Pharmacists suit

According to this article, "four pharmacists who refused to sign a pledge promising to dispense the morning-after birth-control pill sued Walgreen drug stores Friday, alleging they were illegally fired."

The reason they claim they were illegally fired is because they claim the pledge is contrary to Illinois law (where they sued). The law they cite is the Illinois Right of Health Care Conscience Act (745 ILCS 70). Section 7 of the Act states:

It shall be unlawful for any public or private employer ... including, but not limited to, a medical, nursing or other medical training institution, to ... impose any burdens in terms or conditions of employment on, or to otherwise discriminate against, any applicant, in terms of employment, admission to or participate in any programs for which the applicant is eligible, or to discriminate in relation thereto, in any other manner, on account of the applicant's refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform counsel, suggest, recommend, refer, assist or participate in any way in any forms of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.

The law there sounds pretty clear. It sounds as though the pharmacists are not required to sign the pledge.

The problem comes with a different state law, which requires pharmacies that sell federally approved contraceptives to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control "without delay" if they have the medication in stock. (note: I can't find this law)

Using my astute law student analytical skills, and noting that I'm only a law student, not a lawyer, I will speculate on how I think this should turn out. I think that Walgreen's is right in that they have an obligation to uphold the law and distribute emergency contraception if they have it in stock, and their pharmacists are required to do the same. However, my guess is that they overstepped their bounds by requiring the pharmacists sign a pledge to do so. That condition of employment, assuming that the pharmacists' failure to sign was the proximate cause of their dismissal, appears to be on its face violative of Right of Health Care Conscience Act.

It's very interesting to see how the cases dissect the law to such small pieces.

Book liners, movie style

When you decide to buy a book, you don't just look at the cover or the title to decide whether it is something that interests you. You pick it up, look inside the jacket, and read the synopsis, to give you an idea what the movie is about. Or you read the recap on Amazon.com, or Barnes and Noble, orwhatever. At least, I do. I can't exactly speak for everyone.

For movies, the closest thing there is to a jacket liner is the preview or the commercial. The preview's job is to take snippets of the best parts of the movie, provide a very brief outline of the plot, and pique your curiosity.

Yesterday, the new movie "Big Momma's House 2" came out, with heavy television advertising. The advertising shows that the movie involves Martin Lawrence dressing in drag as an overweight woman - again. It shows a couple jokes, and a sight gag or two. What the commercial DOESN'T show is any semblance of a plot.

I read a review on the Detroit Free Press, where they gave the skeleton outline - an FBI agent is tracking (someone), and in order to get inside, poses as "big momma" in order to get a job as a nanny. "Comedy" ensues.

Now, that the studio chose not to give any hint of the plot of the movie, short of "man in drag" should be a hint that this is not a movie for the general audience, and rather a movie for those people who find Martin Lawrence humorous. I can tell you that I don't intend to watch the movie, and would be surprised if anyone I know watches it. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised to see this movie make quite a bit of money, which is a sad testimony of American filmmaking expectation.

Simple quiz

After what bird is the Alaskan town of Chicken named?

I'll post the answer in a couple days.

Just a reminder

Fan Death exists.

Publish or don't

I have excellent news! I have selected a topic on which to write my seminar paper for education law! I've got to write a minimum of 20 pages (which really isn't that much) on a topic of my choosing in the field of education law.

The topic I've chosen is intelligent design. My duty, which I've chosen to accept, is to explain the current law on the topic and devise a proposed course on ID that would pass judicial/constitutional muster. I'm actually excited about this, which is a change from my other writing assignments in law school, so perhaps that's a good omen.

Now to start the research!

Doldrums

My assignment for Corporations for tomorrow is 38 pages, read, brief, and prepared to discuss. The topic is the allocation of legal power among the board of directors and the shareholders. This stuff reads like stereo instructions to me, and I'm having a lot of difficulty holding any real interest in it. Yet I plug on, because I need to learn how all this works.

Still, it's painful to read something three or four times and still not have a clue what it means. Perhaps I should quit law school and become an offshore fisherman, or a fast-food manager.

I pray that we will one day meet again

That was the senior quote of one of my good friends in high school. He had hoped to include that in the yearbook, where the seniors put their quotes, yet when he got his yearbook, the word pray was replaced with the word hope. Of course, to us 18 year olds, this was an outrage! The school abridged his right to free speech, and changed his words. What we couldn't see, of course, was the potential tacit approval of religion by the school in allowing the word pray. Personally, I still think that's a bit of a stretch, even in the context of establishment clause, but I can at least see it now.

Schools aren't allowed to impliedly endorse religion. Religion is something that is to be kept from school. That isn't to say that schools can't teach topics that have religious overtones, that would be nearly impossible. You can't teach history without discussing the Crusades, unless No Child Left Behind deems the Crusades unimportant. It's all but impossible for band, orchestra, or choir to perform classical music that doesn't have ties to religion. The thing is, you can teach about the existence of religion, you just can't prosthelytize (I'm not going to spell check that, so if it's wrong, I don't care).

One thing schools can't do is lead prayer. They can't start administrative meetings, school days, graduations, etc. with prayer, even if non-religious types are free to leave the room or not participate. I can understand that. If it were allowed, it would create an environment that was uncomfortable at the least for the non-religious or those of different religion. Additionally, it draws a very clear line of demarcation. This line extends to student-led prayer on school grounds. Again, this is a fairly bright line, and I can appreciate that. I had a friend in high school who roudnly criticized myself and several of my friends for not joining her and others in a prayer vigil between classes for a classmate who'd been hospitalized. I appreciated her desire to do so, but disagreed with the choice of venue and the cajoling nature of her argument.

Now, it's fairly well established in the public education realm that prayer and religion are personal items that can be utilized on a personal level - I can pray before lunch quietly to myself. There's nothing wrong with that. How does that extend to the military?

When I was in the Air Force, prior to several commander's calls - mostly at training squadrons (schools), the Squadron Commander had the base chaplain lead us in an invocation. At the school graduations, the flight commander did likewise. The commanders justified these acts by stating those who wished not to participate were free to not pray with everyone else. They still had to bow their heads and stay in the room, but they didn't have to pray.

I will say I have problems, especially after my entry into law school, understanding how prayer can not be allowed in public schools, which makes sense to me, but can be allowed in the military schools. I don't see any fundamental difference in many aspects - it's a school, it's government funded, it amounts to prosthelityzing, and it carries the implication of government endorsement of one religion. Even if we eliminate the school aspect of it, we have a situation where the military is compelling religious behavior under the rationale that some people want it.

I think the intention is honorable, I just think it's misplaced, especially in a melting pot environment such as the military.

Random Trivia

If you're average among the world, you will eat three spiders this year.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

I almost missed it, but here it is:

Coca Cola is
The elixir of life, drink
It for happiness!

As always, I look forward to your contributions

America as an Idea and an Ideal

Jack Grant is a blogger at Random Fate as well as a regular contributor to The Moderate Voice. He has posted an article on both blogs (linked here) that would be impossible for me to summarize in any form. I highly recommend reading it, to get a very well-written perspective on life and liberty in America.

Home Sweet Homeless

Yesterday, Houston police participated in a downtown sweep aimed at removing the homeless in the area. The sweep was the result of many complaints from businesses and residents of the ten homeless encampments about the homeless in the area.

Some people (mostly homeless) complained that they had nowhere else to go and were getting the shaft - essentially being punished for being homeless.

Accompanying the police were representatives of homeless rights groups and shelters, who could help these homeless people get some help, if they desired. No homeless people were arrested, and some 10 of those dislocated elected to seek refuge in the shelters. Ten. Out of the scores that were displaced. The purpose of this sweep was to help these homeless people get the aid and support they need, and yet only ten chose to accept the help. The rest complained about being displaced and moved on to another location to be homeless.

The homeless problem, often, is one of election by the individual. A person chooses to become homeless, either consciously or unconsciously. From what I understand, in the majority of cases, the homeless are people who should be on medication, but stopped taking their medication and now are suffering from dementia or other such problems. But, usually, the overarching truth of the matter is that many homeless are homeless by choice. They don't want to be helped. They want to be anonymous, some face that you pass by. Someone who has no responsibilities, no obligations, nothing. These people live for handouts, free lunches, or whatever. I think that the police sweep was one of the most humane attempts to help these people that could have come.

Simplify

I'm not a city guy. I know this. I'm just not comfortable in a metropolitan area. It's too crowded, I don't feel safe, I don't feel as though I can stretch my legs, etc.

Conversely, I don't know how long I could live in the country. I think I'd love the quiet and the open spaces, but I'd probably go stir crazy after a short while. What I need is a suburban location, convenient to what the city has, but not so close that I can feel the city around me.

I also need a place in the country where I can get away from everything. A place like the cabin. My grandparents bought the cabin some 30 years ago, as a refuge, a sanctum sanctorum, a getaway. The cabin is on a small lake in central Michigan. As a child, I'd go fishing on the lake, take the boat out to get some pike or bass. We'd go swimming in the deep spots (it's not a deep lake, only about 12-15 feet at the deepest). We'd go hiking and exploring in the woods around the lake.

