Lengthy Dictum

Vote Your Conscience (especially in Ohio)

2006-11-06T21:45:00.000-05:00

I know it's already been said, but I couldn't leave it alone without adding my own brief digression . . . Tuesday is election day. Yes, everywhere. It doesn't take long to do your civic duty and cast your ballot. It's been said (I don't know where) that an American has but two duties in which he/she can do America the greatest service: military service and jury duty. I would add a third, and that is to VOTE.

I don't feel that this is the proper forum to advocate for any particular party or candidate, but I would encourage you to vote your conscience. In Ohio, Sen. Mike DeWine and Rep. Deborah Pryce both have strong ties to the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal, in addition to the "coingate" scandal with convicted felon Tom Noe and Gov. Bob Taft, who was also convicted of several crimes. Ken Blackwell wants to be our governor, yet he has consistently gone on record stating that he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that Ohio should be able to ban abortion, and has also emphatically gone on record in opposition to gay marriages, unions, privileges, benefits (whatever!). This is not an individual who can bring us together, he will only work to drive a wedge deeper between the social classes.

I know that doesn't leave much left, but that's just the way the cards fell this time. Please don't be like my dear friend, who is a licensed attorney, who told me yesterday that he doesn't vote. When I tried to persuade him to revisit his decision in earnest, he said that he wasn't even registered to vote; in fact, not ever had he been registered. This is a prominent lawyer who makes his living on decisions made by elected judges and legislators on a daily basis--if this person doesn't care, who will? We have to strive to take a more active part in our own liberty, or else we might wake up one day to find that it's not here anymore.

Read the Fine Print

2006-10-16T20:20:00.000-04:00

I sent in my absentee ballot today. I highly recommend doing this in the future, because it gives you the freedom to exercise your right to vote from the privacy of your own home (and without waiting in line!).

Another reason I'm glad to have cast my vote already is that now seems to be the time when all the candidates really step up their "smear campaigns," and I don't want to have to pay attention to the ridiculous ads.

For example, Deborah Pryce is now running ads that attack Mary Jo Kilroy for things that happened while Kilroy was on the school board (nearly 10 years ago!). Notwitstanding the fact that this time was so long ago, it seems unfair (if not illogical) to attribute the actions of an entire board (7 members plus the superintendant) to one individual member. Pryce's ads even reference an independent financial audit which purports to hold Kilroy individually responsible for a whole slew of events, and never even mentions Kilroy's voting record. The problem with this is that the average person doesn't understand what an independent audit really is, or what an auditor's report means. I am not personally aware of any CPA who is qualified to make any of the statements Pryce claims were made against personally against Kilroy, not to mention the entire board.

I don't doubt that Republicans aren't the only ones engaging in this type of deceptive campaigning. The important thing to learn from this is that, as consumers, we cannot take things said in these ads at face value. If McDonald's advertised a new triple cheeseburger with 6 grams of fat, do you think it would appear on the Jenny Craig list of approved foods? All I'm saying is, READ THE FINE PRINT. Question everything. We're not puppets. We have brains so that we can make our own decisions about things that affect us. Let's do that.

Rush Limp-baugh?

2006-06-28T07:35:00.000-04:00

I know it's been a minute since I posted--I have been a little busy, and a little pre-occupied of late. So much is going on that I don't know where to begin . . .

How about our indiscreet friend Rush Limbaugh. "Busted" by TSA (airport security) with a bottle of Viagra--that was issued to another person. So what? I'm annoyed by Rush just as much as the next guy, but is THIS what TSA is being employed to do: Protect our country and our way of life . . . from unauthorized use of prescription drugs? Call me crazy, but isn't TSA's job to keep us safe from terrorist attacks facilitated using the air travel system?

This situation is exact illustration of why the Bush Administration's agenda and ongoing efforts to strip Americans of our civil liberties is ill-motivated and must be halted. The government claims, for example, that Fourth Amendment rights need to be limited or excepted in certain circumstances, so that threats to national security can be more readily discovered. But, instead of using the relaxed search and seizure regulations to catch dangerous threats to our freedom, they are using them to investigate Americans for violations of ordinary, non-violent, statutes.

