we used through Working Man Charters, out of Freeport, Texas. I highly recommend this charter; Captain Dan was outstanding as a captain, Captain Bill was quite personable (we were unable to use his boat, it had a necessary repair on the day we were going out, but he called me personally to explain and apologize - there was no need for the apology, they were really outstanding all around), and Lynn, Bill's wife and booking manager, was terrific in giving us information and letting us know the plans.
This was my second charter, and it was light years better than the first. Captain Dan and the deckhand, Jim, were terrific with the Boy, patient, kind, friendly, and took time to talk to him, not at him. They were both terrific with bait, location, advice, and help. I had a terrific time, the grandfathers had a great time, and the Boy couldn't have had more fun, I don't think, on a boat for 9 hours.
We took home the limit on Red Snapper (good eats), and one mackerel, though we had a couple more mackerel bites, that we couldn't reel in, and several more snapper that we had to toss back, with a few other fish thrown into the mix.
If you find yourself in the greater Houston/Galveston/Freeport area and want something to do to take up your day, Working Man Charters is the place to go.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Tears of a Clown
The Boy's favorite song for several years was "Tears of a Clown," by Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. I can understand why - it's a catchy tune that is very well sung, vintage motown.
Tonight, we're watching the finale of American Idol (I know; it's my wife's fault). One of the guest singers was Smokey Robinson. I pointed him out to the Boy, who looks at the person who sang his favorite song, and says "He doesn't look like I thought he would. I expected him to look like a rock and roll singer."
He's still one of the singers whose songs I'll turn up to listen to.
Tonight, we're watching the finale of American Idol (I know; it's my wife's fault). One of the guest singers was Smokey Robinson. I pointed him out to the Boy, who looks at the person who sang his favorite song, and says "He doesn't look like I thought he would. I expected him to look like a rock and roll singer."
He's still one of the singers whose songs I'll turn up to listen to.
Wednesday is Haiku Day
Things are settling down
From the hectic last weekend
Now, Barbri - and sleep.
As always, I look forward to your submissions.
From the hectic last weekend
Now, Barbri - and sleep.
As always, I look forward to your submissions.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The Cruelty of it All
I ordered a book with my last Lexis Points from Law school, about a week before I graduated. It was Scorched Earth, a novel by David L. Robbins, who wrote The War of the Rats (one of the best novels I've read). It arrived today, my second day of BarBri.
I won't be able to read Scorched Earth for another 2 months. It's going to sit on the bookshelf, taunting me. Mean old Book.
I won't be able to read Scorched Earth for another 2 months. It's going to sit on the bookshelf, taunting me. Mean old Book.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Pomp and Circumstance
I matriculated on Saturday. But I think with a quick shot and some good solder, I should be all right.
It was a nice graduation. My first. I have four degrees now, but I've just now attended a graduation. I kind of thought I'd be anxious at graduating, but I wasn't. I didn't really feel much relief, or anything else, but I was glad to be done. I did manage to lose my faux diploma.
The family came out to see the graduation; it was nice to see everyone again together. We then went to our celebratory graduation dinner at Logan's (because when you have kids, it's asking an awful lot of the three of them to maintain decorum at a fancier place for any amount of time), and we rather enjoy the place.
The next day, my dad, my father in law, my son and I went fishing out in the Gulf of Mexico. It was a great day - 10 fish to bring home, and another half dozen or so to throw back. My father in law declared that he would let my father and I cast first, since he was going to catch the first fish. So we cast, reeled back in the empty hooks, and he dropped his line - and pulled in a 16 inch Red Snapper.
The second drop brought me a 16.5 inch snapper, and so it continued until we hit our limit. They were biting all over yesterday for the first couple of hours, with the Boy bringing in a couple smaller Snappers (no keepers), and some bait fish. I can't wait to go out again, next year probably.
I'm not quite in a schooling way right now, so I won't be going in to BarBri today - I'll start tomorrow. Wish me luck!
It was a nice graduation. My first. I have four degrees now, but I've just now attended a graduation. I kind of thought I'd be anxious at graduating, but I wasn't. I didn't really feel much relief, or anything else, but I was glad to be done. I did manage to lose my faux diploma.
The family came out to see the graduation; it was nice to see everyone again together. We then went to our celebratory graduation dinner at Logan's (because when you have kids, it's asking an awful lot of the three of them to maintain decorum at a fancier place for any amount of time), and we rather enjoy the place.
The next day, my dad, my father in law, my son and I went fishing out in the Gulf of Mexico. It was a great day - 10 fish to bring home, and another half dozen or so to throw back. My father in law declared that he would let my father and I cast first, since he was going to catch the first fish. So we cast, reeled back in the empty hooks, and he dropped his line - and pulled in a 16 inch Red Snapper.
The second drop brought me a 16.5 inch snapper, and so it continued until we hit our limit. They were biting all over yesterday for the first couple of hours, with the Boy bringing in a couple smaller Snappers (no keepers), and some bait fish. I can't wait to go out again, next year probably.
I'm not quite in a schooling way right now, so I won't be going in to BarBri today - I'll start tomorrow. Wish me luck!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Rewarding Behavior
When I was younger, I was a San Antonio Spurs fan. I thought David Robinson was one of the best role models in sports, and I thought the team always tried its best to do it the right way (forgetting that they took Rodman).
In the finals two years ago, the Spurs met my favorite NBA team, the Detroit Pistons. I remember this clearly, because my friend Red Hot Mamma, a Spurs fan, declared the Pistons "thuggish," and noted that her Spurs "have class." I actually felt that way for a long time, except for Manu Ginobli, who I think is a whiny flopper and has always been a whiny flopper.
This series with the Suns has pretty much destroyed that for me. Bruce Bowen, who I'd always admired for playing really good, tough defense, admitted to kicking Amare Stoudamire (if I remember the radio reports correctly), clearly kneed Steve Nash in the groin (I'll accept the gash in Nash's nose as incidental to the game, but the knee is over the line), and just has been really a bit of a thug in the series. Robert Horry, the person I always respected as cool under pressure (even with the crippling game 5 shot over Detroit in the aforementioned finals), lost all my respect with a painfully cheap battery of Nash with 18 seconds left in a lost game. There was absolutely no need for that whatsoever. Greg Poppovich had it in his authority to stop all this; he's the coach. His inaction led to the increase in violent behavior by his team, which culminated in Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw getting suspended for standing up and walking onto the court.
Understand this - it was wrong of Stoudamire and Diaw to do that. There's a rule, and they violated it. But, the punishment goes to the effect, not the cause, and that's where Commissioner Stern has really screwed up. He could have done something after game 1, but he didn't. He could have done something after the kick to Amare's leg, but he didn't. He could have suspended Bowen after kneeing Nash in the groin, but he didn't (well, he gave him a flagrant foul, that taught him). He waited until Horry hip checked the other team's franchise player (Nash) into the scorer's table in game four, then tried to throw an elbow at one of Nash's teammates before he did anything. He had the ability to nip this in the bud in many spots, yet he did nothing.