I've not been to the cabin since 2000, and before that, it'd been about ten years since I'd been up there. While I'm sure I remember it more fondly now, and I know that if I spent an extended amount of time up there I'd not love it so much (it's a cabin, it's not that big), I think I could really benefit from a week or two up there. I'd like to get out away from everything and all the crowds. I'd like to take the children up to the cabin, so that they can get out and run and explore and discover for the first time all the things my cousins and I discovered for the first time when we were their age.

Some people want sports cars for their midlife crises. I'm different. I want quiet and space to breathe. I miss the cabin.

Say you, say me

One of the things that always interested me about criminal trials wherein the defendant was found guilty was the prepared speech given by the victim's family. Usually it goes something to the effect of "How dare you, now you've got your comeuppance. You're an evil creature who doesn't deserve the breath you're breathing." And so on. Victim's families make these statements, I assume, as a form of closure, their chance to demonize the convicted person.

This right is protected by a federal law that was enacted in 2004, the Crime Victim's Rights Act, which grants the families the right to be heard. This right to be heard, according to the Ninth Court of Appeals, is a literal right, that the families are allowed to speak, and not be limited to written statements, as District Court Judge Walter ruled.

I appreciate the urge to speak at a conviction, but I don't know how much it helps, outside a personal sense of retribution. If the person convicted did do it, and they are remorseful, your statements aren't going to help any, and in fact will make him (or her) feel worse about the situation. If they're not remorseful, then your statements fall on deaf ears, which doesn't help anyone. Finally, if the person convicted was actually innocent of the crime, then you've wasted your venom and ire on someone who isn't deserving of it, and who is already being punished for a mistake.

Heaven forbid I'm ever in a situation where I have the opportunity to speak at a person convicted of a crime against my family, but if I am, I think I will forego the speech.

Kids

In my apartment complex, we have a wide array of kids, most from the lower middle class/poverty section. Many of these kids come from broken homes, or have parents that work full time, or who have parents who work double shifts to make ends meet.

One of our old neighbors, who moved, was in my son's first grade class. He knocked on the door one evening, looking to play. "Can your son come out?" When I explained we were preparing to have dinner, the boy replied "We body cooy." I had to ask him to repeat what he said several times before I parsed out "barbequeing" from the sentence. His mother works full time as an hourly employee, and he is one of five siblings. I think he's the fourth, but I'm not sure. At any rate, he's obviously not gotten much one-on one parent-child time that can be so painfully beneficial to the educational process. I saw one of the class projects when I picked up the boy one day, and noticed that this particular child had trouble stringing together more than two letters, let alone making sentences. His mother moved apartments so that they can be in a different school district, because ours "doesn't do enough" to teach the kids. I don't think the school district is at fault here.

I also submit that this child would be turned down by any private school to which he applied. He can't meet the bare minimum expectations, and his mother can't/won't put in the time necessary to help him catch up. Vouchers won't get this child educated, as the private schools are blessed with the right of refusal.

Another boy in my son's class had a habit of pouring yogurt on the other children, and has been suspended more than once for fighting. He's got problems with anger, and is a disciplinary problem. The teachers at the school can't discipline him - that is a parent's job here. His parents don't discipline him, and won't let the school do anything to punish (detention?! Then you had better find a way for him to get home, because I'm not getting him!) the bad behavior. If his parents used vouchers to get him into another school, a private school, one that has a right of refusal, do you think they would accept such a child? Would you, if you didn't have to? How many private schools are there? There aren't enough seats in all the private schools in the country. They don't have to take this child, and they won't.

These are but two examples of what public schools are saddled with. They are required to take all students, by law - even illegal immigrants. However, when these problem children perform poorly, it's not their fault, it's the teachers'. Thus, the school boards suffer at the hands of No Child Left Behind and other such programs. The students who are accepted by private schools through voucher programs (in the places that have them) are not the ones who need the help. Indeed, it strips the school districts of the students who can improve the scores, or who keep the scores (that the private schools aren't required to reach) and leaves only the ones that are most in need of help. No Child Left Behind, vouchers, they don't address the problems, they provide blame and flashy "solutions." Something different, something better, is necessary.

Conveniently Located in Weare, N.H.

Justice Souter's home has come under attack in recent days (again) from Eminent Domain activists, who disagree with the majority ruling in last year's Kelo decision. They have placed a proposition on the local ballot to effect a taking of Justice Souter's home to build a "lost liberty hotel."

Takings by the government for a public purpose is legal, under the Fifth Amendment. The ruling in Kelo determined that the taking of private land as part of a major renovation project to improve the economy of a city, create new jobs, increase tax base and employment for the town constituted a legitimate government purpose. The detractors dislike that the ruling appears to give carte blanche to wealthy corporations who might like a certain spit of land in a neighborhood. I don't see the slope as quite that slippery, myself. I don't like takings; I actually think that people who buy their land should be allowed to own their land, but I can certainly see the need for the local government to care for the entire city, even at the sacrifice of a half-dozen families.

To that end, I think the activists are wrong. I don't think they fully appreciate what the ruling means or intends, and I think that they believe that they are doing "right" to teach Justice Souter a lesson, but they are not operating within the spirit or ruling of the decision.

Reading is Fundamental

The Boy is reading. He's in first grade, and he's currently reading Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. He chose to read this on his own - we prefer he reads books closer to his demographic, but it's fun to hear him try to read it. He's seen the movie, and thus is interested in reading the book. Can't fault that.

Probably the funniest part about it, is that, since he's seen the movie, he tries to pronounce things like they do in the movie. I can't tell you how fun it is listening to a seven year old Texas boy trying to read with a British Accent.

Bad news, but not "bad" news

My daughter had to stay home from daycare today, due to a high fever. Strangely, she wasn't acting sick at all; just had a fever. So, I called the doctor, and took her in. Turns out she has a bit of an ear infection. That explains the fever. Anyway, some Amoxicilin and rest, and she'll be good as new.

Now for the bad news. The wife bought Fame, the first two seasons. She says she still likes the re-runs, which I don't believe, because I seem to recall the reruns being banned by executive decree during the cleansing of useless television shows, such as Gimme a Break, and Briscoe County, Junior.

Ahh, well.

Safety

Pretty close to a year ago, I wrote the managers of my old apartment complex. They had access control gates, but said that the gates were not for security "they're to keep people out." When I pointed out that the only real reason for keeping people out is the safety of the tenants - without tenants, there's no money, and the complex is valueless - I received a nice answer from the apartment managers, "We're not concerned with your safety."

I made sure to mention that to the apartment managers, who told me that they'd start work on repairing the access control gates, which hadn't worked since we moved in, the following Tuesday. That made me happy, thinking that I could effect change by simply writing a letter.

Unfortunately, my joy didn't last, inasmuch as while they began the repairs, they never finished the repairs. Now, many months later, after we moved out, the complex is in the news. The reason? There was a murder in the complex last night. Some unidentified man was shot and killed in the parking lot, just after midnight.

The general rule with apartments is that if they take measures to provide security - such as build access control gates, hire security guards, put up cameras, etc., then they recognize there is a need for that added security, and thus are under an affirmative obligation to continue to provide that security. If they don't, and someone is injured, the complex can be held liable for that injury. I don't suggest that the man wouldn't have been killed if the gates closed, but it would have been much more difficult for a trespasser with a gun to get in the complex to shoot him.

I'm so glad I don't live there anymore.

Random Trivia

Male cats that have both Black and Orange fur are always infertile.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

One year ago I
Began this blog for fun, now
I'm glad for new friends

As always, everyone is welcome to contribute!

Law School With Children

Means reading up on professional responsibility in the dining room with Barney blaring in the living room.

Assisted Suicide OK - Court

The Supreme Court today ruled that Doctors in Oregon who use prescription medicine in the furtherance of the State's assisted suicide law may not be punished by a recent law passed through the Bush administration. The law was passed as part of Ashcroft's attempt to "punish" doctors who assist terminally ill patients to die - patients who are diagnosed with less than six months to live according to two doctors and who are of sound mind.

The ruling went 6-3, so it's unlikely that if Alito was on bench during deliberation that the outcome would have been different. Interestingly, in his dissent, Justice Scalia noted, "[the Court's ruling] is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."

I agree with the decision. I don't like that the Bush administration, having lost on the subject of assisted suicide once, tried to undermine it through other means. Dirty tricks. Sometimes it's better to just let it be.

Sicky-sick sick

You wouldn't know it to look at him, but the little boy is an evil genius. He's managed to bring this entire house to its knees over the last three days. Whatever it was that he had, he gave to me - and I firmly believe he felt as badly as he looked based on my experiences the last few days. The Kirsten has picked something up as well. She's using the holiday to catch up on her sleep. But, perhaps most interesting of all is that he managed to get the Girl sick. She didn't even know it, but got sent home from daycare with a 101 fever today.

And of course, to ensure his complete victory, he made it a point to wake up screaming every hour on the hour last night. Thus we've all been driven completely insane, exhausted, and subject to his every little whim.