This carries over to the government's controversial domestic wiretapping. The government says they're not listening to our conversations to hear about anything other than international terrorism. But can we believe them? It seems apparent that the Bush Administration does whatever they want to, and tells the general public whatever they want to hear, so that public opposition does not grow into a coup d'etat.

On a lighter note, perhaps Jay Leno said it best last night: "The one Republican with a plan to get cheap prescription drugs, and they arrest him."

And Justice for All

2006-05-27T08:29:00.000-04:00

We don't know their sentences yet, but Enron execs Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were found guilty of securities fraud and conspiracy charges on Thursday. Apparently the jury just didn't buy the whole "I really didn't know" defense. I suppose it's hard to believe Lay didn't know the companies finances were on the virge of tanking when he was getting rid of his own shares as fast as the Florida Marlins dumping salaries after a world championship. Lay and Skilling each face roughly 20 years in prison, which hardly sounds fair relative to the tens of thousands of lives they ruined, but at 64 and 52 years old respectively, if they do get the maximum there's a possibility they could die in prison.

Somehow I doubt either one will be smiling when they meet their new cell mate. Lay told the press, however, that he believes God will step in and take care of them. I'm not a huge proponent of religion, to put it lightly, but it looks to me like God has spoken already--through the twelve members of the Houston jury.

Writer's Block

2006-05-25T07:31:00.000-04:00

My apologies for taking an unannounced vacation. It's not that there isn't anything worth discussing, I've just been a little burned out. I'll try to get back on track within the next few days, so please keep posted.

This Picture Says 1000 Words

2006-05-10T22:54:00.000-04:00

Another Bush Cabinet Member Resigns

2006-05-05T16:36:00.000-04:00

Today the director of the CIA announced his resignation. This comes just a couple weeks after White House press secretary Scott McClellan tendered his resignation. Meanwhile Don Rumsfeld gave a public speech in Atlanta recently, where he was heckled by people in the audience. CNN showed two individuals with large banners calling the secretary of defense a liar--they were both carted off by security, both with Rummy's commendation.

Shortly thereafter, Rummy came under fire from a former CIA director, who seemed to ruffle the secretary's feathers. It seems like everybody has Rumsfeld's number lately, yet he is still at the President's side. I'm not sure what's worse lying, or lying about whether you were lying.

This is probably why politics frustrates me to the point (every year) where I eventually turn to sports. Just in time for the Yankees safely atop the American League East, where they belong.

Blackwell: Brain Scan Shows Nothing

2006-05-03T12:42:00.000-04:00

Well, it's official. Ken Blackwell took the Republican gubernatorial nomination from Att'y Gen'l Jim Petro last night. I had the distinct pleasure of being at the Petro camp for his concession speech, and I give him a lot of credit for carrying himself with class and dignity. After all the mudslinging, and all the ignorant things his opponent has said during the past two years, Petro could have taken any number of cheap shots at Blackwell, but he did not. The only real dig Petro did was when he alluded to attributing Blackwell's victory to the way he manipulated the 2004 presidential election. Most people probably didn't get the comment, but I really appreciated it.

Hopefully Petro will get another shot down the road. And hopefully Ohio voters don't succumb to the dumbing down of the state vis-a-vis Ken Blackwell's smoke and mirrors politics. Despite what Blackwell would have you believe, it's not about money and it's not about taxes. In fact, it's not even about God or the Bible. The Ohio governor's seat is solely about power. That's all Blackwell wants. I'd like to nominate Roger Blackwell instead--he could lead this State more effectively from federal prison that Ken could from his ghetto neighborhood in Cincinnati.

It's ironic that Ken Blackwell was once mayor of Cincinnati. So was Jerry Springer . . . who also made an unsuccessful run at the governor's seat. I think the title sums it all up for Ken Blackwell: when he was in college (yes, he actually went to college!) he played football at Xavier, and after getting knocked out on the field one day, he was rushed to the hospital for a brain scan. After x-raying the man's head, the doctors apparently found absolutely nothing.

Buenos Nachos

2006-04-29T09:17:00.000-04:00

Despite hailing from the great State of Texas--the State one U.S. Senator claims will soon have more Mexicans than Blacks or Anglos--our fair President Mr. Bush has just said "No" to the country adopting a Spanish version of the Star-Spangled Banner. Well, halleh-friggin'-lujah!!! Now, if we could only get him to support a bill that would ban crotch-grabbing while performing the Star-Spangled Banner, we'd really be cookin'.

