Flat tire

that's what I saw on my front passenger side as I went to get my books and computer from the trunk of my car at school this morning. I've kind of been waiting on this to happen. Fortunately, the parking lot is less than a block away from Goodyear, so I can get a new tire fairly quickly. It's about time for a new one, anyway.

Still, it's not exactly fun.

Stupid Tires

Business Judgment Rule

Typically a corporation's directors can avoid liability for making bad decisions because we presume that they have acted out of the intent to enhance shareholder value. When using the defense of the business judgment rule, three elements are involved. First, you must show that the director acted in good faith. Second, you have to show that he or she performed adequate investigation and third, used that information when deciding how to act.

When there is a situation where there is unsettled law on a matter, and reasonable people can differ as to the proper course of action, then there is no standing for suit when a director elects one course of action over the other. Basically, to violate the business judgment rule, you have to have a showing that the director acted in a way that even a brain-dead monkey with postnasal drip would know to be bad for the company.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Sunny day today
And I'm in the library...
Darn Corporations!

Stephen Colbert again

I've found a link to the speech from Saturday night - not having cable, I can't watch C-Span, which isn't usually a bad thing. Watching Congress in session is like watching lint sitting on a linoleum floor, only with less action.

Click here to get a chance to see it for yourself and decide what you think.

UPDATE:
Americablog comments on a USNews article here.

I don't know that everything America Blog says is true, but if even two of them are, then what does that say?

Tuesday Essay Question

Should capital punishment be allowed? Or is it cruel and unusual? If the purpose of capital punishment is to keep crime down, does the fact that the crime rate/violent crime rate is lower in states that have abolished capital punishment help or hurt that notion? I know most of us have answered this question at some point, but it's something to think about and give a reasoned answer to. Enjoy, and, as always, grades will be arbitrary and capricious.

Laws of Corporation

When determining whether an individual in a corporation or the corporation itself has violated the law, there are three places you look, in descending order:

1. The first level of the law of corporation is the articles of incorporation, including the articles and by-laws.

2. The second level is the statutes (corporations are state controlled, with a few federal regulations thrown in)

3. The third level is Common Law (CL)

What does this mean? It means when looking at potential violations, the court will first look to the by-laws in the certificate of incorporation for the rules of decision and determine whether the actions at issue conflict with the by-laws. If they do not and are "legal" within the bylaws, the court looks to the statutes to see if the by-laws and the actions are in conflict with the statutes. Lastly, the court will look to see if there are any CL cases that speak to the issue.

At least, that's how I understand it. I welcome clarification on errant points.

Finals Mode

Today marked the last day of classes for the spring 2006 semester, which means we're now officially in prep time for finals. Unlike previous semesters, where I said I'd take a blog break and focus only on studying, I'm going to drop that pretense this semester. Blogging is pretty close to my only escape these days, and taking random breaks from studying is therapeutic and something I desparately need. My blogging won't be my standard fare, though, as I'm going to try to incorporate it with my finals study. This means that the topics you're going to read on here are going to be interesting to me and quite possibly nobody else in the civilized world, but I'll try to keep it educational and fun. Bear with me.

Sign of the Apocalypse?

Anna Nicole Smith won the chance to sue for her late husband's millions. Good for her. It's obvious that he wnated her to have the money, inasmuch as he didn't put her in his will. But that's neither here nor there. She is entitled to this chance!

That MSM

You know they can't resist any opportunity to make the president look bad, and anyone who criticizes him is going to be a media favorite. Since we know that to be the case, it only makes sense that the MSM would spend so much time covering the correspondents' dinner last night reporting on Stephen Colbert's snarky, satirical speech. Except, in this article, Yahoo! only spends three sentences on it. I really didn't understand what Colbert said until I clicked on The Moderate Voice's article here, and saw excerpts of what Colbert said.

I think there's humor in what Colbert said. I don't think Colbert was exceptionally brave, inasmuch as he was speaking from under the umbrella of the First Amendment and had job security via Comedy Central. (Example: when referring to President Bush sticking to his principles - "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.")

I think that Colbert's speech is less bravaso than an indicator. The majority of Americans have been critical of the President, and many people have criticized his policy on television, in the papers, amongst themselves, and whatnot. That's normal. Any leader who makes decisions is going to have people critical of him, and President Bush has made many decisions that ultimately have looked to have been mistakes. However, it's not often that someone will look a leader pointedly in the face, in front of thousands (approximately 2600 people were in attendance according to the Yahoo! article), and openly lambaste him. That one would feel comfortable enough in this country at any time to openly mock the president indicates a general lack of respect for the president amongst the populace. That's bad.

when the president loses the respect of the people, then it's a short fall to losing the respect of other nations, which leaves us standing alone, which is bad for America. I'm troubled by this development.

New Additions to the blog

I've made a couple additions to the sidebar on the blog. First, I added a site I've mentioned on here before, speedtrap.org, where you can find out about speed traps where you live or where you're traveling. The other addition is a website from the University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Law. Douglas Linder has a website with a collection of famous trials throughout history, from the Trial of Socrates through the Clinton Impeachment. There is a lot of really interesting reading in here. Stop by and check it out.

I think we're going to take the kids to the park this morning at some point, and I've got to keep studying. Otherwise, it's pretty much business as usual here. I really want Macaroni Grill for dinner.

Liberty for Security

I've never committed murder. Yet I wouldn't allow the police to search my car for a dead body without a warrant. I've never embezzled funds, yet I wouldn't allow federal agents to check my bank records without a warrant. I've never been a drug user or a drug dealer, but I wouldn't let the DEA enter my house looking for drug paraphernalia unless they had a warrant sworn to based upon probable cause.

Yet I've been asked to trust the President and the government to decide which American Persons should have their phone lines tapped based on little more than a hunch and nothing like a warrant to grant permission for that invasion of privacy. Conceptually, I assume the idea is that if I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to worry about, and these searches are geared to prevent crimes from happening. Random house searches based on hunches could catch a lot of drugs and video surveillance could catch a lot of batterers, but it invades our persons, our privacy, and ourselves. We built this nation on the premise that as free people, we would be free from heavy government interference, yet that interference is what we've been asked to accept in the name of security.

I read at Donklephant (link here) that the FBI sought information on 3501 U.S. persons last year, which is considerably lower than what many had feared. Sean Aqui from Donklephant was reporting on this article. I suppose that's good news, yet I wonder if this is less good news like "you don't have cancer" and more "good" news like "we THOUGHT you had four types of cancer, but you only have 2."

Maybe the government is looking at this like fishing. You keep casting and get one or two bites, and when you do, you're happy. I think it's more akin to fishing with dynamite. You hit a whole lot of fish, only keep the ones you want, and let the rest rot. It's more efficient, but, it's just not right.

Further Evidence That the Economy is Doing Well

Not that I've doubted the rosy reports of the status of our economy by certain executive branch officers over the last couple of years, but it would seem to me that items such as this could be taken as evidence that perhaps they've not been completely accurate.

And the lunch special for today

Will be Crab Bisque. The chef will be using an old-Candler* family classic.

8 Ounces of flaked crab meat
1 small onion, minced
2 tablespoons butter
2 tablespoons flour
1 teaspoon salt
a dash of pepper
1/8 teaspoon celery salt
1 cup Sprite
3 cups milk.

You drain the crab meat and reserve the liquid. In a 2 quart saucepan, melt the butter and saute the onion until transparent. Stir in the flour, salt, pepper and celery salt. Cook, stirring constantly, until well blended and bubbling.

Remove from the heat and gradually stir in the Sprite and milk. Bring to boil and boil for 1 minute, stirring constantly.

Stir in the crab meat. Add the reseved liquid and head to serving temperature.

Serve with saltines or oyster crackers.