Then he has the audacity to blame the action he finally took, after four games of escalating violence by the Spurs against the Suns, on the Suns knowing the rules and breaking them. It's kind of like the little kid in school that would keep poking the big kid with the pencil. He would poke, and poke, and poke, and poke, and poke, and poke, and finally the big kid does something, and he gets in trouble, because he knew what he did was wrong and he did it anyway. That doesn't teach anybody anything, except that if you're the aggressor, you can keep needling away at the other team and end up egging them into getting themselves into trouble.
It was disingenuous of Stern to blame his actions on Stoudamire and Diaw. He needed to own up to what he didn't do for the first three games in response to thuggish behavior by a team that has lost all my respect. He was too slow in acting, and he did not act impartially - he could have suspended Duncan for leaving the bench, as well, because it was unclear at the time he left that there would be an altercation in the second period, but he chose not to - again, missing the opportunity to teach the lesson his actions imply he was trying to teach. And that hurts the league.
I'm now a Suns fan in the West, and have no respect for anyone on the Spurs except for Duncan. Parker released a french rap album, so I can't respect him anymore on general principle.
In the finals two years ago, the Spurs met my favorite NBA team, the Detroit Pistons. I remember this clearly, because my friend Red Hot Mamma, a Spurs fan, declared the Pistons "thuggish," and noted that her Spurs "have class." I actually felt that way for a long time, except for Manu Ginobli, who I think is a whiny flopper and has always been a whiny flopper.
This series with the Suns has pretty much destroyed that for me. Bruce Bowen, who I'd always admired for playing really good, tough defense, admitted to kicking Amare Stoudamire (if I remember the radio reports correctly), clearly kneed Steve Nash in the groin (I'll accept the gash in Nash's nose as incidental to the game, but the knee is over the line), and just has been really a bit of a thug in the series. Robert Horry, the person I always respected as cool under pressure (even with the crippling game 5 shot over Detroit in the aforementioned finals), lost all my respect with a painfully cheap battery of Nash with 18 seconds left in a lost game. There was absolutely no need for that whatsoever. Greg Poppovich had it in his authority to stop all this; he's the coach. His inaction led to the increase in violent behavior by his team, which culminated in Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw getting suspended for standing up and walking onto the court.
Understand this - it was wrong of Stoudamire and Diaw to do that. There's a rule, and they violated it. But, the punishment goes to the effect, not the cause, and that's where Commissioner Stern has really screwed up. He could have done something after game 1, but he didn't. He could have done something after the kick to Amare's leg, but he didn't. He could have suspended Bowen after kneeing Nash in the groin, but he didn't (well, he gave him a flagrant foul, that taught him). He waited until Horry hip checked the other team's franchise player (Nash) into the scorer's table in game four, then tried to throw an elbow at one of Nash's teammates before he did anything. He had the ability to nip this in the bud in many spots, yet he did nothing.
Then he has the audacity to blame the action he finally took, after four games of escalating violence by the Spurs against the Suns, on the Suns knowing the rules and breaking them. It's kind of like the little kid in school that would keep poking the big kid with the pencil. He would poke, and poke, and poke, and poke, and poke, and poke, and finally the big kid does something, and he gets in trouble, because he knew what he did was wrong and he did it anyway. That doesn't teach anybody anything, except that if you're the aggressor, you can keep needling away at the other team and end up egging them into getting themselves into trouble.
It was disingenuous of Stern to blame his actions on Stoudamire and Diaw. He needed to own up to what he didn't do for the first three games in response to thuggish behavior by a team that has lost all my respect. He was too slow in acting, and he did not act impartially - he could have suspended Duncan for leaving the bench, as well, because it was unclear at the time he left that there would be an altercation in the second period, but he chose not to - again, missing the opportunity to teach the lesson his actions imply he was trying to teach. And that hurts the league.
I'm now a Suns fan in the West, and have no respect for anyone on the Spurs except for Duncan. Parker released a french rap album, so I can't respect him anymore on general principle.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Blah
I've got the blahs. I've been cleaning up bit by bit over the last three days, but nothing seems to be any better. The house actually seems dirtier after I've cleaned. I don't get it.
I'm exhausted. I have to get the kids to clean their rooms tonight so that they are clean when the inlaws get here tomorrow. I also have to finish cleaning all the bathrooms. I've got another 2 loads of garbage I need to take out, plus I have to clean the dining room table, coffee table, my bedroom (though I can just shut the door there), and vacuum upstairs. I have to piick up in the living room again, because, well, the kids don't keep it tidy.
I have day 4 of PMBR tomorrow, and I get to stay for the whole thing for the first time. While I look forward to it, I also have reason to believe it's going to be as boring as whale dung. It's tough to listen to one topic for six and a half hours, especially when nobody from your school is there with you (out of 200+ students, only 5 were from our school, and two of them haven't been there since Monday).
But I did manage to buy some new trousers at the Galleria, which was great, because I got to be condescended to by a saleslady. After I sought her out to give her the commission. I guess I get the last laugh, though, since I'll be an attorney, and she'll still be folding men's trousers at the mall...
Time to get the kids. Have a great evening!
I'm exhausted. I have to get the kids to clean their rooms tonight so that they are clean when the inlaws get here tomorrow. I also have to finish cleaning all the bathrooms. I've got another 2 loads of garbage I need to take out, plus I have to clean the dining room table, coffee table, my bedroom (though I can just shut the door there), and vacuum upstairs. I have to piick up in the living room again, because, well, the kids don't keep it tidy.
I have day 4 of PMBR tomorrow, and I get to stay for the whole thing for the first time. While I look forward to it, I also have reason to believe it's going to be as boring as whale dung. It's tough to listen to one topic for six and a half hours, especially when nobody from your school is there with you (out of 200+ students, only 5 were from our school, and two of them haven't been there since Monday).
But I did manage to buy some new trousers at the Galleria, which was great, because I got to be condescended to by a saleslady. After I sought her out to give her the commission. I guess I get the last laugh, though, since I'll be an attorney, and she'll still be folding men's trousers at the mall...
Time to get the kids. Have a great evening!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
PMBR me ASAP
I'm getting a lot out of the Multistate bar review. It kinda stinks that I have to miss the last 2.5 hours each day, but I'm getting a lot out of the time I'm putting in.
I'm also very glad I signed up for both the 3 day and 6 day reviews. I think in my particular case, it will be especially helpful.
The kids are doing well. Punkin got a bit of a shiner yesterday. They were spinning around on my recliner (which they know they're not supposed to do, lest they get hurt), and she flew off and somehow managed to land on her eye. She has a bit of a rug burn on the outside of her left eye. That girl. She knows how to injure herself in a way that looks far worse than it was. But, perhaps now she knows not to spin the chair around, and maybe, just maybe when I say "don't do that, you will get hurt," perhaps she'll believe me.