All this from a 22 pound boy. Amazing.

I still haven't been able to do my reading for class on Wednesday. That's not good.

Cereal

I'm a weakling when it comes to Crunch Berries. As far as I'm concerned, there's no better cereal on the planet. My kids seem to be partial to Corn Pops, but my son has Honey-Nut Cheerios moments.

What is Free Speech?

A man in Kent County, Michigan was convicted of indecent exposure. His crime? He appeared in a comedy skit in 2000 where he exposed his genitals and filmed it with a voiceover joke.

His conviction was appealed, but the court rejected the appeal.

The basis of the appeal was that he was participating in free speech. His show was on public access, and he felt that he had the right to show whatever he wanted, indecent exposure notwithstanding. The Kent County assistant prosecutor noted that this wasn't a First Amendment case; that the first amendment deals with the right to an opinion, not the right to expose onesself on television. The Michigan Supreme Court decided that the questions the appeal presented should not be viewed by the court.

The question for you?
Is this a speech issue? Is it free speech to show your genitalia on public access television?

Sick child

Poor little guy. The youngest boy has something (cold? Flu? Plague? Scurvy?). He's just now starting to act sick, though he's had a fever since last night. I hope it's nothing that lasts too long; he's a good kid. It's always interesting to see the kids with the fight taken out of them, though. Makes them much easier to manage.

Right now, he's on the Recliner, watching Veggie Tales. Nothing like a talking cucumber to make you feel right as rain.

New Semester

Here we start the downward slope of school. Half done, if not necessarily well-begun.

This semester looks to be rather entertaining.

Agency and Partnership,
Wills, Trusts, and Estates,
Professional Responsibility,
Corporations, and
Education Law Seminar.

The education law will cover my substantive writing requirement, and the rest are all bar courses.

Unfortunately, I'm only taking 14 hours this semester, instead of 15, which means I'm going to have to make up at least one hour, either in intersession or during the summer. We're going to push for intersession, or possibly study abroad (I'm thinking Mexico, it's close, inexpensive, and short, only 2 weeks).

Anyway, we'll see. Enjoy!

Thank goodness for conservative judges

Because if it weren't for them, who knows whose civil rights would be violated? Apparently, the poor don't count. According to this article, Michigan's Kent County Circuit Court Judge Dennis Kolenda has "denied appellate counsel to several poor people and stated that he has no obligation or intention of following the Supreme Court's ruling [Halbert v. Michigan] in the future and caracterized the ruling as "incorrect" and "illogical."

Halbert v. Michigan was a Michigan Supreme Court case that struck down a law that prevented judges from appointing counsel to poor people who have pled guilty to appeal their sentences.

Apparently, this trial court judge believes that he's not required to follow the rule of law. Stare Decisis (which is fancy latin for precedence) apparently is up to the individual. If this were a liberal judge, they'd call him an activist; what do you call him when he's conservative, other than wrong?

Source: the Debate Link

Random Trivia

The Kilt was invented in 1727 by an Englishman named Thomas Rawlinson, because he thought traditional Scottish garb (plaid means blanket in Gaelic) was too cumbersome for efficient work by his Scottish employees.

The tartans were (essentially) invented by John and Charles Edward Stuart, two charlatans who claimed to be offspring of the British crown, and who created much of what is now considered traditional Scottish culture. The first tartans in the book on the Highland costumes numbered 76, over 50 of which were invented by the Stuarts specifically forthe book, first published in 1842.

This will get stuck in your head

Here come old flattop, he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeballs, he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knees
Got to be a joker, he just do what he please

He wear no shoeshine, he got toejam football
He got monkey finger, he shoot coca-cola
He says I know you, you know me
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together, right now, over me

He bag production, he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard, he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together, right now, over me

He roller-coaster, he got early warning
He got muddy water, he one mojo filter
He say, "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good looking 'cause he's so hard to see
Come together, right now, over me.

Courtesy John Lennon, the Beatles

Weights, Hammers, Shuffleboard!

My friend Nuje (you'll see his blog linked to the side now) and I went out to a place up in the Woodlands the other day; he had to take his son to a birthday party. It was one of those multi-event places - bowling, pool, video games, lazer tag, etc. While his son was at the birthday party, Nuje and I relaxed, and had planned on playing pool. Then, we saw the shuffleboard table. We next made the decision to play that instead. Since neither of us remembered how to play, it took a minute to make up some rules. We had a rather good time playing, and it was apparent neither of us had played in years.

Considering we didn't know the rules, and had to make some up, we actually came quite close to hitting the actual rules for shuffleboard. It's great fun, and I look forward to playing again.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Chilly this morning
Strange for Houston, land of the
December A/C

Or else

Mexican and Central American diplomats "demanded guest worker programs and the legalization of undocumented migrants in the United States," according to this Yahoo! article.

Unquoted, but surely thought in the heads of many was "or else we'll have to care for them."

The diplomats urged a reform to the current system that would include temporary visas as well as regulation of those moving to receptor countries.

I don't like the idea of temporary visas for people who entered the country illegally. I think it's wrong to reward people for breaking the law, and I certainly don't see this as any kind of deterrence factor.

I had more, but it's time to take the kids to school.

'Tis better to give than receive

As mentioned yesterday, I needed a new AC adapter for my computer. The folks on the phone were kind enough to inform me that the delivery would be today. That made me happy.

Last evening, the blood center called and asked me if I'd be willing to make another donation. I said certainly. They asked me when, and I said (today) at 12:15, forgetting that I'd have my delivery on the same day. I remembered this morning, when I woke up and looked longingly at my computer. I considered calling the blood people and telling them I'd have to reschedule, because I had to wait for the delivery guy, but I decided against it, thinking that there'd be no way the delivery guy would come the same time as I was donating blood.

11:55 comes around, and no delivery guy. I decide I need to get on my way, and cross my fingers that there'd be no delivery while I was gone. As I start my engine, I look at the gas needle, and realize it's down below the "e." Darn. I had to stop to get gas. As soon as I start filling the tank at the station on the corner, I see a DHL truck drive by, down the road towards where we live. I realize this is a bad thing, as I am not home to greet the delivery guy, and my computer company uses DHL. So, I stop pumping gas (3 gallons), get in the car, drive home as quickly as possible, noting that the DHL guy pulled into an apartment complex a little before mine. I figure there's not going to be more than one delivery truck on my street, so I get home, acknowledging that I'm going to miss my blood appointment. Save lives, BAH! I need an A/C adapter!

About 5 minutes after I get in the house, there's a knock at the door, and voila! I have an A/C adapter. Then, after checking my e-mail (priorities, of course), I hop back in the car and drive to the blood center, which was more than happy to take belated blood. That made me feel good.

Moral of the story: give blood. It requires no work, you just have to sit there. You save lives, and you get to eat cookies. And don't buy my computer.

Last minute

The new semester begins next week. I had to come to school today to buy my books, and see if I can change one of my classes. I'm not quite the mental dynamo many of my classmates are, and I don't think I could handle taking five classes straight with no breaks in between. My mind can't hold that much. So, I've got to try to get into a Tuesday/Thursday class, or something, so I can have a bit of a respite.

In other news, my battery charger/AC adapter for my laptop has stopped charging my battery. Now it just chirps at me when I plug it in. This is the third problem I've had with the AC adapter in the last 9 months. I'm not too happy about that. Oh well. At least it's under warranty. I just hope I get the new adapter in the next few days, or else class will be difficult.

Wish me luck next semester. Only 3 to go!

Sports

I played baseball as a youth. I wasn't bad, until they started pitching the ball (long story). I honestly don't remember much about playing teeball as a child, other than making the all star team when I was nine and coming in first place. In fastpitch, my first team went 10-2. We lost the last two games of the year and finished second overall. It was disappointing.

What was the problem with playing baseball and losing? It made us want to play harder, try to do better. If we won, we got to cheer. My coaches taught us about sportsmanship, how to root for us and not against the other team. We won a few, and we lost a few, and I am better for it.

My son likes soccer. I played soccer for two years as a child and pretty much stunk. He's better than I, and plays at the YMCA. The Y doesn't keep score. Everyone wins, and everyone cheers, except for the occasional overcompensating dad (more on this shortly). I don't mind encouraging everyone to do well, and cheering everyone when they do. But I don't agree with the "everyone wins" part.

We were out househunting a while back, during baseball season, and we saw a sign on the side of the road advertising a team that was looking for a shortstop. He had to be 11-12 years old, and had to be "all star quality." Anything less would not be considered. I've heard of dads (usually the dads, but I'm sure occasionally the moms) getting into fights over the games, yelling at other parents, coaches, umpires, and players. They seem to believe that by being a very ardent fan of their child on Saturday, it will make up for the absence of parenthood during the week. The coaches in these leagues take the game far too seriously, as do the parents. It's a game. I don't like this "we must be the best or you're gone" part.