The N.Y. Times reported today Bush was vehemently opposed to a Spanish version of our national anthem, and added that he thinks "[P]eople who want to be citizens of this country ought to learn English" (emphasis added). I can't remember the last time I unequivocally supported any two (or more) consecutive words that have come out of this man's mouth, but it was almost worth the wait.

Don't get me wrong, I think immigration is great--probably one of the most fundamental virtues of our nation--but I firmly believe that those who want to move and become citizens anywhere have a duty to learn that country's language. In general, I believe that our culture is moving towards making too many exceptions for those who are "different" (20 York. ago you could have replaced the word "different" with another adjective like "sub-par," "inferior," or one of its synonyms). It is true that tolerance has played a big role in this ideological shift, but tolerance and furtherance are two entirely "different" concepts. Tolerance means having patience, especially with those who are different, or perhaps less gifted in a particular area. Furtherance is when you take the concept of tolerance and add to it an excuse, and then a job, a check, or some other kind of free lunch.

The problem with furtherance is that it vitiates the need and motivation for hard work. Hard work, vis-a-vis Capitalism, is also a virtue that is vital to our nation; it is just as important as our founding as a melting pot of cultures. We need to praise and reward hard work, so that people will continue to create, produce, and self-provide. This does not mean that we cannot be tolerant, but it also doesn't mean we should tolerate our 200+ year-old national anthem to be served in a tortilla with beans and rice.

Government Finds Wiretapping Really Is Illegal

2006-04-26T08:12:00.000-04:00

Don't get too excited. Apparently wiretapping is only illegal when somebody else does it. Sure, it's the old do as I say, don't do as I do, we buy that. The illegal wiretapping was allegedly done by a Hollywood, CA lawyer dubbed "divorce lawyer-to-the-stars," who has represented everyone from Tom Cruise to MGM exec. Kirk Kerkorian. The F.B.I. is now investigating the attorney after getting information from a private detetive who was apparently under investigation for other wiretapping activities. The detective admitted specifically to working for the attorney.

Although I object to the attorney's surrepticious divorce-litigation tactics, it's hard to hate him in spite of what the federal government is already doing to millions. Sure, the government argues that their use of wiretapping is expressly authorized by Constitution and statute, but more than a fair share of politicians, legal scholars, and lay persons already know that argument to be full of holes, if not altogether fiction.

I say fine, if the lawyer is guilty of illegally wiretapping party opponents to fuel his litigation strategy, send him to prison, and suspend his law license for a period thereafter. But don't forget to indict and impeach our fair President, and the members of his administration who concur with the current intelligence policy. I wonder how you get a fair and impartial jury for that trial . . . maybe Dubya could request a change of venue--to Mars; because that's probably the closest place where a guilty verdict wouldn't be predetermined.

Moussaoui Deliberations

2006-04-25T09:29:00.000-04:00

Why must it be a) or b) with this guy? If the Zacarias Moussaoui jury decides a) to give him life in prison, he will finish the rest of his years in a federal prison, probably in some kind of solitary confinement to protect him from the other prisoners who might cause him grave harm; or b) that Moussaoui should get the death penalty, then he more or less gets what he wanted--to die as a martyr in the furtherance of jihad and its fanatical religious agenda.

The problem is that neither possibility is just, in light of what Moussaoui has done, and what he represents. In either scenario U.S. taxpayers will continue to throw hard earned money into Bush's so-called war on terror: in the former, we pay for prison for an indefinite amount of time; and in the latter, we pay for the endless number of appeals Moussaoui will be "entitled to" as a result of receiving the ultimate punishment. And what's even worse, if Moussaoui dies in the chair or on the table, he has gotten something that the thousands who died on 9/11 didn't get--a virtually pain free, honorable death.

In my mind there's no question he should die. He admitted to all the allegations, and he has made a mockery out of our judicial system to boot. But he doesn't deserve to die the way ordinary American murderers die; instead we should create a new way to carry out the death penalty, and it should be televised and broadcast to the world. Moussaoui should die at the hands of Americans in some dishonorable way--e.g., he should be dismembered or decapitated, the way al Qaeda-affiliates killed the Wall Street Journal reporter, and the other American two years ago. This would send a message loud and clear to the terrorists all over the world, that the United States will not extend humanity to those who have no regard for it themselves. I disagree with Bush, and his purported b.s. agenda. But if you're gonna do something, for Pete's sake, do it right.