The other ones are doing well. The Boy is reading up for school; he has some goal to read 20 books before the end of the year. I wish him luck.
Back to the family. There's a rumblin's upstairs.
I'm also very glad I signed up for both the 3 day and 6 day reviews. I think in my particular case, it will be especially helpful.
The kids are doing well. Punkin got a bit of a shiner yesterday. They were spinning around on my recliner (which they know they're not supposed to do, lest they get hurt), and she flew off and somehow managed to land on her eye. She has a bit of a rug burn on the outside of her left eye. That girl. She knows how to injure herself in a way that looks far worse than it was. But, perhaps now she knows not to spin the chair around, and maybe, just maybe when I say "don't do that, you will get hurt," perhaps she'll believe me.
The other ones are doing well. The Boy is reading up for school; he has some goal to read 20 books before the end of the year. I wish him luck.
Back to the family. There's a rumblin's upstairs.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Things Only Dad Can Do
I was cooking dinner tonight for the kids, as I do often. We had dinner at home, because it's easier for me to keep tabs on them than when we go out.
While preparing dinner, I somehow managed to burn the Crunch Berries.
Don't ask.
While preparing dinner, I somehow managed to burn the Crunch Berries.
Don't ask.
A wonderful way to wake up
I woke up this morning at about 5:40 to two children fighting for ownership of a blankie. They fought briefly, I intervened, granting possession to the Apple. He then took the blankie and laid it over his sister, with whom he had been fighting. Such a grand gesture.
Then we got downstairs and started breakfast. Apple had cereal while Punkin and The Boy had yogurt. They had all just sat down to eat when Apple looked out at one of the cats, bent his arms up at the elbow, hands forward, and roared. He roared with gusto, exclaiming "I'm a dragon! Roar!" He had the biggest smile I had ever seen on a dragon.
Sometimes it's a blessing to have morning children.
Then we got downstairs and started breakfast. Apple had cereal while Punkin and The Boy had yogurt. They had all just sat down to eat when Apple looked out at one of the cats, bent his arms up at the elbow, hands forward, and roared. He roared with gusto, exclaiming "I'm a dragon! Roar!" He had the biggest smile I had ever seen on a dragon.
Sometimes it's a blessing to have morning children.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Bar reviewing
One of the most stressful parts of studying law is not law school itself. The first semester has the fear of doing well enough to come back for the second, but after that, you know the school will do what it can to ensure it can take your money - I mean, provide you with a high-quality education.
But once you finish school, you have to take the bar exam. The bar is difficult. Some states have harder exams than others, but I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought the bar was easy (perhaps easier than they thought, but not easy). I start bar review tomorrow, even though graduation is on Saturday. I will continue studying for the bar until I take the bar exam at the end of July.
This next week will be the most challenging of the weeks, though. I have to finish cleaning house for the relatives who are coming in; I've got two children in school, one of whom I must pick up from school and transport to daycare every day. I have PMBR from 9:30-3:30 (I'll have to leave early each day to pick up the child), and I have a reception on Friday to receive my Pro Bono Honors certificate. Additionally, Friday is the day my mom comes in to one airport, while my father comes in at the other two hours later at the other. My inlaws get here on Thursday; this is the deadline for having the house clean. Finally, the missus just went to the airport, en route to Pennsylvania for a conference for her job. This means I will be playing single dad through Wednesday.
Bar preparation is difficult, but I'm going to make it. After bneing a dad, the bar is just another thing.
But once you finish school, you have to take the bar exam. The bar is difficult. Some states have harder exams than others, but I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought the bar was easy (perhaps easier than they thought, but not easy). I start bar review tomorrow, even though graduation is on Saturday. I will continue studying for the bar until I take the bar exam at the end of July.
This next week will be the most challenging of the weeks, though. I have to finish cleaning house for the relatives who are coming in; I've got two children in school, one of whom I must pick up from school and transport to daycare every day. I have PMBR from 9:30-3:30 (I'll have to leave early each day to pick up the child), and I have a reception on Friday to receive my Pro Bono Honors certificate. Additionally, Friday is the day my mom comes in to one airport, while my father comes in at the other two hours later at the other. My inlaws get here on Thursday; this is the deadline for having the house clean. Finally, the missus just went to the airport, en route to Pennsylvania for a conference for her job. This means I will be playing single dad through Wednesday.
Bar preparation is difficult, but I'm going to make it. After bneing a dad, the bar is just another thing.
The Magic Word
We had kolaches today to celebrate Mother's Day. While we were eating breakfast, the daughter, Punkin, asked mom for some milk. Mom, being the good mother she is, waited patiently for Punkin to say the magic word. Punkin asked again, and then again, and then mom told her she had to say something else.
Punkin looked at her, and said "Here's your ten dollars."
I had to look away, lest they spy me laughing at them.
Punkin looked at her, and said "Here's your ten dollars."
I had to look away, lest they spy me laughing at them.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Bell Tolled Once
I'm done with law school. I finished my last final; I've already turned in my last paper. In one week, I will be Steve, JD.
I rang the bell, along with about six other people this morning. At our school, it is tradition that when you finish your last final, you ring the scale liberty bell in the foyer. Superstition has it that when you ring the bell, the number of rings equates to the number of times you have to take the bar before you pass. As mentioned in the title, the bell tolled once.
I'm a little surprised at the sense of accomplishment that was attached to my sense of relief at being done. I think this is due more to the fact that I feel like I actually accomplished something this time, instead of benefitting from what I already had. I undertook an endeavor that was foreign to me, and while I didn't exactly excel, I did better than just survive. And for that, I'm proud of my accomplishment.
I may not be a lawyer yet, but that doesn't mean I can't reflect on the journey so far. I earned this.
I rang the bell, along with about six other people this morning. At our school, it is tradition that when you finish your last final, you ring the scale liberty bell in the foyer. Superstition has it that when you ring the bell, the number of rings equates to the number of times you have to take the bar before you pass. As mentioned in the title, the bell tolled once.
I'm a little surprised at the sense of accomplishment that was attached to my sense of relief at being done. I think this is due more to the fact that I feel like I actually accomplished something this time, instead of benefitting from what I already had. I undertook an endeavor that was foreign to me, and while I didn't exactly excel, I did better than just survive. And for that, I'm proud of my accomplishment.
I may not be a lawyer yet, but that doesn't mean I can't reflect on the journey so far. I earned this.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Overture, Curtain Lights, This is it, We've Hit the Heights
In 14 hours, I will be sitting in a classroom with about 50 of my classmates, and like all of them I will be taking my National Security Law final.
This is my last final of law school. After this test, I will go downstairs, ring the bell which acknowledges my completion of 90 credit hours of law school academia, enjoy the moment, then go home and clean house for when the family arrives.
I'm very thankful for the opportunity to go to law school. I'm thankful for the chance to provide better for my family. I'm very thankful for the friends I've made, and the things I've done in law school.