There must be a happy medium. I know there must, because there used to be. I'm willing to bet in small town America, it still exists. There is nothing wrong with trying to win. There is nothing wrong with succeeding, and being better at something than the others. When you lose, you often are compelled to go back and try harder, and that's something parents need to try to do. That's encouragement. It doesn't have to be "you did well enough," it can be "you did well, now let's try it again." Don't teach your kids complacency now; it'll stick with them. Teach them to try to excel. Sometimes they'll win, sometimes they'll lose. That's OK.

As for my part, I know what my tendencies can be. I know I'm prone to coaching my kid; trying to get him to do more. I'm know that I might come to a point where I become one of those parents I detest. As such, I try to distance myself from the games my son is in. That's OK, too. You can support your child without actually being present, even. Ask him or her about how he or she did. Talk to your child. It doesn't take fanatacism at the park to show you love your child. Really. My parents didn't attend all my games growing up, and I know they still loved me.

Day 12

On the Twelfth Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Twelve drummers drumming
Eleven pipers piping
Ten lords a-leaping
Nine ladies dancing
Eight maids a-milking
Seven swans a-swimming
Six geese a-laying

Five golden rings

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree

No to vouchers

According to this Yahoo! article, the Florida Supreme Court has struck down the state's voucher program, which allowed students to use state funds to attend private schools. The court ruled that the program "diverts public dollars into separate private systems parallel to and in competition with the free public schools," which are the sole means set out in the state constitution for educating Florida children. Chief Justice Pariente wrote the opinion for the majority, and also noted that private schools are not uniform when compared with each other or the public system and are exempt from many standards imposed by law on the public schools, such as mandatory testing. The effect of the voucher program was that students were able to leave a public school, which had to meet state requirements and use public funds to attend private schools, which were not bound by such standards.

This ruling helps ensure that the public tax dollars go towards paying for public education expenses, to help the schools meet the standards by providing better pay for better teachers and better resources for education, as opposed to taking a stipend of money earmarked for public education and reserving it for private use. It will go towards fixing a problem for many students, as opposed to the few who left for private school (in Florida, about 24,000 students, which is undoubtedly a small total number of total students).

One of the arguments ruled on by the 1st Court of Appeals was that the voucher program violated the requirement of separation of church and state. This was not ruled on by the Supreme Court of Florida.

I like this ruling. I think it's better to work toward the good of the educational system, not try to take the students who have the means to get out and send them to schools that don't have to meet the state's standards.

The average frenchman goes through two bars of soap per year...

Not that that really has anything to do with this post.

When I was doing my undergraduate courses, one of the assignments we had dealt with researching the effectiveness of antibacterial soap. Basically, we had to determine whether or not antibacterial soap was any better than regular soap.
If you do any searches online for antibacterial soap, you're going to find that the majority of sites that praise it are soap making companies. The common thread among other sites, such as here and here, is that it is either no more beneficial or even harmful. Let's see what we have:

First, howstuffworks.com explains how soap works. You'll note, if you click on the link, that regular soap washes away bacteria (among other things) on the hands. This would suggest that killing the bacteria is unnecessary.

Second, in order for antibacterial soap to actually have any real effect, it has to be on the skin for at least two minutes. Most people don't have that kind of patience.

Third, it only works on bacteria. It has no effect on any viruses.

Fourth, it's antibiotics. I don't know about y'all, but I tend to try to avoid taking antibiotics when I'm not ill.

Fifth, it might create superbacteria, that is immune to antibacterial things. I'm sure we've all heard of resistant strains of things. It's no stretch to believe that the bacteria that doesn't die when in contact with Antibacterial soap and thus procreates, can produce many more bacteria that are immune.

Sixth, For those of you with septic tanks, The soap residue flushes into the tanks, which rely on bacteria to break down the waste. This means that you are effectively killing what you need to make your tank work. Bad things afoot there.

I don't know that antibacterial soaps are actually bad. I certainly don't think they are good, or any better than regular soap. And I think I'm going to try to avoid them whenever possible.

Random Trivia

Unlike an adult, a child aged six or seven months can breathe and swallow at the same time.

Day 11

On the Eleventh Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Eleven pipers piping
Ten lords a-leaping
Nine ladies dancing
Eight maids a-milking
Seven swans a-swimming
Six geese a-laying

Five golden rings

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Two Thousand and Six
Here at last. Hope that it is
Filled with fun and joy

Day 10

On the tenth Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Ten lords a-leaping
Nine ladies dancing
Eight maids a-milking
Seven swans a-swimming
Six geese a-laying

Five golden rings

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree

Where everybody knows your name

I remember hearing once, when Everybody Loves Raymond went off the air, that it was the last great sitcom on television. While that might not be completely true, as My Name is Earl and 2 1/2 Men are both quite good and clever, there does seem to be a dearth of quality sitcoms anymore. I don't think this is due so much to a desire to watch real crime shows (seriously, I can't handle another Bruckheimer cop show that's slick in appearance, but completely hollow on story). Instead, I think it comes from laziness in the writers. Too often, sitcom writers resort to stereotypes and/or sex/gas jokes as opposed to working to create humor. If you look at the really great sitcoms of the last 30 years (Friends doesn't count, it's pop culture gone berserk), they almost all have something in common: characters who have personalities, be they intelligent, dim, or somewhere in between. They are more than one-dimensional. You can relate to the people, and you get to think while you watch them. This is lost too often by writers who think they have are writing to the audience.

So, I hereby list the following truly classic sitcoms of my generation:

All in the Family - Archie was so bigoted and so unaware of it, that you watched him just to see how stupid he could be. This started it all, and included clever writing, which has been lost over the years.

The Bob Newhart Show - Bob Newhart is one of the best comics of this age. He can do more with a look than most young comics can do with anything. The cast all worked together so well, and knew when to throw in the towel.

MASH - I think this might be the second-best sitcom ever. It took a difficult subject in a difficult time, and gave us characters we love, messages we can apply in many situations, and a comaraderie that overpowered everything. Few shows can work in new characters with the skill these surgeons did. Excellence all around.

Newhart - Another Bob Newhart show. Bob is the only intelligent person in Vermont, and he gets to deal with molehill after molehill that everyone else turns into mountains. You love him, because you feel like you're living his life every day. Best final episode ever.

Cheers - This is the greatest sitcom ever.

Night Court - Zany, crazy characters doing the zany crazy things that other ensembles could never get away with (putting Groucho glasses on the Statue of Liberty?!). Crazy.

Seinfeld - Notices the little things and points out how crazy people get letting them take over their lives. He did it in a not-quite-subtle way that worked, but I doubt could ever be duplicated.

Frazier - Takes a psychiatrist who's looming on the edge of sanity, combines him with his equally precariously balanced brother, their dad, who acts like a dad should, his quirky assistant and Niles's would-be love interest, and Frazier's assistant, a loud-mouthed crazy woman in her own right. Christopher Lloyd produced the first few seasons, which were magical, and, after he left, the show took a turn downward, until thelast season, when he came back again. Terrific, and classy. Second-best final episode ever.

Everyone Loves Raymond - The family from hell. Ray is such a doofus, and everyone in his family has its own personality (except the kids, who were necessary, but mostly as window dressing). Few family comedies can work together this well.

That's it. Nine shows, out of the hundreds that have come out over the years. These are the classics. There have been other good shows, but most have been tripe. Again, you'll notice something special in these shows, something that other shows don't quite have. Would that it happened a little more often.

Divorce, American Style!

As I was taking the children to school and daycare today, I heard on the radio that today (the first business day after New Year's) is the busiest day of the year for divorce lawyers. I can't think of a worse time, myself, to select for a divorce. I understand that you're trying to make a better life for yourself and that you think you're liberating yourself, but I can't help but think that as divorce is one of the most emotionally painful endeavors anyone can go through, that it's not the best way to start a new year. Additionally, think of the effect it has on your spouse (though you might want to ruin his or her year), how much it's going to hurt him or her. And is it really the way you want to celebrate a new year with your children, if you have any? Perhaps it'd be better to wait until the newness has set in and thus they don't have to have such a painful reminder of the new year.

Then again, it is a symbolic resolution-type event. I can understand wanting to make a new start at the beginning of a new year, so perhaps there is good to it, after all.

Day 9

On the Ninth Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Nine ladies dancing
Eight maids a-milking
Seven swans a-swimming
Six geese a-laying

Five golden rings

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree.

Gripe Gripe Gripe

This year for Christmas, we received, among other things, gift cards to a toy store and to a conglomerate of restaurants. I'm grateful for the cards; the children get to pick gifts by themselves, and the wife and I can go to eat. However, I don't understand why the cards, which have the value you pay for them, would charge you to have them. This makes little real sense to me. If I give my wife $25 in cash, she can spend it anywhere she wants whenever she wants. When you buy a gift card, you have to use it in a specific amount of time (my cards say if not used in 12 months or 24 months) or they will start charging you "administrative fees" - basically charging you for money for buying a card you can only use at their stores. While it's highly unlikely I'd go that long without using the card, in theory you could find a point where you've waited so long to use the 25 bucks (or however much) that you've lost the entire amount. Is it really so difficult for the stores to make profits that they have to charge you for spending your money on them?