Bin Laden, bin Hidin', and bin Foolin'

2006-04-24T12:13:00.000-04:00

Are you shittin' me??? Anybody who says the latest bin Laden "release" indicates that he is weak and that "al Qaeda leadership is on the run and under lot of pressure" needs to have their head examined. These were the words of White House press secretary Scott McClellan in today's N.Y. Times. See Michael Slackman, Bin Laden Says West is Waging War on Islam, N.Y. Times, Apr. 24, 2006.

I almost think that douchebag should resign before Dubya himself--he's got his head so far up the President's posterior he can get juiced off the steroids Bush must have inhaled in the clubhouse while Rafael Palmeiro and Jose Canseco played for his Texas Rangers in the early 90s.

Believe me, I'm not defending bin Laden, I'm just balking at the United States' feeble attempts to catch the guy. And this latest talk about moving into Sudan--what is that all about? Since when did we care about them? Anybody who's ever been to Khartoum can probably agree that Sudan is the very last place we want to send any of our troops. Khartoum, by the way, means "the hose" in English. Kind of fitting isn't it, that Bush wants to go there--because he wants control over their oil, so we can keep getting hosed at the pumps (which are also connected to hoses).

Dear Mr. Blackwell:

2006-04-21T08:14:00.000-04:00

I haven't been able to stop thinking about this week's by one of the most unfit candidates for a public office since Andrew Jackson (c'mon, Dubya was way too obvious). It's a good thing that you are aware you're not a lawyer, keep that in mind in the future, when you try to interpret laws and opinions you are not intellectually equipped to dissect. Fortunately for you, Justice Paul E. Pfeifer writes in plain English, so that anyone with an eleventh-grade education can understand his point.

Both the Columbus Dispatch (aka "Disgrace") and the Daily Reporter (read mostly by Columbus lawyers and business men) made the supreme court's decision in State ex rel. Dann v. Taft a front-page story, but the latter chose to present Pfeifer's dissent, rather than the majority opinion. Actually, that makes the most sense, when you consider that the majority issued a ruling that is inconsistent with 90% of Ohio citizens--WHO ALL WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE WORKERS' COMP. MONEY WENT, AND WHAT ROLE THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE PLAYED IN ITS DISAPPEARANCE. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll never know the answer to that.

For over 200 years, the state of Ohio has existed without
a gubernatorial-communications privilege. For over 200 years
we have had an open government, with an executive branch
designed to be limited in power. Why now does the governor
come before this court claiming a heretofore unrecognized
privilege? Are we in the midst of a crisis of state?

State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, ____ Ohio St. 3d ______ 2006-ohio-1825 (Apr. 13, 2006) (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). That was the part the papers reported on their front page. The fact that they quoted from Pfeifer's dissent, rather than from the majority opinion leads me to believe that they took issue with the majority. What was unfortunate, however, was that the papers left the best part out. Picking up where Pfeifer's rhetorical question left off, he continued, answered his own question, and suggested an appropriate characterization for the current state of Ohio politics:

No, the governor is in the midst of a crisis of politics. That he chooses
these circumstances to assert that the privilege is “essential for effective
governance” is a Farce; the majority, in ignoring our Constitution, statutes,
and traditions to grant his wish, has written a Prologue to a Tragedy.

Id. You know what the real tragedy is, though? That Paul Pfeifer would not even consider running for governor, when he might be the most qualified individual currently in the state governmental loop. He's a simple man, and maybe he wouldn't take kindly to the daily pressures of the governor's office. Life as a supreme court justice is not all that bad--unless you give too much weight to the quality of your colleagues. One attractive feature of becoming Ohio governor now, would be the fact that you can probably do whatever the hell you want, even get away with murder, and not have to be accountable to anyone!

We Ohioans can only hope that Ted Strickland has was it takes to end the 16-year reign of the Republican party's oppression and corruption in this state. Maybe we'll have to tolerate some liberal ideologies for 4 years, until some younger version of Pfeifer--cloaked in a cape and branded with an 'S' on his chest--rescues us from ourselves. But 4 years of that certainly has to be better than 4 more years of dictatorship, this time by a former football player, who has the intellect of a stereotypical football player. Honestly, I think we'd be better off with Andy Katzenmoyer as governor.