Jamie, keep it up; you're almost there. RHM and P-Man - Congrats, I'll miss you both. For you other JDs out there, I'm glad to join you.
Now it's time to get back to studying, first for National Security, then for the bar. Wish me luck
This is my last final of law school. After this test, I will go downstairs, ring the bell which acknowledges my completion of 90 credit hours of law school academia, enjoy the moment, then go home and clean house for when the family arrives.
I'm very thankful for the opportunity to go to law school. I'm thankful for the chance to provide better for my family. I'm very thankful for the friends I've made, and the things I've done in law school.
Jamie, keep it up; you're almost there. RHM and P-Man - Congrats, I'll miss you both. For you other JDs out there, I'm glad to join you.
Now it's time to get back to studying, first for National Security, then for the bar. Wish me luck
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Monsters have always hid in the shadows of children's minds
That was the first line of a short story I wrote in Junior College, some 11 years ago.
The power is out in our apartment complex. The kids are asleep, so they don't get to enjoy the dark. This is probably for the better for us, since we don't have to deal with the scared Apple or Punkin.
I haven't shaved in a week. This is the longest I've ever gone without shaving since I started shaving regularly, about 15 years ago. I sort of feared trying to grow one, because whenever I grew a moustache, it would itch after the third day.
True to form, after the third day, my face started itching. It still itches a little, not much, from time to time. But it's coming in a little fuller than I first thought it would. Not a Gordon Lightfoot full, but there's some there.
One thing I noticed after letting the hair come in, was that I have grey hairs in my whiskers. This was exceedingly humorous to my wife, because at 32, I still have no greys on top of my head, yet, strangely, there they are in the beard. I don't care. I actually was the one to point them out to the wife. What I find interesting, though, is that I have the greys in the facial hair, but not on the head. That seems somehow contrary to common sense. Maybe it gives me a more distinguished look. Now I need a robe and a pipe, some slippers, and a Bassett Hound.
The power just came back on.
The power is out in our apartment complex. The kids are asleep, so they don't get to enjoy the dark. This is probably for the better for us, since we don't have to deal with the scared Apple or Punkin.
I haven't shaved in a week. This is the longest I've ever gone without shaving since I started shaving regularly, about 15 years ago. I sort of feared trying to grow one, because whenever I grew a moustache, it would itch after the third day.
True to form, after the third day, my face started itching. It still itches a little, not much, from time to time. But it's coming in a little fuller than I first thought it would. Not a Gordon Lightfoot full, but there's some there.
One thing I noticed after letting the hair come in, was that I have grey hairs in my whiskers. This was exceedingly humorous to my wife, because at 32, I still have no greys on top of my head, yet, strangely, there they are in the beard. I don't care. I actually was the one to point them out to the wife. What I find interesting, though, is that I have the greys in the facial hair, but not on the head. That seems somehow contrary to common sense. Maybe it gives me a more distinguished look. Now I need a robe and a pipe, some slippers, and a Bassett Hound.
The power just came back on.
National Security
I really dig my national security law class. But it's got a lot in it, which you need to know, of course, for your final. This is my bell-ringing final, so I want to finish with a flourish, but I have a long way to go over the next two days.
Wish me luck.
Wish me luck.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Semantics
One of the Ten Commandments in every version of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness."
I grew up understanding this to mean, roughly, "Thou Shalt Not Lie," which I'm sure many people grew up understanding this to mean.
Today, while studying for national security law, my friend and I took a break and had a discussion on what exactly this means. It seems that "Thou Shalt Not Lie" is a little too simplistic. If nothing else, the bible itself demonstrates that Lying is not something absolutely condemned by God.
If one reads the story of Rahab, a harlot in Jericho, you will find that she lied to the Gentiles to protect the jewish spies who took refuge in her home. She told the Gentiles who were searching for the jews that 1. two men came to her house, but she did not know if they were jewish. This may or may not be the truth, historically. The version I read is mum on the spies identifying themselves as Jews, though they did say that God would save her house. The second line, though, when she said that the men had left and went off in some direction, urging the mob by saying they were moving slowly, and the Gentiles could catch them. This was certainly a lie, as she had hid the two men in her roof.
As retribution for the harlot lying, God spared her house when the walls of Jericho came a'tumblin' down.
So the question I have, essentially, is, what does it mean to not bear false witness, if it doesn't mean "Don't lie?" Or, is this an ethically fuzzy subject, where, as so many people approach it, it's sometimes necessary or excuseable to lie? In the case of Rahab, she lied in the name of God - is that justifiable? Can you expand that to other deific theories, such as Allah?
I'd like to hear your input. I'm going to keep studying, and probably won't consider this again until Saturday afternoon, or so.
I grew up understanding this to mean, roughly, "Thou Shalt Not Lie," which I'm sure many people grew up understanding this to mean.
Today, while studying for national security law, my friend and I took a break and had a discussion on what exactly this means. It seems that "Thou Shalt Not Lie" is a little too simplistic. If nothing else, the bible itself demonstrates that Lying is not something absolutely condemned by God.
If one reads the story of Rahab, a harlot in Jericho, you will find that she lied to the Gentiles to protect the jewish spies who took refuge in her home. She told the Gentiles who were searching for the jews that 1. two men came to her house, but she did not know if they were jewish. This may or may not be the truth, historically. The version I read is mum on the spies identifying themselves as Jews, though they did say that God would save her house. The second line, though, when she said that the men had left and went off in some direction, urging the mob by saying they were moving slowly, and the Gentiles could catch them. This was certainly a lie, as she had hid the two men in her roof.
As retribution for the harlot lying, God spared her house when the walls of Jericho came a'tumblin' down.
So the question I have, essentially, is, what does it mean to not bear false witness, if it doesn't mean "Don't lie?" Or, is this an ethically fuzzy subject, where, as so many people approach it, it's sometimes necessary or excuseable to lie? In the case of Rahab, she lied in the name of God - is that justifiable? Can you expand that to other deific theories, such as Allah?
I'd like to hear your input. I'm going to keep studying, and probably won't consider this again until Saturday afternoon, or so.
Halfway There
I took my first final last night. I think it went pretty well. I wrote a lot more than I thought I would (about 6000 words in 3 hours), but I was busy the whole time, and wasn't really frantic.
I finished the exam about 20 minutes before the end. So I got to spell check, look over my answers, etc., I was just about to save and exit (we use testing software, so I can do this on the computer and then upload the test later) when I looked at the end of the test and noticed that two of my problems didn't have answers. I had completely forgotten to answer them. This I discovered with 9 minutes left on the test.
I'd been wondering about coutnervailing duty/antidumping problems (I think I chose the wrong item), so I'm glad that I got to see that on there, but I wish I had had more time to write a better answer.
National Security Law is next - I'm a little nervous about this one.