Day 8

On the eighth Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Eight maids a-milking
Seven swans a-swimming
Six geese a-laying

Five golden rings

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree

New Year's Day

I'm apparently not young anymore. I made it to midnight, but I'm pretty sure I was asleep at 12:03. After looking after the kids, who acted as though they were on amphetamines all day, we were simply exhausted by the time the ball dropped. And, as you can tell, they're up bright eyed and bushy tailed on New Year's Day! They wanted to ensure we were up early enough to wish everyone a happy 2006 as soon as we possibly could!

Hope the new year finds everyone happy and well!

Day 7

On the seventh Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Seven Swans a-swimming
Six geese a-laying

Five golden rings

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree

Year's End

It's painfully early in the morning, as the toddler got me up at 5. He's currently eating breakfast - crunch berries - in a most meticulous manner. 18 months, and he's separating the berries from the crunches. I have been known to do that on occasion, myself, but it's very strange to see the little boy do that. I'm not going to stop him, though. He's being quiet and still, and he seems to be enjoying himself.

One of his favorite games right now is "Go!" It's also a favorite of his siblings. Basically, I sit in the dining room, point to one of the children, yell "Go!" and they run into the living room, around my chair, and back giggling like there's no tomorrow. I'm fortunate in that my children aren't too materialistic. They prefer books to video games, play-doh to cartoons. They still love Veggie Tales, many disney movies, and the little boy loves Barney. I can handle that, though, for the fun they bring each day. Happy New Year from all of us, to all of you!

Day 6

On the sixth Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Six geese a-laying

Five golden rings

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree.

It's not right; it's the law

Georgia recently passed a law that requires voters to show picture ID in order to vote in elections. The requirement extends to registered voters who do not have valid driver's licenses, who must pay up to $35 to buy a state-issued ID card, according to this article. Rep. Alisha Thomas Morgan plans to protest this law, and I think she's going to see a lot of support.

I don't like the idea of requiring picture ID in order to participate in the fundamental right of voting, and I especially dislike the concept of requiring people to pay money in order to exercise that right. I think the good representative has a point when she notes that this will adversely affect the poor. In an age where minimum wage is less than $6, a $35 fee is equal to over half a day's work for many people, most of whom can't afford to part with that extra money.

In the 1960's, poll taxes were declared unconstitutional in this country. I don't see any discernable difference between having to pay a fee to the state at the polls and having to pay the state before you go to the polls. This is a bad law, and needs to be repealed.

Day 5

On the fifth Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Five golden rings

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree

Random Trivia

In order to qualify as sand, the grains must be no smaller than .06 mm and no larger than 2 mm.

It's a ticket to watch a game

Suppose your neighbor came over and posted a sign contrary to your belief system (legalize pot now, impeach bush, down with unions, whatever) in your front yard. You'd want to take it down, most likely, and you probably would. Suppose further that your neighbor put it up when you invited him over for a barbeque, and it was byob, or byo side dishes, whatever. Does the fact that he spent some money on the endeavor make it all right for him to post said sign on your lawn?

Why then, do so many sports fans believe that when they purchase a ticket to a football, baseball, basketball, etc. game, they have a God-given right to put up whatever signs they want? The arena is not theirs. In many cases, the stadium is privately owned, much like your front yard. And if the owners don't agree with your sign, how is it different or wrong for them to take that sign away? The recent events in Buffalo show that people believe that they have a right to post whatever signs they want on private property, because they spent ( usually, way too much) money to get in.

"Just because the management and coaching is awful, where do they get off violating our First Amendment right to freedom of speech?" said one season ticket holder in the link above. He believes that since they can put up signs cheering the team, he should be able to put one up that jeers the coach and manager. Bear in mind that the stadium's website says that fans may bring signs, but management can remove any signs that management determines is dangerous, obstructive, or inappropriate - something the fan notes at the end of the article ("that's where they get you"). I also disagree with the assertion that this fan's freedom of speech has been violated. The fan can jeer the coach and management at home, in his car, even at the stadium through his voice, though I suspect that if he gets too venomoous, he may be asked to leave then, too. And why not? If my neighbor came over and started insulting me, I'd invite him to leave, as well. That's not stifling his freedom of speech.

It's a ticket to watch a game. It's not carte blanche to insult the person providing you the entertainment. If you dislike what's happening so much (and remember, I'm a Detroit Lions fan), then stop going to the games. Stop buying the season tickets and hurt them where they'll listen - their wallet. In sports, that's the most effective speech there is.

Day 4

On the fourth Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Four calling birds
Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree

Wednesday is Haiku Day

The boy rode his bike
With his helmet of many
Colors - 'twas a sight!

And, as always, everyone is welcome to contribute!

Mmmmmmmeatloaf!

I've always liked meatloaf. It's a wonderful meal that tastes much better than it sounds. When I went out to a Polish Restaurant a few months ago, I ordered a pork meat loaf, which was outstanding. I'm not the only one who recognizes how good a meat loaf really is, as my son once declared it his favorite food.

And, lest you think we're the anomaly, here's an article that notes the rising popularity of meat loaf among the new generation. It's being served in bistros and restaurants with the kids condiment of choice, ketchup. And I'm sure many people have fond memories somewhere of family dinners with the meatloaf on the table.

Now I'm hungry.

Day 3

On the Third Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me

Three french hens
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree

Day 2

On the Second Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree.

Day 1

On the First Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
A partridge in a pear tree.

Just like a politician

While in Consumer Transactions this semester, we saw a couple examples of careful draftmanship of bills/laws to ensure they don't apply to the wrong people (i.e. lawyers). A good example of this is the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which allows for recovery of damages for misleading statements, yet precludes recovery for anything that is opinion of a person providing professional services, such as a doctor, lawyer, or architect.

Now remember that as you read about the Attorney General in Florida, who passed a law against spam, and now is facing accusations that his campaign might include spam. It appears Charlie Crist, who had defended the new law, and who is now a gubernatorial candidate has been sending unwanted e-mails to residents of the state in his zeal for campaigning. One man had asked repeatedly to be removed from the e-mail list, which he didn't know how he got on.

His defense is that this isn't spam, according to his campaign spokesperson. "This is truthful, it's straight forward. We're honest. TO be spam it has to be, under Florida law, defined as being deceptive. The attorney general (Crist) does not consider this spam and is, as you know, at the forefront of protecting citizens against that."

Now, I have a problem with that affirmative defense, in that it charges that they are truthful. They are politicians campaigning for office. Need I say more?

Yes, Virginia

Apparently, the new hit show Everyone Hates Chris has a problem in that its Christmas episode made an inflammatory statement that is drawing criticism from folks who get worked up about such things.

In response, I thought, given the season and the year we've all been through, I'd reprint a timeless editorial letter written in 1897 to the New York Sun:

Dear Editor - I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so. Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?

Virginia O'Hanlon

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the scepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity of devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your live its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be not childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to have men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to chatch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Clause, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men taht ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

Random Trivia

When King William Rufus was killed by an archer, his body was found by a charcoal burner named Purkiss in Hampshire's New Forest. He took the king's body to Winchester and received as a reward the right to gather all the wood in the forest that he'd need for his charcoal burners, provided he only take the wook he can reach by means of a reaper's billhook or a shepherd's crook. This reward gave us the origin of the phrase "by hook or by crook," which today means by any means necessary.

Some things need not be made

In the category of fashion trends that need to see a quick end, let me introduce subject t - the Grill.

Back in the old days, Mick Jagger had an emerald placed in his tooth. He switched that for a diamond when people kept telling him he had food in his teeth. Fast forward a bit, and you come to the era of Gold Teeth. Not that this is a new phenomenon, and it at least makes some sense if you're replacing a tooth that was pulled or lost. Nowadays, we have a wonderful new trend, which I didn't believe when I first saw it. People are taking what amounts to a retainer-type object, covering it with gold, platinum, jewels, etc. and wearing it in public. Known as the "grill," these things can cost as little as $20/tooth, and are the newest form of "bling." (An article on the mouthwear can be found here.) Apparently, wearing expensive retainers is somehow attractive. One guy said he liked his grill because it was unique jewelry, saying something to the effect of "if anyone steals it, it's not like they can wear it." Apparently, he's never heard of this thing called "heat" that can "melt" gold and "reform" it into another "shape." Not to mention, it looks hideous. You open your mouth and all you see is what looks like Little Richard's mouthguard from when he played football, and somehow that's supposed to look good? And then let's discuss hygiene. These grills go over your teeth, which you eat with, and drink with. We'll assume you're astute enough to actually remove the grill WHILE you're eating (though that might be stretching it anymore). When you're done, unless you brush your teeth immediately, you're putting the grill back on food encrusted teeth, leading to plaque. I'm willing to bet a dime that many of these folks don't brush their teeth twice a day, which compounds that problem, and then many probably don't think to do little things like clean their grills, or take them out overnight, which again adds to the tooth problems. One person removed her grill at the dentist to reveal 4 very cavity-filled teeth. How wonderful. I bet her parents (who probably are footing the dental bill, if not the grill) are just thrilled with that fashion statement. At least platform shoes made you taller and arguably were good for posture.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Christmas with children
Means don't place gifts under tree
Kids will open them!