I made this once before, about six or seven years ago. It's not a bad side dish, but it's not really main dish fare. Hopefully it will taste as good this time.

* the recipe is taken from "Classic Cooking With Coke," by Elizabeth Candler Graham (great great grandaughter of Asa Griggs Candler, founder of Coca-Cola) and Ralph Roberts. I highly recommend buying this book for any Coke connisseur.

Random Quote

If you think you can or you can't, you're right - Henry Ford

Checklist

Renew FAFSA - Check
Turn in Financial Aid Request to School? Not yet - tomorrow
Last day of work before finals? Check
Outlines? Check, for the most part.
Paper? Half Check, or Che.
Lost sleep? Check
General Stress? Check

Random Trivia

In Korea, Sea Lions are called Mul Gae, which translates to "water dogs"

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Last Wednesday before
Finals, so much to do and
Very little time.

I look forward to your contributions

Dessert with the kids

Daughter - "Daddy, touch my strawberry, how cold it is."
Me - "Brrr, my finger is frozen!" (Blows on finger to warm it up)
The Boy - "Daddy, now touch my grape, and see how cold it is!"
Me - "Brr, my finger is frozen!" (Blows on finger to warm it up)
Daughter - "Daddy, touch my other strawberry!"
Me - "Ow! That burns!" (shakes hand to cool it off)
Son - "Dad, now touch my grape!"
Daughter talking over him - "Daddy, it's (the strawberry) not hot, it's cold!"
Me - "Ow! My finger is on fire!" (shaking hand)
Daughter talking over me - "No! It's so cold!"
Daughter - "Daddy touch my cold strawberry"
And so it went.

Tuesday Essay Question

Should Marijuana be legal? Remember, this is an essay question, so support your answer with a why or why not. Qualify your answer as need be (e.g. medical purposes), but explain your position! There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, there are well supported answers. As always, grades will be arbitrary and capricious.

Down day

I'm sick. Not too feverish, but I'm certainly fighting something. As such, I've not too much energy to get done what I had hoped to today, namely reading and writing. I'll get some work done, but not enough. Only 4 days of class until finals.

Free Speech in Public Schools?

It's fairly clear to most people that students don't enjoy complete Constitutional Rights. For example, they are subject to - let's say abridged - First Amendment rights at school. This means that students have a limited right to free speech. Generally this means that they are able to speak on a public matter so long as the speech is not lewd, vulgar, obscene or plainly offensive.

Over the years, the Court has defined where the line is. Typically, a student is free to protest in school in a non-disruptive way. In one case, students protested the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. The Supreme Court ruled that the armbands were protected free speech because there was no evidence that the mere wearing of the armbands (which said nothing on them) caused any disorder or disruption of the educational process. Fear of a disruption is not enough; there must be evidence in the record to allow officials to "reasonably ... forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." (Tinker v. Des Moines Independed School District, 393 U.S. 503, 514 (1969)).

The Supreme Court ruled later, however, that not all speech is protected in the same manner as Tinker's armbands. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, the Court, while ruling on First Amendment Protection of a speech that included an "elaboratte, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor" by a high school student, cited a similar case by an adult, Cohen v. California (403 u.s. 15, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971)), who wore a jacket that said "Fuck the Draft." The Court summed up the difference by stating that "the First Amendment Gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker's armband, but not Cohen's jacket." Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 475 us 675, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 3164 (1986). Fraser lost the decision.

Kuhlmeier is a third Supreme Court case that deals with First Amendment speech issues. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Court looked at the the extent to which school officials could censor a school newspaper written by students in a Journalism course. The Court noted that public schools are NOT traditional public forums, and as such are subject to a different rule than traditional public forums. The Court ruled that there must be a clear intent to create a public forum and looked to the district policy. The Court ruled that schools can place restrictions on "school-sponsored" speech, such as a student paper, so long as the restrictions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 562 (1988).

These cases, taken together, establish essentially a trifurcated system for school officials to use to determine whether or not student spech is protected by the First AMendment. First, one must ask if the speech being delivered is "school sponsored" speech (Kuhlmeier) or is it "school tolerated" (Tinker)? Then, we ask whether the speech can be considered lewd, vulgar, obscene, or plainly offensive. (Fraser).

For the record, all of this information is from Texas School Law, A Practical Guide, Second Edition, by Kelly Frels and Jeffrey J. Horner Copyright 2004.

Why do I take the time to explain all this? Because recently, the 9th Court of Appeals ruled on Harper v. Poway School District. The background in Harper is that the school allowed a "Day of Silence" for gay and lesbian students. These students participated by wearing duct tape over their mouths and didn't speak in class for the day in a symbolic gesture. One student took offense to the day and wore a T-shirt that said on the front "Be ashamed, our school has embraced what God has condemned," and on the back "Homosexuality is shameful." When questioned by the vice principal, the boy admitted that there was a terse

The school asked the boy to remove the T-shirt because it was offensive. He refused and was denied suspension, rather had to spend the rest of that day in the principal's office working on homework. He then sued the school alleging violation of First Amendment Rights. The trial court ruled and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that his First Amendment rights were not violated.

Why is there a different standard for the boy than there was for the gay and lesbian students who partook in the day of silence? Well, for one, the boy's shirt was offensive to a segment of the population, and even if he didn't physically accost any students, his shirt's message can send the same message. This violates Tinker. Additionally, the t-shirt said on the back "homosexuality is shameful" which is offensive to a segment of the population, and thus this shirt violates Fraser. On the other hand, the Day of Silence, while "allowed" by the school wasn't an endorsement of gay rights, rather it was an authorization for passive protest speech which is authorized under Tinker. Second, the speech is not lewd, vulgar, obscene, or plainly offensive, indeed, it's duct tape, which is fairly passive speech, so it doesn't violate Fraser.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals might come up with some very interesting rulings and might march to its own beat quite often, but I think they reached the right decision here.

So Tired

I'm so tired. I got up WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too early. Lousy kids on London time.

I have chicken out for dinner, but I'm open to suggestions on how to prepare it.

Good Morning!

I've been up since about 4:15. That's when the little boy woke up and decided it was time to play. I managed to get him to lay down again, but not before I was all awake.

Since I'd lost hearing in my right ear, and since I was already up, I decided to clean it out via irrigation. Good news is it worked, and I can hear again. I went back upstairs to get a little more sleep, and was met in the hallway by the girl. She "need gotta lay down with mommy," and went into the bedroom to lay down with Mom. Mom, had gotten up to get the little boy a new diaper, because he'd taken his off. I went back downstairs and grabbed a diaper for the boy, took it up to the bedroom where the girl had climbed into bed between little boy and mom, who had laid down again. Little boy, it seems had fallen asleep in the time it took me to get his diaper, so naturally, when I put the new diaper on, he woke up. This new development meant that he and the girl had to start bickering about who got to lay down next to mom and who didn't have to lay down next to me. After a few minutes, I decided that we weren't going to get any more rest, and I took the little boy and girl downstairs so they could eat breakfast, I could make mom some coffee, and mom could get ready for work. This was about 5:15. At 5:20, the little boy started throwing a temper tantrum in the classic eyes not focused on anyone and the all energy diverted to full scream mode. He wasn't at all happy with the breakfast I got him or the milk he had asked for, or pretty much anything at all. Daughter was happily munching on her cereal until she spilled it in her lap and on the chair, which set her off into temper tantrum mode while she tried to get her nightgown off to go change. Daughter exited upstairs and son finally decided that the cereal he had requested wasn't too repulsive to eat, so long as he was sitting on my lap.