Apparently the rest of the world is catching on to the impending crisis we face. Headlines in today's New York Times read: In the Race for Ohio Governor, All Sides Agree on a Need for Change. See the article here.

Gassy

2006-04-18T21:37:00.000-04:00

I'm still waiting for my tax refund, and it's the end of the semester. A friend of mine owes me a few hundred bucks, and I'm still waiting on a check for several thousand dollars for work completed a long time ago. Needless to say, I can't answer my home phone because between 8:31 a.m. and 7:59 p.m. the phone rings non-stop with bill collectors.

So I pull up to the gas station today, and I go in to pre-pay. I ask the clerk to give me $5 worth of gas. Then he farted, and gave me a receipt.

Blackwell Ought to be Black-balled

2006-04-17T22:50:00.000-04:00

Republican Gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell visited the law school today to share his plan to re-shape Ohio through financial restraint and tax/tort reform. Many of my friends laughed when they saw me going into the auditorium. They made silly facial expressions and sarcastic comments--not because I was going to hear Blackwell speak--because they knew my opinion of the man solely responsible for tipping the 2004 presidential election in favor of Mr. Bush was anything but favorable, and they couldn't imagine why I'd waste my time going to hear him speak.

I believe that everyone--even those believed to have as little integrity as Blackwell--deserves a chance to have his voice heard. Besides, how could I legitimately find him such an objectionable candidate if I didn't even know what his agenda was (or at least the putative agenda). I was really glad that I gave up my lunch hour to hear Blackwell speak, because now I am even more convinced that he is not fit to be Ohio's governor. Prior to today, I thought his hidden agenda fueled by religious fanaticism was enough to impeach his credibility, but alas, all I had to do was wait for him to open his mouth: notwithstanding that he's a lousy speaker in general, he is seriously lacking in logical reasoning ability, and not too bright to boot.

The putative purpose of Blackwell's campaign rests on his belief that every day 65 Ohioans leave the state to go elsewhere; every single hour, 2 Ohioans move to Florida. Why is this bad? According to Blackwell, the Ohioans leaving are the ones who have money--high net worth--and they're fleeing Ohio for states (like Fla.) with better tax treatment for the rich. Forgive me for not knowing a whole lot about tax, but I don't think you have to know about tax to be able to infer that 2 senior citizens every hour are moving from Ohio to Florida because of tax. And Blackwell actually expects us to believe that! Apparently the thought never occurred to him that a) Ohio's climate kinda sucks; b) Florida's climate generally doesn't; and c) all old people with the means to, eventually retire or migrate to Florida!

Blackwell continued, talking about "fiscal responsibility," and equal tax treatment . . . but quite frankly it was hard to follow him, because his manner of speech was so mono-toned and dry that I was having difficulty paying attention. One skill he seemed to have down cold was how respond to a difficult question with a plausible answer to a different question. I'd say he was almost as good as Mr. Bush, but he actually wasn't. At least good-ole Dub-ya can lie with a twinkle in his eye and a smile on his face. When asked about a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision (State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 2006 Ohio 1825) granting executive privilege to the Ohio governor, and how the privilege would reduce accountability from state offices, Blackwell responded that he wasn't a lawyer, but that he didn't think the decision had any potentially negative effects on his agenda to bring corrupt individuals to justice (he also quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes in one place, but it made absolutely no sense in relation to the topic of conversation).

If you read Justice Pfeifer's dissent from the above case, you can see that the majority's opinion essentially gives privilege to any "internal conversations" having a peripheral relationship to the governor. Thus, as Blackwell put it--that bribes paid by construction contractors, workers compensation, etc. would be outside the scope of the court's decision, and not affected or compromised--all that would have to happen to bring these types of matters within the governor's privilege would be to copy the governor on all communication, regardless of whether the governor was directly involved. With this, the governor's office could operate without supervision, and would be continuously and systematically shielded from media coverage or public scrutiny that would dictate an ordinary level of accountability.