I finished the exam about 20 minutes before the end. So I got to spell check, look over my answers, etc., I was just about to save and exit (we use testing software, so I can do this on the computer and then upload the test later) when I looked at the end of the test and noticed that two of my problems didn't have answers. I had completely forgotten to answer them. This I discovered with 9 minutes left on the test.
I'd been wondering about coutnervailing duty/antidumping problems (I think I chose the wrong item), so I'm glad that I got to see that on there, but I wish I had had more time to write a better answer.
National Security Law is next - I'm a little nervous about this one.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Monk
I have mentioned before that I like the show Monk. My son loves the show, though he's not really old enough to understand it, he just likes the theme song and the nervous guy with the suit on.
Every episode title for Monk starts with "Mr. Monk..." For example, Mr. Monk Goes to the Circus, Mr. Monk Takes His Medicine, etc.
So, that leads to the game - what would your Monk title be?
For example, Mr. Monk and the Creature From the Black Lagoon, or Mr. Monk gets a peptic ulcer
What ideas do you have? I'll put more up later.
Every episode title for Monk starts with "Mr. Monk..." For example, Mr. Monk Goes to the Circus, Mr. Monk Takes His Medicine, etc.
So, that leads to the game - what would your Monk title be?
For example, Mr. Monk and the Creature From the Black Lagoon, or Mr. Monk gets a peptic ulcer
What ideas do you have? I'll put more up later.
Study study study study study study
The test is in 50 hours, 19 minutes. Still have work to do. But I'm moving on to dispute settlement. Go NAFTA!
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Paris Hilton is going to jail
But I don't care.
I also don't care about Britney Spears possibly lip-syncing. Nor do I care about who picked up what from standing in the same room as Lindsay Lohan, or what anyone on Survivor has done or will do.
At this point, I don't particularly love NAFTA, either, but I have to study that. It's not the most difficult of classes, but it has a lot of CYAs in it that you have to know.
I'm on the IP stuff now; it's as exciting as what I wrote earlier is.
I also don't care about Britney Spears possibly lip-syncing. Nor do I care about who picked up what from standing in the same room as Lindsay Lohan, or what anyone on Survivor has done or will do.
At this point, I don't particularly love NAFTA, either, but I have to study that. It's not the most difficult of classes, but it has a lot of CYAs in it that you have to know.
I'm on the IP stuff now; it's as exciting as what I wrote earlier is.
NAFTA
Chapter 11 - Investment
Section A - Investment
Art. 1102 - National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another PArty treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, opration, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or privince, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may: (a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum levgel of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or (b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.
There will be a test on this Tuesday.
Section A - Investment
Art. 1102 - National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another PArty treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, opration, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or privince, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may: (a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum levgel of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or (b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.
There will be a test on this Tuesday.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I'm done!
My transactional skills class was more work than I thought it would be at the beginning of it all. But, I'm certianly glad to have it done. I had it bound, so that it would look a little better, and then I forgot to put a cover sheet on it. That's me in a nutshell, I guess.
It's not like my name isn't all over the thing; it's just not on the front. Oh well. At least I'll be able to turn it in tomorrow and not worry anymore.
Oh, and I got a book from Amazon today - To Kill a Mockingbird.
In theory, I've already read this book in junior high. But, in reality, I didn't. I read parts of it, but I certainly don't remember any of it, ecxept a couple of the character names, and the fact that it's a sin to kill a mockingbird. I look forward to finishing finals so I can get to reading it.
That's about it for now for the Steve.
It's not like my name isn't all over the thing; it's just not on the front. Oh well. At least I'll be able to turn it in tomorrow and not worry anymore.
Oh, and I got a book from Amazon today - To Kill a Mockingbird.
In theory, I've already read this book in junior high. But, in reality, I didn't. I read parts of it, but I certainly don't remember any of it, ecxept a couple of the character names, and the fact that it's a sin to kill a mockingbird. I look forward to finishing finals so I can get to reading it.
That's about it for now for the Steve.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
International Enemy Number 1
President Bush announced that Al Qaeda is the biggest threat to stability in Iraq.
So we are there, now, to protect Iraq from Al Qaeda. Seriously, are we supposed to believe this because he says so? First off, too many other sources have discounted any connection to Al Qaeda before the invasion. Second, we have been told too many conflicting stories. Third, our "surge" was supposed to be in place to secure the country against sectarian violence. That would imply that sectarian violence was the biggest threat to stability in Iraq.
Why is the president pulling out Al Qaeda references the day after the "Mission Accomplished" anniversary? There's got to be some connection there.
I did not necessarily agree with the benchmarks. Perhaps it was "setting a date for defeat," but at this point, is that less acceptable than having an open-ended date for defeat? The president has yet to put any teeth into the push for a stable Iraq, and has even taken U.S. Soldiers off the training of the Iraqi soldiers and put them back on the line.
Here's the question I have: What, at this point, would constitute a scenario where we could withdraw from Iraq with our dignity no less damaged than it has been? And I mean more than"a stable Iraq," I mean explain how we achieve it, or can we?
So we are there, now, to protect Iraq from Al Qaeda. Seriously, are we supposed to believe this because he says so? First off, too many other sources have discounted any connection to Al Qaeda before the invasion. Second, we have been told too many conflicting stories. Third, our "surge" was supposed to be in place to secure the country against sectarian violence. That would imply that sectarian violence was the biggest threat to stability in Iraq.
Why is the president pulling out Al Qaeda references the day after the "Mission Accomplished" anniversary? There's got to be some connection there.
I did not necessarily agree with the benchmarks. Perhaps it was "setting a date for defeat," but at this point, is that less acceptable than having an open-ended date for defeat? The president has yet to put any teeth into the push for a stable Iraq, and has even taken U.S. Soldiers off the training of the Iraqi soldiers and put them back on the line.
Here's the question I have: What, at this point, would constitute a scenario where we could withdraw from Iraq with our dignity no less damaged than it has been? And I mean more than"a stable Iraq," I mean explain how we achieve it, or can we?
Wednesday is Haiku Day
Two classes are done,
I'll finish third tomorrow,
Then two, then J.D.!!!
As usual, I look forward to your submissions.
I'll finish third tomorrow,
Then two, then J.D.!!!
As usual, I look forward to your submissions.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Take a Deep Breath
Los Angeles is the most polluted city in America, again. This means Houston is not the most polluted city! Yay! Not only that, but Houston is not number 2 - that distinction belongs to Pittsburgh. Nor is Houston in the top ten, which includes such metropolitan powerhouses as Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnatti, St. Louis, Birmingham, Bakersfield, and Visalia.
I'd talk more, but I'm out of breath...
I'd talk more, but I'm out of breath...
Monday, April 30, 2007
My fingers are bleeding
My International Environmental Law final is due today.
As of Friday, I had successfully selected a topic, but that is all.