Daughter comes down with a new pair of pajamas. I suggest that, since it's now 5:50 and we normally get up at 6 to get ready for daycare, perhaps she would want to get some clothes. Well, how stupid can dad be? She starts crying because she doesn't feel good and can't go to daycare. Mom then comes downstairs for some coffee, slightly annoyed that I hadn't made any, and informed me that Daughter had carried on her tantrum upstairs and that daughter told her that she (daughter) was sick and needed medicine. I took daughter's temperature to show her that she wasn't sick while little boy came into the kitchen to lean on my legs with his hands straight up in a pick-me-up style, repeating "up" in case I wasn't clear on the drill. Daughter's temperature was 98.1, which, as we all know, means that she needed medicine to get better. I picked a purple pill to give her after she got dressed. Since she likes purple, jellybean flavored pills, she ran upstairs and got dressed in about 22 seconds. Mom finished getting the coffee ready and went upstairs to start getting dressed for work, and to watch the news - severe thunderstorms heading this way, just what you want to hear on a moving day (she's moving the office building from one suite to another today).

I go upstairs a couple minutes behind her, it's now 5 til 6, so I have to wake up The Boy. He doesn't want to wake up, so I have to do some cajoling, and daughter joins in, also advising us that it's started raining. I end up turning on the light and getting back to other morning preparation. We then hear playing in the bedroom, which is great generally, but when you're not dressed, haven't had breakfast, still have to brush your teeth and comb your hair, get your backpack ready, and get your shoes and socks on, it's not the most pleasant sound. I go in to get The Boy going on getting ready for school again and go back downstairs, trusting him to do what he needs to. Never trust your child to do what he or she needs to.

A few minutes later, wife comes down to get her first cup of coffee and informs me that the children are "scared" and playing around due to the thunderstorm and that daughter is being a lion and roaring to scare the thunderstorm away. I go back upstairs, get The Boy to get dressed and bring him downstairs to get breakfast. It's now 6:25. I put a wiggles tape on for the little boy and the daughter, a tape that apparently only holds their attention for about as long as it takes to get off the sofa. The Boy gets most of the way through breakfast (honey nut cheerios) by 6:37 and realizes he has to use the restroom. Surprisingly, today this task only takes about five minutes, meaning we have 18 minutes left to brush our teeth and get our shoes and sock on. I send The Boy and the daughter upstairs to brush their teeth. Five minutes later I go upstairs to yell at them to stop jumping on mom and dad's bed and brush their teeth. I manage to comb their hair at the same time, so one more step is done. I then say to the kids "go get your shoes and socks. Don't do anything else but get your shoes and socks. We have to leave in five minutes, get your shoes and socks on. Put on your shoes and socks. Shoes and socks, go." I know I'm not completely up to date on modern day slang or contemporary American suburban child vernacular, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to realize that what I just said actually nowadays means "go downstairs and play with magna doodles." So I now, after I've finished getting little boy all ready, have to go downstairs and harangue the other two for not getting their shoes and socks on.

Finally, daughter has her sandals on (I'll concede this, because it gets us out the door and it's already past 7 - leaving time), so I get her and the little boy and we open the door to head to the car. Of course we have to pause so daughter can bring in the paper, which slips out of it's plastic wrapping, which daughter has to try to replace, which is impossible for a 4 year old, so I tell her to forget about it and we'll go. Can't go. It's raining, so we need an umbrella. So I grab the umbrella, and daughter informs me that she has to carry it. I'm 5'9" or so, daughter is about 3'5". Fine, let's just get in the car. I get everyone loaded in the car, The Boy was only about 30 seconds behind us, thankfully, and we get on our way at 7:04.

So, how was your morning?

spoiled

I won't try to pretend that we don't spoil our children. We set standards, but they want for little.

The girl lately has had a favorite song on my Rolling Stones CD. As soon as we get in the car, she invariably starts asking to hear it and won't stop pestering me until I play the song for her to sing along with. And, of course, I eventually play it for her.

The name of the song? You Can't Always Get What You Want.
Whoever said real life had no irony?

Random Trivia

John Scopes was the losing party in the celebrated Monkey Trial.

Scott McClellan Resigns

In another mix up of Executive Staff, Press Secretary Scott McClellan announced today that he would be stepping down.

Scott McClellan is the man who was videotaped coaching the military on who would answer questions during a Q&A with the President, as well as what they would say in response to questions. He's also the one who recently had to explain what he meant about documents being declassified "today" when they'd been declassified ten days prior (regarding the intelligence for going to war with Iraq). Scott McClellan's job was unenviable, and I don't blame him for stepping down. Ultimately, however, this one is probably slightly less than a blip on the radar.

Generally, I like that President Bush is doing some moving and shaking in his office. I think that he would be well served to change some of the bigger dogs in the administration, such as Donald Rumsfeld, but I think the constant calls for Rumsfeld's replacement has made that option impossible. As I said in Bookworm's room, I think the choice to stand by Rumsfeld is wrong, but the President is doing it for the right reason. But overall, he is doing what many of his critics have asked of him, and for that is a good thing.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Must finish paper
So I can get extra grade
but I want to nap.

I look forward to your submissions!

I'm ashamed

OK, so I'm watching American Idol. It's a bit embarrassing, because, well, it's American Idol, and I'm an adult with brain cells. Yet, I watch. I actually enjoy the show. It's american pop culture to the Nth degree, and is geared mostly to ensure record sales (read: marketability). However, there is a talent side to the program, and usually the most talented make it to the end. For that, I'm willing to stick it out. That, and it doesn't require too much heavy thought to enjoy.

Tuesday Essay Question

Should there be prerequisites that a prospective couple must fulfill (e.g. premarital counseling, waiting period, couples therapy, etc.) prior to getting married? Why or why not?

Explain your answer and be creative. Grades will be arbitrary and capricious.

I miss Rocky and Bullwinkle:

B: Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
R: Again?! That trick never works
B: Well, it's become something of a fetish with me.

For your consideration

I present you with the following:

Among the rights afforded the accused in a criminal case is the right to the Assistance of Counsel for defense, according to the Sixth Amendment.

In an upcoming case, the Supreme Court will look at how far that right to counsel extends with respect to choosing one's own counsel.

The issue is whether or not an accused has the right to counsel of their own choosing, or merely the right of "capable" counsel. The argument is that lawyers are not fungible, or interchangeable, like CBS dramas. In U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, the question will come straight to the front, as Gonzalez-Lopez is a paying defendant (i. e. he's hiring his own defense counsel, not being assigned one). According to the article linked above, Gonzalez-Lopez had attempted to hire an attorney from California to represent him in his Missouri trial, but the Judge wouldn't allow it, to such a point that he relegated the would-be counselor to the gallery and assigned a U.S. Marshall to stand between said counselor and potential client. If you read the article, you can get more specifics.

I think I like the idea that an accused should be entitled to the lawyer of his or her choosing, especially when he or she is able to pay for said attorney. I don't think that it works right to say "well, you need a lawyer, so here's a lawyer." That doesn't play as well. Look what it's done for the Lions - they've needed a quarterback for 40 years, and while they keep putting people behind the center who are called "quarterback," they're just not as good as other quarterbacks.

However, I don't know if I agree that any lawyer should be allowed simply because local lawyers might be intimidated by the judge. I think that's a stretch. I think that if there is a compelling reason to not allow an attorney, then that should come into play and perhaps the lawyer should be disallowed. However, I feel that we should start with the rebuttable presumption that the lawyer the accused hires is best suited for the case.

It's good, darnit!

President Bush yesterday urged Congress to make the tax cuts permanent, on grounds that it creates jobs and creates economic growth.