Weekend wrapped up

2006-04-17T22:40:00.000-04:00

I've made a couple changes to the weekend's posting in re oil prices. Check out the size of that gobbler on Raymond!

Apparently Chris Fairman's "Fuck" is still stirring up quite a bit of controversy. Recent comments to www.concurringopinions.com are baseless and non-complimentary, but nonetheless they add fuel to the fire. The most important fuck-development, however, is the fact that it was the most downloaded scholarly article last week from the Berkeley Press website (BePress).

I think I've exhausted the fuck-discussion, so I'll leave it; besides, there's no doubt in my mind that Fairman will get more than his fair share of offers. Query: didn't everyone laugh at Chris Columbus when he claimed the earth was round?

As you fill up your tank this weekend . . .

2006-04-17T10:54:00.000-04:00

Very few things get under my skin as much as the price of fuel--because of the arbitrariness of its fluctuation. I remember leaving the City on 9/11 to get diesel fuel because everybody on TV was saying that there was going to be a severe petroleum shortage in the wake of the attacks. Sure enough, I waited in line for 45 mins. to fill my tank, and I think I paid around $2/gal., which was outrageous at that time (the day before diesel was maybe $1.25/gal.).

Long story short--there was no petrol. shortage, it was all propaganda, because the prices went back to almost normal within 48 hours. Nonetheless, I was glad to have filled up because I had the sudden urge to get the hell out of there. There was a dark cloud (literal and figurative) lingering over the city, and I believe there was the faint smell of death in the air. Perhaps it sounds cliché, but I suppose you had to be there. Needless to say, I took off and drove cross-country to stay with my brother.

What's my friggin' point, you ask? For the last 13 years, John Raymond has been at the helm of Exxon, the world's largest oil conglomerate. During Raymond's tenure, the company's value spiked fourfold, to a staggering $375 billion. In December Raymond retired from Exxon. And while hard-working men and women who've put there blood, sweat, and tears into companies like GM, Enron, and the like, are struggling to receive any kind of retirement benefits (including even healthcare!), Raymond leaves Exxon with a pension valued at almost $700 million (CNN reported only $4M, but who's complaining?). A N.Y. Times analyst figures that Raymond's pension is equal to about $144,573 per day of service to the corporation. (Story here.)

I'm a huge fan of Capitalism, but this just doesn't seem fair (or even human). Any just economic system must carry an incentive to work hard. Admittedly, Marx's theory seems ideal, but pragmatically it is flawed. Because it doesn't factor in the value added by self-motivated individuals who get out of bed every day and make an effort to do something great. Take Bill Gates, for example. Regardless of Gates' motivation to get go to work every day is to design or promote some new creation that will raise its users' quality of life, or whether he is simply after more money, the end result is positive. But it is crucial to separate Gates—America's richest man; from Gates—creator of the world's largest information superstructure. Without incentive to make money, inventors, doctors, engineers, scientists, and even film directors and songwriters would not have a motivation to create new works.

Raymond, on the other hand, didn’t create shit. Unless you count the billions of dollars he “created” in Exxon’s worth—I would hardly call that creation, because the money didn’t grow in an orchard full of trees, it came out of yours and mine pockets. The Las Vegas casino industry and “Big Tobacco” are more honorable than the oil business—because people have a choice whether to use those products/services. Exxon’s product is wholly inelastic.

Incidentally, CNN published the 2005 tax returns of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney yesterday. Any guesses as to how much our trigger-happy Vice President raked in last year? How about nearly $9 million! (Story here.) That's not real surprising, but this might be: Cheney reported that he gave away almost two-thirds of this income to "charity." I've got two words for that notion: bull shit. Granted, I don't have any proof that Cheney is lying about his charitable contributions, but what reasonable person could really believe that a fat Republican gave away over $6 million in one year? If he did in fact give that much money away, I would love to see where the money actually went. Incidentally, the Vice President is due to get a refund of about $2 million! Cheney photo © 2006 by Reuters.

Notwithstanding Cheney, wouldn't now be a great time for the government to step in and take control of the impending fuel crisis? I was real young back then, but didn't Jimmy Carter intervene during a similar crisis in the late-70s? WHEN THE PRICE OF FUEL GOES UP, THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING RISES. This is simply an economic fact. Does the situation have to escalate to people quitting their jobs because it costs more to get to work than their take-home pay will compensate? Be glad if you don't live on the East Coast, where in addition to exorbitant fuel prices, you have to pay to drive on nearly every major thoroughfare.