I spent Friday evening outlining, and then I scrapped the topics I'd originally decided on and chose two new topics. I started the first one Friday night, getting about a page and a half done before hitting the hay and getting up Saturday Morning, where I went back to work. After taking a break to take the kids on a picnic, take a nap, and then watching the last period of the RedWings game, I finished my first problem at about seven pm - 9 pages, not bad for a 5 page minimum/10 page maximum. I'm notorious for writing just over the minimum required, but there was too much to discuss in this one for brevity. I then took a few minutes respite before starting to write my second problem. I successfully got half a page done on it before I realized I was just plumb tuckered out. I woke up at 3 in the morning unable to think about anything but the London Convention, UNCLOS, and environmental law with respect to the oceans and seas. So I went back downstairs and got back to work. I finished another 2.5 pages before I was able to finally go back to bed. I then spent Sunday finishing up my paper, which I finally completed at about Seven - I got about halfway through my tenth page with that one. Again, there was just so much to discuss.
Then, I got to get back to work on my Guaranty agreement for my Transactional Skills class. I had been on page 3 of that Agreement when I started. By the time I went to bed at 1, I was up to page 17, and then I spent 3 hours this morning finishing the final seven pages of the first draft to send in for review.
So in the course of about 48 hours, I've basically typed 40 pages. That's pretty good for me. And to celebrate, I get on the blogger and write a whole bunch more.
In other news, Friday was my last day at my internship, at least until after the Bar, or until I get a job that pays, whichever comes first. I'm going to really miss that job. It was one of the first jobs I've had in years where I actually looked forward to going to work every day, which I think is one of the best compliments you can give to a workplace. The people were outstanding, the job was challenging, but not overly stressful (even I got used to client contact), though I know it gets more stressful the more you are there. I understand they are looking to do an internship program in the fall, as well, and I encourage them to do so. It's one of my best legal education experiences. Thanks, guys.
As of Friday, I had successfully selected a topic, but that is all.
I spent Friday evening outlining, and then I scrapped the topics I'd originally decided on and chose two new topics. I started the first one Friday night, getting about a page and a half done before hitting the hay and getting up Saturday Morning, where I went back to work. After taking a break to take the kids on a picnic, take a nap, and then watching the last period of the RedWings game, I finished my first problem at about seven pm - 9 pages, not bad for a 5 page minimum/10 page maximum. I'm notorious for writing just over the minimum required, but there was too much to discuss in this one for brevity. I then took a few minutes respite before starting to write my second problem. I successfully got half a page done on it before I realized I was just plumb tuckered out. I woke up at 3 in the morning unable to think about anything but the London Convention, UNCLOS, and environmental law with respect to the oceans and seas. So I went back downstairs and got back to work. I finished another 2.5 pages before I was able to finally go back to bed. I then spent Sunday finishing up my paper, which I finally completed at about Seven - I got about halfway through my tenth page with that one. Again, there was just so much to discuss.
Then, I got to get back to work on my Guaranty agreement for my Transactional Skills class. I had been on page 3 of that Agreement when I started. By the time I went to bed at 1, I was up to page 17, and then I spent 3 hours this morning finishing the final seven pages of the first draft to send in for review.
So in the course of about 48 hours, I've basically typed 40 pages. That's pretty good for me. And to celebrate, I get on the blogger and write a whole bunch more.
In other news, Friday was my last day at my internship, at least until after the Bar, or until I get a job that pays, whichever comes first. I'm going to really miss that job. It was one of the first jobs I've had in years where I actually looked forward to going to work every day, which I think is one of the best compliments you can give to a workplace. The people were outstanding, the job was challenging, but not overly stressful (even I got used to client contact), though I know it gets more stressful the more you are there. I understand they are looking to do an internship program in the fall, as well, and I encourage them to do so. It's one of my best legal education experiences. Thanks, guys.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
My day in court
Picture from my witness, Officer L. O. Jones.
I'm definitely cut out for this lawyering stuff. This is me collecting the bill from my client!
I'm definitely cut out for this lawyering stuff. This is me collecting the bill from my client!
Saturday, April 28, 2007
First Amendment issue?
The first state to make Christmas a state holiday was Alabama, in the 1830s. Interesting, considering the current argument that the Founders intended America to be a Christian government, that they did not determine one of the holiest Christian dates to be important enough to include as a holiday.
James K. Polk was the first president to put a Christmas tree up in the White House. See above.
I'm tired, halfway done with my International Environmental Law final, and ready for bed. I needed a break.
James K. Polk was the first president to put a Christmas tree up in the White House. See above.
I'm tired, halfway done with my International Environmental Law final, and ready for bed. I needed a break.
Friday, April 27, 2007
They're so anxious for me in Court
They couldn't even wait for me to graduate. I received my first Texas jury summons today. I am to report on May 17th. I graduate May 19th. Is it really so important for the County that I start appearing in court before I actually have my law degree?
I have no problem with serving on a jury generally, but I'm right in the middle of bar prep that week and I have family in town.
I am pretty sure that since I will have not yet graduated, I technically will still be a student, which should qualify me to get out of jury duty. Still, the timing really couldn't have been more apt.
I have no problem with serving on a jury generally, but I'm right in the middle of bar prep that week and I have family in town.
I am pretty sure that since I will have not yet graduated, I technically will still be a student, which should qualify me to get out of jury duty. Still, the timing really couldn't have been more apt.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Anecdote time
I went to high school at Lakes High School in Washington State (Go Lancers!). While in high school, I played baseball; I'd actually played most of my life up until then. But, in high school, I wasn't that good. My fielding was ok, nothing that would win any gold gloves, but good enough to get me on the team. I couldn't bat, though. I mean, I really couldn't hit. I couldn't hit a lake if I was standing on the bottom. I couldn't hit the floor if I tripped and fell. I just was not a batter. I blame lots of things, but what it all really boils down to is that I just didn't get over my anxiety at the plate. And our team was bad. We lost our first ten games my sophomore season, including one where we were ahead by four in the last inning.
But we didn't lose every game that year. I still remember our first win. The day was clear, it looked and smelled just like that first really good, clear spring day of tenth grade. We were playing Clover Park high school (they of the John Deere colors), our rival school and the other high school in our school district. I started the game on the pine, as I often did (I was the guy good enough to not get cut), and enjoyed cheering my friends on. The innings went by, scoreless first, they scored one in the second, we responded with two in the third, but they put a bit of a hurt on us in the top of the fifth, the inning I entered the game, where they scored three runs on a gamut of small ball. A single here, a missed pickoff throw, a blooper just over the shortstop's head, a walk, a sharp hit to the gap between the right fielder and myself in center that brought in two, a sacrifice that brought home the third of the inning before we chased them from the bats. We were held at bay in the bottom of the fifth, and the sixth inning brought Clover Park a goose egg; I even recorded one of the outs on a routine fly just to my left and about ten steps in front of me. The scoreboard showed Clover Park 4, Lakes 2. We had a smattering of hits, about nine, but few actually strung together.