Perhaps capital gains tax cuts do create jobs - I don't know. But I think it's interesting to note that while the jobs arguably are being created, and the median salary is (arguably) going up, the mean salary is going down. Wal Mart (for example) might bring in a lot of minimum wage jobs to the marketplace, but they don't increase wealth by paying a salary so low that people can't afford to buy health insurance and live at the same time. Providing capital gains tax cuts to the folks who run Wal Mart so that they can pay a couple more people 6 bucks an hour doesn't seem to be the answer, instead, it looks to me that it creates a demographic dependant on federal assistance to get by, which would be more difficult if taxes remain cut so that the CEOs, CFO, COOs, and whatnot can write off more on taxes.

Now, the democrats who argue that tax cuts primarily aid the wealthy are basically spouting a given. Since the wealthy are the ones who pay the bulk of the taxes, any tax cut necessarily are going to benefit them more than the poor, so I don't completely buy into that argument, but I'm also not convinced that creating more minimum wage jobs is the right way to go, either.

Happy Easter!

What would you do?

So according to this article, a South African commercial has a rugby player eating beans and smelling "stinky." The dry bean growers of the country complained, which makes perfect scents (get it?), because nobody suffers from malodor after eating beans. Except that beans do cause malodor (stinkiness). The Advertising Standards Authority dismissed the complaint on grounds that "[the advertising] plays on an objectively determinable factual reality which cannot be denied..." Wow. They didn't just lose, they stunk up the joint!

Quiet

The Boy is at a birthday party. I'm happy he got to go, mostly because he gets out with other kids his age, but also because it means that he behaved today and cleaned his room up. It's not clean. I don't know that it's possible for a seven-year old's room to ever be "clean," but it's going in the right direction.

The girl and the wife are napping. I started out napping with the girl, but the wife sent the little boy up to wake me so that she would have an open window to go in and lay down - evil wife.

The little boy is currently watching Barney and sitting quietly, not quite a nap, but not awake, really, either - he's very tired, but won't go to sleep. I think he gets his stubborn from his aunt, or maybe his mom. Can't be me, I've always been the agreeable one in the family.

Anyway, I'm using the time to post, and then open a book and get some reading done. I think I'll work on my paper a bit more this evening, after the kids are in bed.

Oh, and for those of you out there, you all are amazing, and I think the world of all of you!

Question

So, we are familiar with the concept of preventive war or preemptive strikes, where we attack someone so that they can't attack us, such as the invasion of Iraq. The premise is that they will hurt us in some way in the future, so we need to ensure that they can't.

Why is it we can attack another nation and kill thousands of people in the name of preventive maintenance but we can't arrest someone who we believe is going to commit a crime (say murder or a bank robbery)? Why do we generally have to catch them in the act (or soon after), have a trial and then convict them? Does an individual in the United States have more rights than a sovereign nation in the eyes of the authorities?

Perhaps we should start arresting people and holding them in prison until they admit that they were intending to commit the crime for which we arrested them. Then we can charge them, convict them, and send them to jail. It would cut down on actual harm caused, because the crime will never have been committed. People won't have been murdered, houses not broken into, banks not robbed. Insurance money would be saved.

And think of ease of conviction. We don't have to prove that the crime happened and that this individual committed it, because there was no crime! All we have to show is that the person intended the crime to occur, and that can be anything as simple as a passing thought. Court costs would be tremendously minimized, saving more money. We could streamline the system.

One small problem is with the field of illegal immigration, since the criminals then aren't typically in the country before they become illegal immigrants. This means that we'd have to be able to enter other countries where the illegal immigrants live and arrest them before they think of entering illegally. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court seems to think that the writ of habeas corpus applies to everyone, not just good old fashioned americans, so they'd have to be given court time, but I think the convictions would be pretty easy, especially if the Republicans get their way and illegal immigration does become a felony. All the proof we'd need is that they'd rather be in America, and since America is the land of the free and better than every other country, who wouldn't want to be here instead of where they currently are? Bam! Guilty. No more illegal immigration.

Of course, then again, sometimes, perhaps people consider breaking a law and then change their mind before they actually go through with it. It doesn't seem quite fair to hold them responsible for passing thoughts, or for NOT breaking the law. Perhaps the current system is ok.

Maybe preemptive strikes against countries with whom we're not at war aren't right, either?

on the trail

I hear you all loud and clear. I know what you're saying, but the answer is still no. I am not going to run for governor this year. You will not see my name (steve houchin) on the ballot. Steve Houchin is not a candidate for governor of Texas. I understand how hard it is for everyone out there to hear that, but it's true. So I've not made myself a candidate. Now, if everyone in Texas decided to write in Steve Houchin on the ballot in the fall under Governor, then I suppose I, Steve Houchin, would accept. And I, Steve Houchin, the write in candidate (tell your friends) would work hard to improve education in the state. I would work on creating jobs for people, real jobs, not "I'm a college graduate and all I could get was this Wal-Mart minimum wage job" jobs. And dental care. I really believe in dental care. I think everyone should have dentals. Remember that when you write in your candidate (that would be Steve Houchin) on the ballot this fall.

Do you?

I know why Jimmy cracked corn.

Secondary education

When I was in high school (Lakes High School - Go Lancers!), we sold sweatshirts to wear to football games to show our school spirit. We played at Lakewood stadium, our "house." to show our spirit, and demonstrate that this indeed was our "house," (and, apparently to show our academic prowess) sold shirts that said "Who's house?" "Lakes House." on the front and back, respectively.

More Random Trivia

It's against the law to whistle underwater in Vermont (not to mention impossible).

Random Trivia

Ransom E. Olds, not Henry Ford, created the assembly line, in 1901.

Home again home again, jiggedy jick

The little boy is still feverish, so I am at home once again. He's sleeping right now (a nap at 8:15? he's really not feeling well), so I've got a little bit of time to get some research and studying done. And of course post.

I'm missing work today, the first day I've missed. I get very anxious about going to work, but I think I'm just about as anxious about having to miss it for the child. Would that the boy was all right and I could go in, or that the wife was able to stay home, but alas, the boy's fever is over 100, so daycare can't keep him, and the wife is coordinating an office move for her office, so she's pretty much indispensible at work right now. That leaves me. Hopefully the office will understand, sick children don't keep track of things like schedules or whatnot. They merely get sick and then get better at their own rate.

Here's hoping he gets well soon!

Keeping Up Appearances

A few months ago, I criticized former Justice O'Connor and Justice Breyer. I said that they should recuse themselves from a case involving Merck, a company in which they owned stock. Even though they were shareholders in the parent company, they weren't involved in the named party to the suit. I said that they should not have un-recused themselves based on the appearance of improper influence or impropriety.

Now I'm going to criticize Justice Scalia for substantially the same thing. Blogger seems to be acting up a little this morning, so I'll try to fix the link later, but for now, click here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144845718915

In a nutshell, justice Scalia declared pride at not recusing himself from a case where his friend (and current Vice President) was a party. VP Cheney was party in the suit as an official at the head of the group being sued (click on the link for better details). Justice Scalia said "for Pete's sake, if you can't trust a Supreme Court Justice more than that, get a life." Yes, it's better to attack the people who question the appearance of improper influence than to take the simple step back and let the other justices deliberate and make the decision free of the appearance. That he didn't trust them to make the ruling in his recusal could arguably speak to his distrust of the other Justices' abilities.

As with O'Connor and Breyer, it's not that he would be influenced, it's that it looks like he could be that is the issue.

"This is reckless reporting!"

Said Scott McClellan this morning after ABC questioned him regarding whether or not President Bush KNOWINGLY relied on information regarding the existence of biological laboratories that had been debunked to justify the war in Iraq.

I won't recap the story, because Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice does a superior job of summarizing what's going on. Read his summary here.

I will simply say that this strikes at the heart of the growing credibility issue that this administration has been dealing with. Read the article, and think about everything that has happened since the invasion of Iraq and ask yourself if it's at all possible to trust the president anymore.