(They come by it honestly, though)

I didn't know that

Seinfeld (or rather, Frank Costanza) did not come up with the idea of Festivus. The holiday celebration was actually invented in 1966 by a Reader's Digest editor. And now, thanks to the mention in Seinfeld, it's become a more popular holiday alternative to the traditional overmarketed consumer-mad Christmas, according to this Detroit Free Press article. Sales of Aluminum poles have actually increased from $5 in the Detroit area five years ago to $40 today. For a pole. For a made up, pop culture "holiday." Yet people flock to Festivus as a solution to the overmarketing and buy-crazy world that is Christmas. I find the irony there somewhat humorous. Anyway, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Festivus, and happy everything else.

Pick a topic

One of the more difficult parts of teaching is creating a lesson plan. You have to teach certain criteria, note how much attention to give any particular subject, make sure you properly allocate time, ensure it's easy enough for most people in class to understand, yet hard enough to keep everyone occupied on the material. That's difficult enough for a class that's already been established. Now imagine creating a curriculum for a class that you've never taught before, and that hasn't been taught at your school in years. I don't envy the people at Ector Country Independent School District as they choose the curriculum for their bible class.

This is not a class on intelligent design, it's a Bible class. In a public school. This looks to be one of the more daunting tasks undertaken by a school district in this vein in quite a while, and I imagine they're rather concerned about doing it right, so as to avoid a lawsuit. This class is an elective class, not part of the mandatory curriculum.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having a bible class in a public school. I do think it would be better to have a world religions class, that would provide insight into all the major religions of the world, as opposed to focusing on one. It seems to me that would help mitigate any hint of improper motive (i.e. teaching Christianity in a public school). However, a bible class as an elective should be fine. The school board apparently has to ensure that it's taught only for historical purposes, not devotional purposes. In order to do so, they also need to ensure that this elective class remains elective, not "elective, but you better take it." I wish them well, and hope that they steer safely through the landmined field they turned into.

The Season of Giving

The boy and I went shopping today. He had some Christmas money he got from Great Grandma, and wanted to pick up a couple toys. He chose a football (that's my boy!) and the favorite of multiple generations, the slinky. We also got gifts for gramma, mom, the girl, and the baby boy. Finally, we picked up three gifts (one for a big boy, one for a young girl and one for a toddler) and donated them to Toys for Tots. The boy was very happy about this. He truly loves giving and sharing, possibly more than getting gifts. I wish I could take credit for this in him, but I can't. This giving spirit is his and his alone. Would that everyone's kids could be that willing to share.

If at first you don't succeed...

Then you resort to strongarm tactics to get your way. Apparently forgetting that the first job as a politician is that of a public servant, and thus should yield to what the public wants, Republican Congressmen and Senators have attached the ANWR drilling proposal to a defense budget plan for next year, according to the San Jose Mercury News. This is the same ANWR plan that the President and Right Conservatives have been trying to get passed for as long as we can remember, but have suffered setbacks in the form of Democrats, Moderates, environmentalists, and the majority of American People who don't want drilling in a National Reserve.

So, to get around the Congress problem (because who really cares what the public wants, it's not like they're going to remember this little bit of history come election time), we tie it to a defense spending budget that must pass in order to fund the Iraq war - the same Iraq war that the President urged us to have patience on last night. Now, the Republicans have ammunition (so to speak) to use against those who oppose the ANWR. They can suggest that those who vote against the military budget to which the ANWR was attached are unpatriotic, don't support the war effort, want us to lose, are defeatists, are playing partisan games and undermining the country.

Dirty tricks are expected in politics. They shouldn't be used to line executive pockets for short term community benefits at the expense of the environment.

'Til Death Do Us Part, but I keep everything

Celebrity Marriages - are they doomed to failure? A Yahoo! article that I read today discussed some of the requirements imposed in a celebrity marriage per various prenuptial agreements. Some of the highlights in the agreements listed include:
- no mother-in-law overnight visits
- only one football game per Sunday (No, I wouldn't agree to this)
- mandatory sexual positions
- fidelity clauses
- who gets the pool boy
- random drug testing
- requiring a husband to pay $10,000 every time he is rude to his in-laws
- limiting a wife's weight to 120 pounds lest she forfeit $100,000 in separate property

Is it any wonder that these marriages fail constantly? It seems like the people are gearing up for the divorce before they even sign the marriage certificate. And it sounds more like control issues than property issues in a lot of the cases.

Quiet Saturdays

My wife is cooking dinner. She's making Jambalaya. That's some good food. It got me thinking about some of the more interesting meals I've had in my day - stuff that doesn't readily come to mind.

1. Squirrel. At least, I've been told I've had squirrel. It was when I was a child, and honestly, I don't remember.

2. Bison. This one isn't so much exotic as uncommon. Tastes really good though.

3. Octopus. I've had this two different ways, both as cooked in noodles (very tasty) and in Sushi form (not as good).

4. Poshintang. I don't recommend this, and I won't go into detail unless pressed.

5. Schmaltz. Bacon pieces and lard. You smear it on a cracker. It tastes like bacon pieces and lard.

6. Care care (Pardon the spelling here, I really don't know the proper spelling). Peanut butter and oxtail soup.

7. Frog Legs. They taste like chicken. Really.

8. Makkoli. I didn't so much eat this as drink it - it's a Korean rice wine. I can't begin to describe how unsavory this was.

9. General Tso's chicken from Safeway. If the good general knew what Safeway did to his chicken, he'd have invaded Lakewood, WA. This was so bad I had to get my friends to try it to see how absolutely foul it was.

10. Scrapple. Once. Never again.

And people say I'm not adventurous.

Is it Patriotism?

President Bush complained that the Senators who opposed the renewal of the USA Patriot Act are "acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting the country from attack," today in his weekly radio address. You remember the Patriot Act, the Act that authorizes, inter alia, officials to arrest and detain people for looking suspiciously like terrorists (read: looking Middle Eastern). This act has the effect of stifling individual liberties in the name of defense, the Government's looking out for our best interests.

I don't believe that opposing the Patriot Act is irresponsible, and I think that suggesting otherwise carries the hint of McCarthy-ist sentiments. Senators who oppose the Patriot Act can do so freely, and should not have to bear veiled threats of being anti-american from our Uniter, not Divider president.

Office Dinners

I have never had an office Christmas Party. I've had Squadron Christmas parties, but that's not the same. My wife, however, has had holiday dinners the last three years. This year, we all went to Fogo De Chao, a Brazilian meat house. The dinner started with salad bar, and then servers came by with various cuts of meat on skewers. There were fifteen types of meat, from Lamb, Chicken, Pork, and Beef. It was all you can eat, and eat when you want. Somehow, I doubt it's high on the PETA must-dine list.

The food was outstanding. The best rack of lamb I've ever had (not much challenge there, as I've never had rack of lamb before). I could have kept eating all night, except I didn't want to embarrass myself or my wife. Fortunately, there were others in our party that were less concerned about maintaining a demure posture. For the price of dinner (and it was quite a price), we had a nice show, too. The wine flowed like, well wine.

After dinner, we were invited to go to a Karaoke bar to sing a song or two. We declined, inasmuch as the after hours daycare we took the children to closed in about 45 minutes and we were about 25 minutes from where we had to go. Had we made another stop, we wouldn't have been able to make it before closing. All in all, it was fun. I'm glad my wife has a small office; it feels so much more personal than what I fear the big office parties are like.

I highly recommend Fogo de Chao, if you're in Houston and have a wad of cash you're dying to spend. It was a wonderful evening.

Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

I stopped watching Basketball in 1998, during the lockout. I found it nauseating that people who earn an average of 2.5 million dollars a year to play a game would complain that they weren't getting paid enough. I would still watch college, because they don't get paid nearly as much as the pros. Think about it, the average salary for a basketball player in 1998 was 2.5 million dollars. There are 12 players on a basketball team (I think there are more now, maybe 14, extended bench?). That means that the middle player, number 6, who doesn't even start; he's on the bench, gets 2.5 million dollars. Then the higher salaries players were profit sharing with the players who made the league minimum to help them stay afloat while they weren't getting paid. The league minimum of $250,000 a year. And they needed help making ends meet during the hard times of the lockout. It made me sick.

But then something wonderful happened. Larry Brown went to Detroit. He taught the players how to play as a team. There were no egos. Defense was the name of the game. The team took on the persona of the city, blue collar, hard working, unappreciated and underappreciated. Then, when he had a good thing, he made it better, by trading for Rasheed Wallace. Yes, I said better and Rasheed Wallace in the same sentence. And I'm serious.

Think about it. Here's a guy who wants so badly to win that he leads with his emotions. He plays better when he's angry. He lead the league in technicals as a result of having to do so much in Portland, and the fans hated him. Yet, his teammates have never had anything negative to say about him. Everywhere he's ever been, his teammates have thought the world of him. He works hard every night, and always tries his best - something Tracy McGrady admits he doesn't do. And now that he's not the focal point, not the one who has to do everything, he's doing much better, and the technicals are so much less frequent. Think about it. He's a player that the other teams don't like, their fans hate, and his teammates love. Deep down, you have to admit that he is the perfect roleplaying star you'd want on your team. And he keeps it on the court. He talks smack, but only about his opponent, or his opponent's ability to play him. He keeps the family out of it, unlike many of the fans in the stands. He may be emotional, but he's respectful.