John McKinney was the first batter, and he grounded out to short after punching a foul ball about 300 feet deep but too far left. Lief batted next, and he popped out to left. This put me on the plate for my first at-bat of the day. For the season up to this point I was 0 for everything, and part of me was really just expecting to stand up there and either walk or strike out again. But then something happened, something that I didn't really have happen before. I'd always had people root me on, "C'mon Steve, go get 'em," and jingoistic things like that, but this time, as I left the on deck circle, my friend Pete Chiarelli (not the U.S. Army General) called me over to the dugout. He looked me in the eyes and said "Steve, you can hit this guy. Pick a pitch and nail it." And I don't know what it was about the way he said it, but I believed him, and I wanted to show him he was right. And I went to the plate not really feeling different, but knowing differently than I had the other times I'd gone to the plate.
I took my time setting up in the batter's box. I got a really good plant on my foot, spit out the sunflower seeds I'd been chewing on. I swung the bat around a couple times, because that's what the pros did, so that's what I did. I looked at the pitcher, and whereas before I'd see a guy in that spot who was intimidating, this time, I saw a high school kid, just like me. I still had some hesitation as he threw the first pitch. Ball one, low. I wouldn't have swung anyway, it was my first at-bat and we were to wait until the first called strike before we could look to hit - make the pitcher earn it. I stepped out of the batter's box and took a practice swing. Looked at my teammates, my friends and heard them cheering me on, real cheering, not just lip service. I went back to the plate and readied myself for the second pitch. A nicely placed pitch, just about thigh level, closer to the outside corner, strike one. I have the green light now.
I shake my head. I step out of the box again and pace a little, not much, but enough to get my nervous energy under control. I look up and Pete is looking at me, "You got him!" I step back in the box and look the kid on the mound down. He winds up and delivers. Outside, Ball two. And I realize something. He's got to throw a good pitch next. I decide I'm swinging on the next pitch. The ball goes back to the pitcher. I stay in the box, digging a little with my back foot. I check my grip, hands in the right spot. I'm ready. I look at the pitcher, right in his eyes. He knows I'm ready. He winds up, full windup. I get a look at the ball as it leaves his glove with his pitching hand. I see it as his arm winds back, and I see the fingers release from the ball. It's coming right at me, just a little bit lower than my waist and right down the pipe. My arms are moving on their own right now, going into the swing. My hips open up as my weight shifts to my front leg, the bat gaining speed in my arms. I watch as the ball begins to cross the plate when its path is interrupted by 36 ounces of aluminum. I made contact and the ball starts moving away. It's going right back up the middle, so hard the pitcher doesn't have time to move to defend himself from the object heading toward his shins. He has that look you get when you think you're about to be hit by something you really don't want to get hit by as the ball bounces just to his left and heads out into center field. I have my first hit of the season. Marc Thomas is coaching first, and he congratulates me on my achievement, and I'm jumping up and down on the inside, but I know my job isn't over - the game is still going on.
Tony is up next, and he walks. Then Mike singles to load the bases. Binh is next, and he rips a double that sends myself and Tony home - Tony beating out the throw. John Cook is next up, and his single brings in Mike and gives us the lead, 5-4. Shannon grounds out to second to end the rally, but the damage is done, and insurmountable, as we hold off a late Clover Park threat in the top of the seventh, leaving them with two on and our first win of the season. After the game, my teammates decided who was going to get thrown in the shower to celebrate our victory, when Shannon yelled "Let's get Steve!" Now, I was a relatively quick guy in high school, but cleats on tile don't run so well, and it's impossible to get past 9 guys celebrating their first victory, so while I made a valiant effort to dash for the door, I was grabbed in full uniform, ceremoniously dropped on the shower room floor while the cold water was turned on full blast. My reward for starting the game-winning, two out rally.
Experiences like this are what prep sports ought to be about.
But we didn't lose every game that year. I still remember our first win. The day was clear, it looked and smelled just like that first really good, clear spring day of tenth grade. We were playing Clover Park high school (they of the John Deere colors), our rival school and the other high school in our school district. I started the game on the pine, as I often did (I was the guy good enough to not get cut), and enjoyed cheering my friends on. The innings went by, scoreless first, they scored one in the second, we responded with two in the third, but they put a bit of a hurt on us in the top of the fifth, the inning I entered the game, where they scored three runs on a gamut of small ball. A single here, a missed pickoff throw, a blooper just over the shortstop's head, a walk, a sharp hit to the gap between the right fielder and myself in center that brought in two, a sacrifice that brought home the third of the inning before we chased them from the bats. We were held at bay in the bottom of the fifth, and the sixth inning brought Clover Park a goose egg; I even recorded one of the outs on a routine fly just to my left and about ten steps in front of me. The scoreboard showed Clover Park 4, Lakes 2. We had a smattering of hits, about nine, but few actually strung together.
John McKinney was the first batter, and he grounded out to short after punching a foul ball about 300 feet deep but too far left. Lief batted next, and he popped out to left. This put me on the plate for my first at-bat of the day. For the season up to this point I was 0 for everything, and part of me was really just expecting to stand up there and either walk or strike out again. But then something happened, something that I didn't really have happen before. I'd always had people root me on, "C'mon Steve, go get 'em," and jingoistic things like that, but this time, as I left the on deck circle, my friend Pete Chiarelli (not the U.S. Army General) called me over to the dugout. He looked me in the eyes and said "Steve, you can hit this guy. Pick a pitch and nail it." And I don't know what it was about the way he said it, but I believed him, and I wanted to show him he was right. And I went to the plate not really feeling different, but knowing differently than I had the other times I'd gone to the plate.
I took my time setting up in the batter's box. I got a really good plant on my foot, spit out the sunflower seeds I'd been chewing on. I swung the bat around a couple times, because that's what the pros did, so that's what I did. I looked at the pitcher, and whereas before I'd see a guy in that spot who was intimidating, this time, I saw a high school kid, just like me. I still had some hesitation as he threw the first pitch. Ball one, low. I wouldn't have swung anyway, it was my first at-bat and we were to wait until the first called strike before we could look to hit - make the pitcher earn it. I stepped out of the batter's box and took a practice swing. Looked at my teammates, my friends and heard them cheering me on, real cheering, not just lip service. I went back to the plate and readied myself for the second pitch. A nicely placed pitch, just about thigh level, closer to the outside corner, strike one. I have the green light now.
I shake my head. I step out of the box again and pace a little, not much, but enough to get my nervous energy under control. I look up and Pete is looking at me, "You got him!" I step back in the box and look the kid on the mound down. He winds up and delivers. Outside, Ball two. And I realize something. He's got to throw a good pitch next. I decide I'm swinging on the next pitch. The ball goes back to the pitcher. I stay in the box, digging a little with my back foot. I check my grip, hands in the right spot. I'm ready. I look at the pitcher, right in his eyes. He knows I'm ready. He winds up, full windup. I get a look at the ball as it leaves his glove with his pitching hand. I see it as his arm winds back, and I see the fingers release from the ball. It's coming right at me, just a little bit lower than my waist and right down the pipe. My arms are moving on their own right now, going into the swing. My hips open up as my weight shifts to my front leg, the bat gaining speed in my arms. I watch as the ball begins to cross the plate when its path is interrupted by 36 ounces of aluminum. I made contact and the ball starts moving away. It's going right back up the middle, so hard the pitcher doesn't have time to move to defend himself from the object heading toward his shins. He has that look you get when you think you're about to be hit by something you really don't want to get hit by as the ball bounces just to his left and heads out into center field. I have my first hit of the season. Marc Thomas is coaching first, and he congratulates me on my achievement, and I'm jumping up and down on the inside, but I know my job isn't over - the game is still going on.