A new development in the Court system

The Supreme Court voted to change the rules and allow unpublished opinions in federal courts starting Dec. 1.

In many jurisdictions, unpublished opinions have no precedential value. The basic idea is that they are typically written by law clerks and staff attorneys (back to this in a moment). The appeals courts for four federal circuits at this time don't allow unpublished decisions at all while six others discourage them. The new rules will allow the circuits to determine the amount of weight they give to unpublished decisions, but will no longer allow them to ban them.

One of the biggest opponents to allowing unpublished opinions is 9th Circuit Court Judge Alex Kozinski. He compared the idea of allowing the opinions written by law clerks and staff attorneys with making sausage: "When the people making the sausage tell you it's not safe for human consumption, it seems strange indeed to have a committee in Washington tell people to go ahead and eat it anyway."

I don't agree with Judge Kozinski. If the decision is correct, then there should be no error in allowing it. Precedent is Precedent. It's based on the same statutes and same common laws. It makes little sense to me to have a sausage maker tell me, "Yeah, our factory made that sausage, but *I* didn't make it, so it's not good to eat." If it's not good, then don't issue it. If it is good, then use it. The end.

I just liked the headline

Geologists find ancient worm feces.

Another reason to love Detroit

During an intermission at yesterday's hockey game between the Red Wings and the Edmonton Oilers (Detroit won, 2-0 and clinched home ice throughout the playoffs - yay!), there was a promotional wherein a Toyota SUV made a lap on the ice. The crowd booed.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Sick child, so no school
For me today, can get some
sleep and study done!

As always, I look forward to your contributions!

Tuesday Essay Question

Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has enjoyed the title of Superpower alone. Given our superpower status, the essay question for today is, what is the responsibility of a superpower in the governing of the world and why?

As usual, be creative, and support your answers. Grades will still be arbitrary and capricious.

It must be Tuesday

I have a tightness in my chest
my hands tremble
I can't focus on any one task
I'm beginning to understand why those who have gone before me (e.g. the dean of the school) have suggested not clerking during the school year.
Were it not for the calls, I think I'd be all right.

Technically speaking

The bigger blogs will do a much better job at this than I can.

President Bush admitted today that he declassified Iraqi intelligence as per Scooter Libby's testimony. He claims that he has the authority to do so. He also explains why he declassified the documents, "I wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on. I wanted people to see the truth. I thought it made sense for people to see the truth. That's why I declassified the document."

You see, it's OK to declassify the document when it makes the President's decision look good. Would he have declassified any documents (if we assume any exist) that would have made him look bad? Of course not.

Now, I suppose, since the president declassified the documents, the administration can make a technically-correct argument that he didn't leak classified information. But let's not kid ourselves. The spirit of leaking information has been violated, and that strikes deep into the president's OJ Simpson-esque promise to find the real leakers. I'm not entirely sure if there's any credibility left in this administration, but whatever it is, it's falling off the back of the truck right in front of us.

"A Uniter, Not a Divider"

The President accused the Democrats in Congress of using "blocking tactics" stalling immigration overhaul, according to this link.

According to the article, President Bush said "Unfortunately this [bipartisan immigration compromise] is being blocked by the Senate Democratic leader who has refused to allow senators to move forward and vote on amendments to this bill, ... I call on the Senate Minority Leader to end his blocking tactics and allow the Senate to do its work and pass a fair, effective immigration reform bill."

He's right, from what I understand, that Senator Reid did prevent a vote. However, I like the phraseology to pass a fair, effective reform bill. It implies that any plan other than the one that is on the table, the one that President Bush approves of, would not be fair or effective. The president also conveniently forgets to mention that many Republicans are not on board with this program, ostensibly fearing backlash at election time.

Unfortunately, the crux of this story has little to do with actual civil debate over an important issue among voters and more to do with the Commander in Chief again pushing an "us vs. them" agenda. I can't say as I blame him, as finger pointing has gotten him this far, but enough is enough. Unless the President intended to have the entire country united against him, actions such as this continue to undermine his promise.

Another day

I feel like I'm sleepwalking, like I'm in a bit of a haze. I've done reading, I've taken out the trash, but everything feels like it's on time delay between when I do it and when it registers that I've done it.

It's not even like I've done that much. The wife has been superwoman today - doing 8 loads of laundry, baking turtle bars for the Boy's PTA, cleaning the kitchen, did two dishwasher loads, put clothes away, helped pick up the kids' rooms, let me sleep in, fed and watered the plants, etc.

I hope things will be slightly different after finals. I've started my paper, just need to finish.

Nuke Iran?

Would he?

A moment of happiness

The Wiggles is on right now. While I don't so much care for the Wiggles (I blame the wife for bringing into the house), the youngest two are both dancing along with the video, and you can't dislike watching children dancing.

something to remember

The current administration took another shot across the bow when Scooter Libby said that the President authorized the leak and the White House didn't deny it. The administration seems to be stuck in an "issue du jour" rut, having to explain its statements and actions again.

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has an excellent summary of the current situation and does a much better job of explaining than I ever could. I highly recommend reading his submissions, starting with this one.

My post title is "something to remember," and the thing to remember is that, as bad as things have gotten with this administration as far as unilateral action and untruths, we elected this administration because he was what appeared to be the lesser of two evils. While many people may not have been fond of President Bush in 2004, at least we knew what his plans were - something we (probably still) can't say about John Kerry.

Curses

I saw a yahoo link today or yesterday referring to curses, and one of the links was for the Seinfeld curse. Without clicking on the link, I suppose the curse is that the stars are all doomed to failing television shows as a result of their being so familiar as the characters in Seinfeld.

I don't think that's quite accurate, except maybe for Jerry himself. He's always going to be Jerry.
I think Jason Alexander and Julia Louise-Dreyfus are more victims of an Oscar-jinx type situation, where they're expected to star and carry any tripe they're put in, and usually that tripe is rancid (Listen Up, anyone?)
Michael Richards can't be a star, I don't think. He's got to play a sidekick/supporting actor role, which he did perfectly in Seinfeld. Much like Bull from Night Court. Therefore any vehicle that he's put in will fail because it will rely too much on schtick.

So it's not a curse for the most part, rather, it's self inflicted. If the former stars of Seinfeld exercised a little more discretion and chose parts slightly more diligently, they'd not suffer from post-Seinfeld doldrums.

Re-ci-ta-tion time, come on!

So, I had to recite in Agency and Partnership today. I wasn't surprised, I've been due for a couple weeks now.

We started the Business Judgment rule today, and I was called on in part to discuss the concept of good faith and judicial immunity. It was going all right, I stumbled a bit until I saw that I'd highlighted the words "good faith." After that, we moved on to another speaker. The prof likes to bounce from reciter to reciter and gets 6-8 per case (I prefer this to rote recitation on one case by one person). After a while, the cycle comes back to me, and I expect to comment on reasonable under the circumstances, or informed and deliberated decisions with regard to corporate entities or LPs with one General Partner. Instead, the question I had to answer was "Who had the plaque on his desk that said 'The buck stops here?'" (Harry Truman).

Then we moved on to the next case and the next reciter.

Random Trivia

William Shatner once made a movie entirely in the Esperanto language.

UPDATE:
For the doubting Thomas and Bookworm, I give you this link.

Thursday, April 6, 2006

Anxiety attacks abound.
School, work, kids, wife,
Juggling everything, why did I take up the extra stressor?
Constantly tired, can't sleep, can't study, petrified
At a loss for words.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Used to play euchre
all the time in the Air Force
Houston? Euchreless.

I look forward to your submissions!

Pat Buchanan Speaks

About Tom Delay's resignation, and what will happen in the coming election.

He suggests that we all need to continue to vote Republican because, though the Republicans "[don't] deserve an A" the democrats will "censure the president and raise taxes."