With that in place, the team Detroit Pistons beat the Me-First L.A. Lakers, in the first ever five-game sweep in NBA finals history. Then, the next year (last season), they came within a beautiful game winning shot by Robert Horry of winning a second finals against the very respectable Spurs (probably the only other team I care to watch in the NBA). They made the game fun again, and I wish everyone played like that. Thank goodness the Pistons got Wallace, both for them and him.

How to support your troops

A short time back, my friend Bookworm offered a post on troop support, and how those who oppose the war end many statements with "but I support the troops." She noted (correctly) that merely saying you support the troops does little to actually support the troops. I commented on that site, and listed several ways people could show their support, not just those opposed to the war, but also those who support it. The first alternative, of course, is to actually enlist. There have been recruiting shortfalls in the Army for the last few years, and, absent the Air Force during Vietnam (they were full of people trying to avoid the draft - story related firsthand by a retired Petty Officer who went to the Navy after the Air Force turned him down), I've never heard of a military branch rejecting any qualified individuals. This way, you can not just show your support for the troops, but you can actually be a member of the military. Rumor has it they increased the enlistment age to 42, though I haven't confirmed that number. This would open the door to a great many people who otherwise couldn't show their support by stepping up and doing something for their country. This might have the adverse affect, though, of segregating those who actually support the war and the troops and those who support the war and the troops so long as they are not in the war or part of the troops.

If you're not able to enlist, there are many other things you can do. You can send out gift packages to those stationed in the war zones. A simple relief package with a Christmas (or Chanukkah, or Kwanzaa, or whatever) card, some cookies, a couple toys (think Nerf Footballs, Frisbees, etc.) can do wonders for people who don't have those at home. You can do simpler things, such as make a donation to the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Combined Federal Campaign, or other such support charities. You can tie a ribbon around your tree, or your car antenna. You can volunteer at the USO in your city. The major Airports tend to have USOs and are often looking for volunteers. A simple "thank you" to a person in uniform can mean a lot. I was at the movies a few weeks ago and I ran into a Lance Corporal who was here in Houston doing Recruiter's Assistance after returning from 9 months in Iraq. We talked for a few minutes, I told him of my time in the military and asked him about his time. He's here through Christmas, after which time he will be going back to Iraq for at least 6 months. When we parted company, I shook his hand and said "thank you, we appreciate your service." And he perked up ever so much more than he already was and returned the thanks. It helps.

Actions speak so much louder than words. If you are serious about showing the troops you support them, whether you support the war or not, then do something. It really does mean something.

Random Trivia

John Dillinger was so impressed with the quality of Ford cars as getaway vehicles that he once wrote a letter to Henry Ford praising the performance.

Christmas Spirit

It's been hard for me to get in the holiday spirit the last couple years. It's not because of the lack of Salvation Army Santas at Target, or the absence of "Christmas" greetings at my retail stores of choice. It certainly has nothing to do with President Bush not wishing folks a merry christmas on the White House Christmas card.

I think the problem is that I live in Texas. Right now, I live in Houston, which averages approximately negative 2 inches of snow per year. Before Houston, I lived in San Angelo, which, quiet and relatively crime-free as it may be, is pretty much the back hair of Texas. You know it exists, but you don't want to spend too much time dwelling on it.

I miss the changes of seasons. I like snow, snowball fights, snow forts (not that I ever built one more than about a foot high), sledding, skiing, walking in the snow. There's something about the first snow of the year that really brings the holiday season about for me.

Fortunately, I have an alternative to being grumpy about Christmas. I get to enjoy Christmas through my children. There are few things in this world more rewarding than watching a child get all excited looking at a Christmas tree on December 25 and seeing all those gifts underneath just waiting to be opened. It's one of the few unmitigated pleasures reserved in this world anymore, and this year, I get to enjoy three kids finding the joy of Christmas.

Now, if I could combine the two, that would be the gravy.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

We're halfway finished
With law school education
Then the learning starts

As always, everyone is welcome to contribute!

Semester's End

I finished my last final for the semester, and thus reached the top of the hill last night. We're on our way down for the next year and a half, at which time I'll (presumably) graduate with my Juris Doctorate from the South Texas College of Law. Last night several of my friends went out to imbibe and celebrate the end of the term. My intent was to join them, but I didn't. Perhaps I'm starting to get old.

What Purpose Prison?

Way back in the old days of my first year of law school, right on the first day of Criminal Law, our professor discussed the concept of sending someone to prison. Essentially, he said that there were four purposes for imprisoning someone, as follows:

1. Deterrent - A disincentive, we send you here and you don't want to come back after you're done.

2. Retribution - We believe that since you're a criminal, you deserve to be punished. You chose to live outside the law and now you have to pay the consequences.

3. Rehabilitation - There is a belief in people that we can "fix" a criminal, that we can somehow teach them to not break the law and be a decent, law-abiding person.

4. Incapacitation - If we put you in jail, then you can't break the law and hurt non-criminals while you're there. Thus, we reduce crime.

The idea, as I understood it, was that people will adopt one of these philosophies with respect to how we treat prisoners and why we have a penal system. I don't know exactly which section I would fall under. I wonder what other people's philosophies would fall into...

Bankruptcy changes

I'm not completely up to date on the changes to the bankruptcy codes, but one thing I understand is that once they are enacted, there will be no forgiveness of credit card debt from declarations of bankruptcy. I might not be completely correct on that summarization, as I haven't studied it, but that's how I understand it to be.

My friend and I were recently discussing the effect of this and pretty much decided it was a bad thing, something pressed for by the lobbyists for the credit card companies to be able to milk poor people who get behind and can't catch up. I suggested that for every person who gets hit with a spate of bad luck and don't have the means to catch up once they get behind (and I do believe that there are many of these people), there is at least one person who ran up all their credit cards with charges at Macy's, Sears, Wal-Mart, etc. and then, when they had an emergency where they needed that emergency money that credit can provide, it's not there. I do have some trouble empathizing with those people, as, had they exercised some restraint and not maxed out the credit cards that they could barely afford to keep paying the minimum balance on, then they wouldn't have found themselves in the pickle they're in.

I do think, however, that some responsibility must be borne by the credit card companies. Perhaps there should be a penalty or transfer of liability for that money to the agent who extends credit to someone who already has copious credit, and many credit cards. Perhaps there's a way to ensure that credit card companies don't prey on the weak, meek and unintelligent. Perhaps they shouldn't get to reap benefits from overextending credit to someone who's already stretched fairly thin. Maybe there should be a personal cap on credit extensions for credit cards to the amount of money a person earns in a month, or a year, or something like that (I don't know any right answer here, I'm just postulating). But I think credit card companies need to be more discriminating with whom they grant cards before they should reasonably expect credit card debt to be repaid after bankruptcy.

The end of finals

Another semester has passed. I have finished one half of my law school career. We finished with a flourish - Federal Income Taxation. Always a thriller. Here's the kicker, I liked the class. I enjoy tax law, of all things. That said, I don't know that I want to be a tax attorney, but it's something I potentially could do.

Now, I get to take a day off before I start getting the house ready for Christmas. That should be fun. We'll see how it goes.

I'll post more tomorrow, I promise!

Finals Stress

I've got my Property II final tonight. I'm not nearly as ready as I'd like to be. That stresses me out. I should do OK, but I'd like to do better than that.
Tomorrow morning, I have my Consumer Transactions final. I liked that class, and I think the subject matter is quite interesting, but with studies for Evidence (last Wednesday) and Property (Tonight), I've had to relegate studying for CT to the evenings, when I'm not quite as alert. Again, I should do OK, but, since I liked the class, I would like to do better than just OK.

Tax is on Monday. Which means it will be my third test in four days. That's not too bad in and of itself, as I'll have the better part of three days to study for it (Saturday afternoon, Sunday, and Monday morning/early afternoon), but, I'm already feeling worn out and burned out. I hope I can get a second wind and finish up Tax with a flourish.

Keep your fingers crossed for me. I could use the moral support.

Random Trivia

None of the Beatles could read music. Paul McCartney eventually taught himself.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Sequestration is
What keeps witnesses from Court
Exceptions exist

Sorry for the really dull one, but Evidence Final is tonight. Maybe be better in a week.

Study Drunk

I've apparently been cramming too hard, as on the way to class today, I started thinking of cereal brands and equating stories to their names. Here are some of the ones I came up with:

Frosted Flakes - A group of blondes get lost in North Dakota in the Winter.
Fruit Loops - The adventures of the world's first all-gay stunt plane team.
Trix - A diary of breakfast for Johns
Raisin' Bran - The trials of grain growers in Kansas.
Special Kay - A developmentally challenged girl just wants to live a normal life
Product 19 - The quest for the perfect prime number
Cheerio's - A guidebook to farewells in different languages

They're bad, I know, but necessary for my continued sanity. See what stories you can come up with!