Tony is up next, and he walks. Then Mike singles to load the bases. Binh is next, and he rips a double that sends myself and Tony home - Tony beating out the throw. John Cook is next up, and his single brings in Mike and gives us the lead, 5-4. Shannon grounds out to second to end the rally, but the damage is done, and insurmountable, as we hold off a late Clover Park threat in the top of the seventh, leaving them with two on and our first win of the season. After the game, my teammates decided who was going to get thrown in the shower to celebrate our victory, when Shannon yelled "Let's get Steve!" Now, I was a relatively quick guy in high school, but cleats on tile don't run so well, and it's impossible to get past 9 guys celebrating their first victory, so while I made a valiant effort to dash for the door, I was grabbed in full uniform, ceremoniously dropped on the shower room floor while the cold water was turned on full blast. My reward for starting the game-winning, two out rally.
Experiences like this are what prep sports ought to be about.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Don't Trash America
The U.S. House yesterday voted unanimously to ban the importation of trash from Canada, despite protestations from the president that this would hurt U.S. business. At least, that's basically what the first paragraph of the Detroit Free Press article linked above says.
What it doesn't say, however, is the effect of NAFTA on the proposed bill. You see, under NAFTA, the importation of products derived from the NAFTA nations are subject to national treatment, or the same treatment as that offered to nations with Most Favored Nation status. Since there is no ban on intrastate or interstate transportation of garbage, the bill would run afoul of NAFTA, and would probably be improper.
There's a lot more to that, but I'm busy drafting a bunch of stuff for class. This is probably not interesting to anyone but a NAFTA lawyer or someone trying to buy the garbage, but it's interesting to see international agreements (treaties) in play against domestic law.
What it doesn't say, however, is the effect of NAFTA on the proposed bill. You see, under NAFTA, the importation of products derived from the NAFTA nations are subject to national treatment, or the same treatment as that offered to nations with Most Favored Nation status. Since there is no ban on intrastate or interstate transportation of garbage, the bill would run afoul of NAFTA, and would probably be improper.
There's a lot more to that, but I'm busy drafting a bunch of stuff for class. This is probably not interesting to anyone but a NAFTA lawyer or someone trying to buy the garbage, but it's interesting to see international agreements (treaties) in play against domestic law.
Doctor My Eyes
I was driving the daughter to school today, as I do every day. We pulled into the school parking lot where I drop her off with the staff that picks up the students. While waiting for the cars in front of me, my daughter said to me, "Daddy, I'm not a human."
Naturally, I asked why my five year old was not a human. She replied "Because I'm blind."
I asked her how she knew she was blind. "Because I can't see my eyes."
How does one argue with that logic?
And how many people do you know that this definition of blind applies to?
Naturally, I asked why my five year old was not a human. She replied "Because I'm blind."
I asked her how she knew she was blind. "Because I can't see my eyes."
How does one argue with that logic?
And how many people do you know that this definition of blind applies to?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Problem With Photo-Op Moments
Is that eventually, more of the story comes out.
In the case of Jessica Lynch, the West Virginia POW, it turned out what happened, in her own words, isn't what was reported (i.e. wasn't what the military allowed to be seen as the "Jessica Lynch Story" made-for-TV movie). Did you know that the Iraqi nurses tried to return her to the US forces, but were shot upon?
Much like the Pat Tillman situation, things weren't what the administration and the DoD wanted us to believe.
They took a story that had the possibility for a feel-good vibe and exploited it for political gain. In both cases, the military took what happened, changed the facts around, invented some, deleted others, and spun it into a story that would make the military look great. Lynch did not fight back, her humvee was hit by an RPG and crashed into the vehicle in front of them. The military knew almost immediately that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, but they also knew that he was a football player who gave up millions to support his country, and that his valiant, heroic death would embolden countless others to volunteer as well. So they shut everyone up, hid the records, changed the facts around, returned him as a hero (which he was), making the most of the political opportunity that presented itself. Even now, four years later, new details keep getting leaked, little by little, which makes it much less evident the scope of subterfuge put in place, but which is undeniably heinous.
This country needs to rally around a cause. We have for every war - against tyranny in the revolution, to keep the nation together in the Civil War, to stop the threat of a Nazi or Communist world, etc.. Heroes help to do that. But those heroes need to be authentic, not manufactured out of what chance doles out. Jessica Lynch served with distinction. She was a Prisoner of War, a status I have never suffered, nor would I wish upon anyone else. Pat Tillman WAS a hero, but not because of his death or his funeral, and certainly not because of the military cover-up. When you try to make up heroes, it's more likely going to fail than succeed, and it will end up hurting more in the long run than it helped in the short.
In the case of Jessica Lynch, the West Virginia POW, it turned out what happened, in her own words, isn't what was reported (i.e. wasn't what the military allowed to be seen as the "Jessica Lynch Story" made-for-TV movie). Did you know that the Iraqi nurses tried to return her to the US forces, but were shot upon?
Much like the Pat Tillman situation, things weren't what the administration and the DoD wanted us to believe.
They took a story that had the possibility for a feel-good vibe and exploited it for political gain. In both cases, the military took what happened, changed the facts around, invented some, deleted others, and spun it into a story that would make the military look great. Lynch did not fight back, her humvee was hit by an RPG and crashed into the vehicle in front of them. The military knew almost immediately that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, but they also knew that he was a football player who gave up millions to support his country, and that his valiant, heroic death would embolden countless others to volunteer as well. So they shut everyone up, hid the records, changed the facts around, returned him as a hero (which he was), making the most of the political opportunity that presented itself. Even now, four years later, new details keep getting leaked, little by little, which makes it much less evident the scope of subterfuge put in place, but which is undeniably heinous.
This country needs to rally around a cause. We have for every war - against tyranny in the revolution, to keep the nation together in the Civil War, to stop the threat of a Nazi or Communist world, etc.. Heroes help to do that. But those heroes need to be authentic, not manufactured out of what chance doles out. Jessica Lynch served with distinction. She was a Prisoner of War, a status I have never suffered, nor would I wish upon anyone else. Pat Tillman WAS a hero, but not because of his death or his funeral, and certainly not because of the military cover-up. When you try to make up heroes, it's more likely going to fail than succeed, and it will end up hurting more in the long run than it helped in the short.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)