He made comments to the effect of the election being about red and blue.

If I had to pick one reason why I would not support a Republican Candidate this election, it would be based on the continued attempts by Republicans to turn everything into an "us v. them" situation. This goes profoundly against how I think the government should work, especially Congress. I firmly believe that all elected officials should work together to achieve the common good, not try to polarize and divide the nation through name calling and threats. (Note: I'm aware that there are Democrats who do the exact same thing, but they currently aren't as vociferous.)

Tom Delay had a black book full of lobbyists and republicans, and if you were trying to get an appointment with him, he wouldn't give you one unless you were in the book, because then he knew you "were on the right team." How can anyone work for the good of america as a whole if you marginalize a third or better of the country?

One of the things I like about John McCain is that he actually tries to work with both political parties, and I'd strongly consider voting for a McCain/Lieberman ticket (or Lieberman/McCain).

As for Mr. Buchanan's comments regarding censuring the president and raising taxes:
Censuring the President is a slap on the wrist, saying that he ain't done good. Given the number of mistakes and errors in judgment (leaving vacation to sign emergency legislation for Terri Schiavo under the premise of "always err to the side of life" while not committing emergency vehicles during Katrina despite reports of overtopping and potential flooding is rather inconsistent, IMO), perhaps this is worth genuine consideration. I am not saying it's something that should HAPPEN, I'm saying it's something that might deserve to be DISCUSSED.
Raising taxes - This is a red herring argument. The taxes that would be raised, if they were raised, would not be to the majority of voters. It would primarily go to those who typically vote Republican. This argument is a scare tactic that has been used many times in the past. Bear in mind that the top 50% of wage earners in the country pay about 94% of the taxes, and that the top ten percent pay over half the taxes, and you'll recognize who would be affected, and it's not the blanket insinuation that a statement such as "they'll raise taxes" presents.

I don't suggest the Democrats are any better. The Democrats, collectively, don't appear to be able to (as LBJ once said about Gerald Ford) "fart and chew gum at the same time." But, perhaps it's time for a change of the guard.

Tuesday Essay Question

Should active duty military members pay federal income tax?

Remember to support your answer, and remember that grades will still be arbitrary and capricious.

From KPRC News Channel 2 in Houston

Tom Delay is dropping out of the Congressional race tomorrow.

Being a daddy

Means always screaming in fear when your lion-child roars at you, no matter how many times you're roared at over the course of five minutes.

Being a daddy

Means being hand-held led by a toddler who's explaining to you "mas" and you knowing exactly what he means - milk, cheese, yogurt, apple, whatever.

Being a daddy

means eating a Peanut butter and Jelly sandwich on a princess plate and not blinking about it.

Helping

I'm a sports fan; primarily a Detroit sports fan, which means while I have to cheer for the Lions and the Tigers, I also get to root for the Pistons and Red Wings. I also cheer for the home team, which for the last three years has made me a Houston fan.

Anyway, the Pistons were on TV today, a rare television appearance for the team here in TX. Apparently being one of teh two best teams in the league for the last three years is less important than having a player named Shaq, Kobe, or Le Bron on TV.

Detroit got off to a slow start, they were down by as much as 17, and were trailing by 14 at the half. So I changed the channels a lot. I change channels during breaks when my team isn't doing well. I do this because I figure their luck needs a change, and if I flip the right combination, then the team will do better. It didn't work, until about halfway through the third quarter, where I picked the right combination of channel changes, and Detroit hit its stride. They ended up trailing by only three at the end of the third quarter, so I stopped flipping channels - I didn't want to change their luck. Sure enough, it worked, and Detroitended up winning. Sure the players did their part, but I know - it was me and my remote control that did it.

I'm superstitious with a lot of sports. When I bowl, if I get a strike, I repeat whatever actions I did prior to that frame, and continue to do so until I no longer get a strike. I also won't look at my score while I'm running a mark streak.

For racquetball, I always bounce the ball off my racket one time before I dropp for the serve - ditto tennis (back when I played these two sports). When I play baseball or softball, I always have to spin the bat like a propellor at least once before I am ready for a pitch, and I won't step on chalk or a base when going to or from the field. With chess, I always have to listen to Van Halen's "You really got me" and drink a vanilla coke before each game.

I'm most proud of how I help other people excel at sports via channel changing or hope rays (little dotted lines that are invisible to the naked eye, yet can change the course of a game by sheer concentration by the fan. I first learned about them in a Dave Barry book).

Pickle Things

I like Pickles, dill pickles, if I'm eating just the pickle itself. I don't care for pickles on things, like hamburgers or sandwiches.

My best friend is a pickle junkie, though. He would put them on his hot dogs (pickles, not relish), with cheese. I couldn't do that, myself. He's also the one who would get excited when the last pickle was eaten, because then he could drink the pickle juice. I remember the first time I saw him pour a glass of pickle juice; I thought he was playing a game with me. But no, he drank it all, and did so on several other occasions.

As for me, I'll stick with the Vlasic Kosher Dills.

Apparently, I'm evil

Just for playing an April fools' joke on my blog.

For the record, the rabbit is not dead. At least, *we* didn't kill any rabbits.

I understand that the euphemism "the rabbit is dead" is a bit of a misnomer, as you kill the rabbit to do the test, but I'm not sure abotu that, and I'm not looking it up.

However, it did lead me to wonder, If we say "the rabbit is dead," do the welsh say "the toast is sliced?"

Not so much an essay question, but sort of

Detroit's juvenile crime rate has increased 25% over the last year. This has led some Detroit officials to consider enforcing a parental responsibility statute that's been on the books since 1987. The link takes you to the statute language and the Free Press article about the concept, but I'll run through the basics right quick.

Essentially, enforcing the statute would make parents liable for being repeatedly negligent in their parental responsibilities if their children continually commit law-breaking acts. If found negligent, the parent could be fined up to $500 and/or jailed for up to 90 days. The article notes that Detroit is one of "dozens" of cities that have similar ordinances, such as Chicago and Cincinnati

My question for you is, do you think enforcing this is fair?

As if we didn't have stress enough

What with the wife working, three kids, full time law student, finals coming up, paper due, office move for wife, bills, etc...

Now the rabbit's dead.

It's gettin' hot in here

And our A/C is not working. The heat is annoying enough, but it's painfully humid, as well. We'll put in the work order tomorrow, I think, and hope that someone shows up then, if not, then on Monday.

I remember in the Barracks at Osan, the rule was that the base wouldn't turn on the A/C in the spring until there were five consecutive days of 80+ degree weather. The exceptions were the barracks for the Civil Engineering squadron, and the ones who got the A/C turned on first when it was time were the ones who were in good with the CE folks, so needless to say, everyone was buddying up with the CE people as best they could.

I also remember that our barracks were right next to the Security Forces Barracks, and they didn't believe in such little things as 24 hour quiet hours (a base staple for barracks) or various other things. It's not like anyone would enforce the rules against them for such trifles, inasmuch as they were the ones to whom you complained. It was a real pain when you were on Mids and trying to go get some rest. Rotating schedules aren't fun, and are less fun when you can't sleep.

I miss parts of Korea, but not the dorm life.

Friday Morning

I should be at school right now. My first class is in 30 minutes, yet I'm still at home. I'm trying to get out the door, but I'm just not able to. Exhaustion from last night factors in, but I just feel completely wasted in general. I'll still get myself to school today for the rest of class, but I'm going to miss A&P.

Great Day Houston is on while I'm trying to gather my thoughts and things to get out the door. The host is rather annoying, and I'm unimpressed with the program as a talk show/morning show. Then again, I'm probably not the target demographic, so it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

I did hear Chad Hedrick say that he might possibly be the next "Bachelor" on ABC... he made sure to mention it's just speculation and only a remote possibility, but you've heard it now. That's my celebrity gossip for the rest of the decade.