How not to disagree with someone

When a blogger was critical of Ann Coulter, you would assume that the well-respected, Ivy League educated professional would be able to handle it with tact and dignity. At least, that's what I would assume. I might not agree with a lot of what Ann Coulter says, but I respect that she thinks about her opinions. I can say the same about the people on Brad Blog, including guest blogger Lydia Cornell, who did criticize Ann. Imagine my surprise to find out that the inimitable Ann Coulter responded to such criticism by posting Lydia's contact information (e-mail and personal phone number), posting a personal e-mail from Lydia, and referring to those who disagree with her as "nazi block watchers."

Now, I'm nowhere near the league of Ann Coulter in terms of readers, and I'm certainly not in the region of people who would have others vociferously denounce my opinion on anything. However, I have always tried to remain as civil as possible, even with topics on which I disagree with the auther. While I was never a regular reader of Ann Coulter's before, I'm certainly will never be a reader period in the future. She's entitled to her opinion, but posting personal information, and then not removing it when asked, is wrong.

Property Rights

As I took a break from studying Property this morning, I perused the Detroit Free Press, as I am wont to do. On the website today I read an article by Mitch Albom, who I consider to be one of the best newswriters in the country, and whose books I've enjoyed immensely (Tuesdays with Morrie, The Five People You Meet in Heaven). His topic today dealt with a nativity scene in a neighborhood association community. It seems a family in Novi, MI put up a nativity scene (and a Santa Claus) in their front yard, and received notice from the association that they were to take it down, as it violated a "rule." The family complained, and talked about it on the radio, and after receiving heavy flak, the neighborhood association relented.

In the article, Mitch made the statement, "When it comes to your front lawn, it's your God and your grass." The point he was making is that residence rules such as what you can have on your front lawn, or how big a flag you can fly, or whatever, are wrong. He believes that people have a right to do what they want on their own property, and there's no inalienable right for people's property values to go up.

He quotes the son in the family as saying, "They said they'll fine us, and we said go ahead ... They have no right. They are not the government. This is not about separation of church and state, either, because they are not a state."

The child is partly right, if I understand my property correctly (which I might not, since I'm still studying it). They are not a state. But they do have a right. The point that the family and Mitch, and all the people who called and complained missed is a very important one. The family CHOSE to live there. They CHOSE to follow the community rules, whether they knew them or not. If they wanted to live somewhere where they could display items on their front lawn, then they should have moved somewhere without that deed restriction. The community absolutely has the right to tell them to take it down, if it indeed is in their rules. The association MUST challenge those small violations of the deed restrictions, or they can be estopped from challenging the bigger violations, such as opening a rendering plant next door.

"But that's just ridiculous, Steve. Nobody would open that, and EVERYONE knows that that's doing too much on the property," you might say. Well, hold on a minute. If your argument is that it's their property and they can do what they want, then what is to stop them? Especially if you put the kibosh on the homeowner's association? If it's not acceptable to open a rendering plant, but it is acceptable to place a nativity scene, then where does the association draw the line? That's simple, you draw the line at the list of regulations passed when the property was first sold to the family that has been told to remove their nativity scene. This has nothing to do with religion or the free exercise thereof. It has nothing to do with the right to own property. It has everything to do with one family choosing to accept a standard of rules and then complaining when the rules are upheld.

The family should have accepted what the homeowner's association dictated and removed the nativity scene. They've weakened the defense to larger claims against the community by their actions.

Really Bad Joke

And if I say it, it must be true, so don't read it.

If you were to give Confuscius a massage, would be able to say you have rubbed sage?

This is from a jar in my spice cabinet called rubbed sage.

I warned you it was bad.

Amnesty, National

President George W. Bush promoted his plan to toughen border security on Saturday, saying illegal immigration was adding to crime and placing a burden on schools and police in border communities, according to this Yahoo! article.

That's good. Stepping up security to try to discourage illegal immigration is a good plan. Controlling access to the nation is something that we've supported for a while now.

So then why does he mix into his message denouncing illegal immigration a plan offering amnesty to illegal immigrants? The plan he proposed was a "guest worker" permit for illegals in this country. It would allow them to live in the States legally and work here for a period of time, provided they return to their home country at the end of the period. This would affect 11 million illegal immigrants (or is it undocumented, these days?). He said that this is NOT an amnesty program, and he's not offering a backdoor reward to people who entered this country illegally. That's right. Giving jobs to people who sneak across the border is NOT rewarding them for sneaking across the border. It's simply matching workers with employers. Because we don't already have unemployed Americans that could use work. If you break the law (being an illegal immigrant necessarily means you've broken the law, because you've entered or remained illegally), then you should be punished, not paid. If the President is serious about protecting our borders, then he needs to not grant immunity to the very people he's trying to keep out.

Interesting observation

By someone commenting on a post at the Moderate Voice:

Conservatives don't expand government control over private citizens.

Conservatives don't dramatically increase federal spending.

Conservatives don't deploy large numbers of troops to foreign countries for humanitarian missions like "bringing democracy to the Middle East."

Is President Bush *really* a conservative?
I just found it humorous.

Guilty By We Have Enough Time To Find SOMETHING!

Jose Padilla has been held at a military brig for the last three years as an enemy combatant accused of trying to set off a radiological dirty bomb targeting Americans. He hadn't been formally charged with anything. The Fourth Court of Appeals ruled in September that President Bush has the right to detain an American Citizen, on American Soil, as an enemy combatant. The Government has now entered its charge against Padilla. Strangely, the charges are not what he's been held on for the last three years, rather, he's being charged with being a member cell that conspired to support terrorists and "murder individuals who are overseas," according to this article.

Basically, what's going on here is the government is keeping an American Citizen in jail, alleging he committed one crime, while charging him with another. It's conceivable that they would reserve his detention in the military brig when taking him to trial, and if he's acquitted, then returning him to the brig until they can bring another trial.

I don't like this rule. I don't like the idea that the Government can detain Americans on one allegation and then charge him with something different. I don't like that an American Citizen has been in jail awaiting charges against him for three years. These are the acts that instill distrust of government in the minds of Americans. He's supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. Right now, he's presumed guilty of something, and we'll keep him here until we find out what it is.

Quick caveat here: I've been studying for finals up to and including 15 hours a day all week and I've got my family law final tonight. I needed a break from reviewing, so looked at the article and dashed off some tommyrot worthy of the hellbox.

Capital Punishment

I read a headline today that the 1000th person since 1977 was executed. Now, to be fair, I just read the headline and haven't paid much attention to that person's story, but I saw in another headline "milestone execution raises new questions." I presume these questions deal with capital punishment and whether it should be allowed. I don't know the significance of 1977, other than that's the year Star Wars came out and the year Dustin Diamond, of Saved by the Bell fame was born.

In my view, Capital Punishment is a necessary act. However, I also believe it should be necessarily rare, used only in the most extreme of cases, e.g. Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, etc. I believe that it should be a product of the crimes that the individual committed, not a product of the sentiments of the jury. I don't see it as a deterrent to crime, per se, any more than going to jail. I don't trust those that argue that capital punishment should be used when jail isn't good enough, or that they can't be rehabilitated. I think that if it's a problem with the prison system not being able to rehabilitate the prisoners, then there's a fundamental flaw in the prison system, as rehabilitation is one of the goals of prison. Because of that goal, I can't equate a lack of rehabilitation as a justification for capital punishment. That seems akin to slaughtering the chicken because they keep running out of the chicken coop through the hole in the fence that you never fix.

That being said, I will reiterate that I think there are some acts that are just too heinous, too horrific, for society to accept any punishment short of capital punishment. I think the leash on this form of punishment must be kept extremely short, used only in the most extreme of circumstances.

As an addendum, I agree with the recent Court decision that prohibited performing capital punishment on convicts who committed their crimes as minors. I do think there is a fundamental, cognitive failing on the part of minors to truly understand the consequences of their actions beyond the short term. That is not to say I don't think minors deserve punishment, and I'm all for life sentences for those in such a situation, but I stop short of capital punishment in keeping consistent with my belief that it must be used exceedingly sparingly. There must be an 8th Amendment Balance there somewhere; perhaps someday I'll recognize and be able to say where it is.

Random Trivia

In Texas, where common law, or informal, marriages exist, in order to be married through common law, you must 1. live together. 2. intend to be married. 3. hold yourselves out as husband and wife. In most states, a common law marriage from a state that recognizes common law marriage will be held as a valid marriage in that state, due to the full faith and credit principle, though it doesn't appear that this would apply to civil unions.

Though there is such a thing as common law marriage, there is no such thing as a common law divorce. This means that if someone was in a common law relationship and broke up with his or her spouse and then fell in love and got married, that second marriage is void. (Also, the person from the common law marriage would be considered a bigamist.)

In a situation where that happens, the second spouse is known as a "putative" spouse, and could be entitled to spousal maintenance, even though there was never an actual marriage.