In other news, what should I do for dinner tonight for the family?

Persistance

My children get the squeaky wheel concept.

Tonight, the little boy fell asleep at 7:50. I put him in his crib and let him to his dreams. I went to bed at about 9:30. I fell asleep at 9:40-ish. About 10 minutes later, I was awaken by the cries of the little boy. He woke up and wanted comforting (read: attention). After checking on him and laying him back down, my wife came and started getting ready for bed. This was, of course, completely unacceptable to the little boy, who voiced his displeasure at having to stay in bed by crying. We figured we'd let him cry it out, after all, he's tired, and we're tired, and by picking him up and giving him attention, he's winning.

That was right around ten. He's still crying (my clock says 1:11 am right now). He's not sick, he's just crying. I'm not sleeping, the wife's kind of sleeping, and the little boy is going strong, despite being completely exhausted.

Update - the boy finally fell asleep at about 2:30. And was bright eyed and bushy tailed this morning at 6:15. I thought toddlers needed lots of sleep... I know grown-ups in this house do.

The Worst of the Best

I came across this while perusing the Moderate Voice - a game where you choose the ten worst movies that have won the Best Picture Oscar.

In no particular order, I list the following:

Oliver!
Titanic
The Deer Hunter
How Green Was My Valley (only because this one should have gone to Citizen Kane)
The English Patient
Gladiator
Dances With Wolves
Shakespeare in Love
Out of Africa
And - Kramer v. Kramer

Now it's your turn!

Random Trivia

hippopotomonstrosesquipedalianism is a term that means "the practice of using long words."

Thanks to KevinC for catching my typo - but I blame the book in which I got the word - it misspelled it as well.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

I might have a job
And then again, I might not
Anticipation

I look forward to your submissions!

But is it deductible?

An accountant who formerly worked for the Cardiovascular Research Foundation (a charity) recently admitted to using company credit cards and writing checks to himself, stealing over $237,ooo. He pled guilty to larceny in New York. The judge said that she would sentence him to a maximum of six years in prison, but might lower that time depending on how much of the $237K+ he pays back.

All this is fine and dandy, but the more interesting part of this stems from the fact that he used some of the money (at least $11,000) to pay for a dominatrix in Ohio to beat him. According to the DA, he also used some of the money to pay for plane trips and car rentals, though it's unclear whether these were for him or her.

He said he would try to raise enough money to pay off the debt by selling off his house in Long Island where he lived with his wife and two children. It probably goes without saying that his wife is leaving him.

Also, since Alexander is not a citizen of the US and he pled guilty to larceny, his attorney says he will probably be deported back to India (his home country) after he finishes his sentence.

So, is this income under Section 61? Is it excludable under any of the sections? Is it deductible?

I used to believe

When I was a child, I knew monsters lived in my room - as most kids do. My monsters weren't the sharpest marbles in the bag though. You see, they couldn't see me if I was under my covers; they could only see the parts of me exposed from under the blankets.

I used to believe that Michigan had unique garbage trucks that no other state had. I was so surprised and excited to see a "Michigan" garbage truck at McChord AFB in Washington.

There are plenty more "I used to believes," but that's a good start. For a better start, my friend Angie pointed me to this website: Iusedtobelieve.com, which is filled with memories of what today's grown-ups believed as children. It's worth it just to remember a little more of what childhood was like, and how the mind makes the misunderstood magical.

Wow

Surgeons in Pakistan operated on a 2 month old infant to remove two fetuses that were growing inside her. The doctors said that it was absically a case of triplets, where two of the fetuses just happened to grow inside the third. It's abnormal, but it happens occasionally (approx. 1 in 500,000 is what the article says regarding the odds). These particular fetuses were reported as partially grown and weighed a total of about two pounds. They also reportedly died at four months.

Tuesday Essay Question

Should overpass cameras/corner cameras be allowed for purposes of ticketing speeders/red light runners? Why or why not?

As always, I'm not looking for a "right" answer, I'm looking for thoughtful answers. Support your argument, and grades will be arbitrary and capricious.

Random Quote

"Politics would be a helluva business if it weren't for the goddamned people. I would've made a good pope." - Richard M. Nixon

Parenting Realizations

In a battle for a four year old's attention, a parent will always lose to a fly in the room.

When your 21 month old says Poohpooh, he's making a statement of fact.

When your seven year old is quiet for any period of time, it's already too late.

Good thing, Bad thing

Yesterday we went to the bookstore, where I bought a new book - De Tocqueville - Selections from Democracy in America. This is considered one of the premiere studies on the sociology of democracy - an excellent book, well worth reading.

This morning, I got downstairs, then had to go upstairs to get the daughter out of bed so she could get ready for school, on the way up, I hit the landing, where the stairs turn around, and I feel something cold and wet slide between my toes. The cat picked the perfect spot to throw up.

In the meantime, the kids were ten minutes late for school - daycare for the youngest two, so it doesn't matter, and we ensure that the Boy is at least 15 minutes early in the mornings, so even when we are late, we're not late. OK, by we, I mean me. The wife tends to think of arrival times as suggestions as to when you should start preparing to go (I'm kidding honey! I love you!).

I hope today doesn't turn out to be cat puke in my toes all day, that wouldn't be fun.

Fee Fee Fi Fi Fo Fo Fum

I smell smoke in the auditorium.

Privilege

The Attorney-client privilege is a rather significant aspect of the American legal system. It is what allows a client to speak candidly with a lawyer so that a solid defense can be built - without it, a client would be less likely to be candid with his representative.

The privilege is held by the client, not the lawyer. Privilege can only be waived by the client, generally. There are, of course, exceptions and limits, but the general rule is an important one. This rule transends death of the client. Simply dying does not remove the privilege, indeed it would appear to lock it in place, as a client can't consent to revealing privileged information if the client isn't living. Why would this matter? Because otherwise a client who knows that what he says might be available in the event of his death could decide not to be completely candid. The interest here is to defend the client and the client's interests. Privilege = good.

It's a Trap!

I learned to drive in the Puget Sound region, where the common knowledge of the day was that when you drove I-5 and got to Fife, you slowed down, because otherwise you were getting a ticket. The same has been my experience with Boerne, Texas, and all of Maryland. Little did I realize that common knowledge recently gave way to technology, and there is now a website called speedtrap.org whose purpose in life is to notify drivers of the cities that plan their annual budget on estimated traveller speeding tickets. The article that gave me this information (here) notes a town in Missouri that has a reputation covering three states. It also notes that some cities have suffered a loss of traffic and money from travelers because of their reputations as speed traps. Perhaps there's somethign to be learned here.

Why, Indeed

A San Antonio area school district decided recently to remove the novel "A Handmaid's Tale" from the curriculum after a parent complained it was sexually explicit and offensive to christians.

The district reversed the decision yesterday.

It sounds to me like a case of the school district overreacting to the woman's overreacting, and the media making a mountain of what needn't be more than an anthill.

Unjust Enrichment?

I like Barbara Bush. I like the Bush Clinton Katrina fund. I like the idea of helping those who were displaced by nature's actions. I especially like that a person with the financial means to do so made a monetary donation to the relief efforts, because it takes money to make the efforts work, so Kudos to Barbara Bush for that.

Here's my only gripe. She made the donation on condition that it be used on Ignite Learning programs for education. That in and of itself is not so bad; the disagreeable part to me is that this is that the company she wants the funds used on is owned by her son Neil. Now, she didn't specify that all the money she donated go toward her son's company, only some undisclosed amount; the rest was not dedicated to anything in particular.

I want to be clear here about one thing: I don't presume that Mrs. Bush partook of impropriety. It's also unclear that this would enrich Neil at all. However, that is less important than the appearance of impropriety that is connected with her actions. If she felt so strongly about the education programs, she could have just as easily purchased the programs herself and donated the purchases to the relief efforts. As it is, charitable donations will be used to purchase a program owned by the son of the person making the donations, which looks bad, regardless of actual intent.

Mmmmmmmeatloaf! Again!

After some rescheduling due to administrative error, Red Hot Mamma and I were finally able to get together at Polonia for some good ol' Polish food. It was as good as I remembered it. My wife and I took her parents there last summer and really enjoyed it. It was definitely as good as I remembered it.

Now, I might be a moderate/center left politically, but mentally I'm an old fashioned republican - I fear change. Therefore, I got the pork meat loaf, again. Let me tell you, pork meat loaf mightn't sound that tasty, but then again, so many things that are really good don't necessarily sound that good. Like Manicotti, or ham hocks, or lumpia, or goulash. Then again, there are some foods that taste as bad as the sound, like dinuguan, or poshintang, or okra, or liver and onions. And then there's the stuff that sounds good but tastes bad, like Sweetbreads, Rocky Mountain Oysters, etc. Anyway, the pork meat loaf was as good as I remembered it. And this time, for the lunch special, they included pea soup. This is something I would classify as a dish that tastes much better than it sounds. After all, who would want to drink pea (sic)? But it was really good, and I recommend anyone who is interested try it.

RHM had the pierogi, which is always a good choice at a Polish restaurant. And I managed to convince her to try the schmaltz, which is an acquired taste, to be sure. All in all, I would rate this as a good meal and a great chance to talk with a good friend. 4 stars.

Random Trivia

Senator McCarthy once stated that the paper he held out during his famous "communist" speech was nothing more than a laundry list.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Some week! Kid won't sleep
Coursework growth, aunt is dying
I might quit blogging.

As always, I look forward to your submissions!

Random Quotes

More than one today, because they're from one of the greats.

"It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit."
"Once a government is committed to silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everybodyone lives in fear."
"Those who want the government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination."
"A president is either constantly on top of events or, if he hesitates, events will soon be on top of him."
"You can always amend a big plan, but you can never expand a little one. I don't believe in little plans. I believe in plans big enough to meet a situation which we cannot possibly foresee now."
"Some of the Presidents were great and some of them weren't. I can say that because I wasn't one of the great Presidents, but I had a good time trying to be one, I can tell you that." (There are those of us who would disagree as to his self-assessment).

- All by Harry S Truman.

On agents

According to our text, the power an agent has to bind the principal is his ability to do so. The authority to bind the principal stems from the principal's consent to be bound by "manifestations" to the agent. Essentially, it means that an the agent who can bind the principal has the power to do so.

The next question in the book is, "is the converse true? Does an agent have the power to bind the principal even though the agent was not authorized to do so?"

The concept is that in an agent/partner relationship, there are going to be times where the agent exceeds his authority. The task is to determine when the principal should bear the risk and where the third party should be allowed to reasonably rely on the agent's actions and hold the principal accountable.

Think of sports agents, or lawyers, or leasing reps, or auto dealerships, or restaurant managers, etc. There are more principal agent relationships than many can see.

Tuesday Trivia Question

I've come to the conclusion that Fridays aren't the day that most people want to think about answering essay questions. As such, I've decided to move my essay questions to Tuesday. Tuesday's slightly better, I think, inasmuch as people aren't looking to the Weekend, and they're over the shock of Monday's return to work.

The question for today deals with right to die.

At what point, if any, should a person be allowed to choose to die? Should a doctor always have a duty to try to resucitate a patient? What about DNR requests, should they be ignored? What about living wills? As always, support your answer, tell your friends, and grades will be arbitrary.

"LOOK AT US!"

There was an old Looney Tunes cartoon that had this big dog (a bulldog?) that had a little dog companion. The little dog would jump around the big dog, all the time chatting about this and that in a manic manner "hey boss, hey boss!"

That's what North Korea reminds me of sometimes. It seems rather apparent that, of the countries that comprise the Axis of Evil, North Korea is the one that least concerns the administration. Every now and then we say something to show that we at least acknowledge the existence of the Chonger and his nefarious existence (I can't stop mentioning 2+ million less in population over 10 years, as compared to tens of thousands elsewhere). This time, the country suggested that it is capable of effecting, and has a right to launch, a pre-emptive strike against the United States.

What does North Korea want? They want the same cooperation with the US on nuclear issues as India has. This seems to be standard MO with North Korea. Threaten to try to strongarm your position. Then, when things look like they might be going the right way, have some incident (the crab war, the submarine incident, the poplar tree, the tunnels) come up and screw everything up again. It's a great way to keep the uninformed masses under your control. As an aside, I suggest anyone who bitches about the media slant here in the US read the tripe that the KCNA (google search it, I won't link) offers daily and consider what might happen if the press weren't critical and didn't demand accountability from the government.

North Korea really wants continued attention, because the more attention it gets, the more likely it is to get aid. Now they are essentially threatening the US with nuclear weapons and preemptive strikes. Yet we do nothing. What should we do? We liberated Iraq for WMDs that it didn't have to stabilize a country that isn't stable. We're threatening Iran with sanctions for looking into nuclear development. North Korea announces it has WMDs and threatens to use them against the US. Millions of people have died in North Korea in the last ten years from starvation. Prisoners live on 8 ounces of rice and 20 kernels of corn a day - prisoners often convicted of questioning the government, or being homeless, or speaking, or thinking. Tobacco for counterfeit cigarettes, opium, and heroin are all big crops in North Korea. The country runs in a shadow, believing that the rest of the world is worse off than they are, so swept up in Juche (self reliance). Perhaps we liberated the wrong country. Perhaps freedom should have started in the land of the morning calm first.

Da Conspiracy

Dan Brown's popular best-seller The Da Vinci Code is set to come out in movie form later this year. I remember seeing a commercial for it during the Super Bowl, and maybe one other. Then, the commercials stopped. Why did they stop? Because of a lawsuit that was filed regarding stealing ideas. After suit was filed, the commercials stopped, but news stories ran constantly online, and in the papers. I even heard about it on the news a couple times. How interesting that the plaintiffs would choose now, five months before the movie came out to file suit, when they had years to do so beforehand. Or at least, how interesting that the suit makes press now.

It makes me wonder, is this a legitimate suit? Dan Brown's books, the ones I've read, have come across as a little too fancy with his attempts to display what nifty little trivia bits he knows are. TDVC is heavy on conspiracy theory regarding the illuminati, masons, etc. And I know that some people have heard rumblings about the supposed Da Vinci Code back as far as the 1960's, and don't doubt that it's been around much longer than that. The last point is to demonstrate that perhaps there might not be legitimate merit in the suit, but that's merely a suggestion, as I've done no in depth research of the suit, just a cursory glance. It still won't stop my from postulating here, though. I think that the lawsuit is a sham. I think it was filed simply to drum up attention for the upcoming book. I think that this was a clever attempt to drum up free press and free advertising, so that the studio wouldn't have to spend money on advertising.

It's been done before. Paris Hilton's video that ran all over the news is one example. Harry Houdini's used to excel at getting his name in the news through various acts. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, many actresses and actors have their own "reporters" who send in staged pictures and press released to take advantage of the media. Is it really a stretch to believe that the makers of the Da Vinci Code wouldn't attempt something of a similar manner?

On Judicial Activism

Here's an interesting post that suggests it's not a recent phenomenon to look to foreign opinion in Court cases.

It's worth a look.

Some say many things.

But, perhaps the question we need to ask is, "Who are the some, Mr. President? And are you properly reciting their concerns?"