Fairman's Fifteen Minutes

2006-04-14T14:52:00.000-04:00

I can't believe how much noise this forthcoming law review article is creating. Three other law blogs made mention of the article and referenced Leiter's posting. The most interesting comments appear in Daniel Solove's posting at http://concurringopinions.com/.

One self-proclaimed editorial genius showed a reason why he's no longer editor of whatever publication with which he was formerly affiliated:

Nothing new here. I'd reject it even faster. Points for mild entertainment. Author could have chosen a more informative title.

I rejected many other pieces much faster than 25 minutes. Kudus to Kan. L. Rev. for actually spending 25 minutes before rejecting this one. Posted by: Former AE at April 13, 2006 11:54 PM

Others are found at: http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/this_is_pretty_funny.html and http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/.

What amazes me is how the majority of people making substantive comments both had not even read the article, and made their comments anonymously. Granted, yours truly has recently adapted this blog to a quasi-anonymous status, but that was only to protect myself (and my colleagues) from certain disparate treatment here at the OSU College of Law (or, as most current faculty call it "Moritz").

It's really unfortunate that one cannot be free to speak his mind in a blog without being ostracized, riduculed, or outright threatened. There are freaks out there who carry offensive signs outside of abortion clinics, and their "speech" is protected; why isn't ours? Shouldn't we be free to make legitimate, logic-based arguments about current events and experiences that vex us on a daily basis?

The good of this--if there is any--is probably that all this controversy surrounding Fairman's [brilliant] article will most certainly cause some law review staff to want to publish it. In fact, it's very plausible that several journals would now want to sign on to this, just to show that they embrace the cornerstone of our Constitution. The irony that I recently learned about law school is that we come here to learn about truth, justice, reasonableness, due process, and the like, but many of those charged with teaching it to us don't have the faintest understanding of the subject matter themselves.

Maybe everything in Kansas is flat after all

2006-04-13T14:04:00.000-04:00

Earlier I posted about a forthcoming law review article by Chris Fairman; it's forthcoming because it hasn't yet been published, which is proving to be slightly more difficult than was anticipated. So far Prof. Fairman has submitted the article to about 50 scholarly publication, and while not all of them have rejected it, none have made him an offer either. The South Carolina Law Review rejected the article in 17 hours, and as Brian Leiter blogged earlier today, the Kansas Law Review rejected the article in 25 minutes! Leiter dubbed this the "world's fastest article rejection by a law review." At least Kansas L. Rev. staff is true to their word--on their website they pride themselves in their "promptness." Hear, hear.

Notwithstanding how disappointing it is for such a profound piece (yours truly did some of the research for the article) to be prevented from dissemination, for anyone who has read the article--aptly entitled, simply: Fuck--the ongoing scenario is fitting if not expected. Needless to say it's a sad state of affairs when people like Montell Williams and Maury Povich have national TV-shows featuring toothless Americans without jobs who concoct preposterous stories about their sex lives simply to get on TV, but a well-researched scholarly law review article can't find a decent home where it can be digested and analyzed by those not too wrapped up in American Idol to care about the withering away of our constitutional rights.

I highly recommend reading the article in your spare time; and since it is not yet published, you can find it online at the Berkeley Press website: http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1087/.

*One footnote, Fairman is actually from Kansas.

Treadmill Musings

2006-04-07T09:10:00.000-04:00

I think I should re-title this blog consistent with the title of this post--because I get at least half of my ideas for blogging while running and watching five TVs simultaneously (usually NBC, CNN, ESPN, etc.):

1. Judge in the Da Vinci Code case ruled in favor of the best-selling author--i.e., that he did NOT plagiarize. Meanwhile I feel like the last human with teeth who hasn't read the controversial book (I think it's fiction, and is an alternate depiction of Jesus' life).

2. Speaking of plagiarism--this year's Oscar-winner for best picture was Crash--this movie was, in my opinion, a blatant rip-off of a 1992 film Grand Canyon, which starred Kevin Kline, Danny Glover, and others. Crash was good, but if you want to see the original, Grand Canyon features a great cast, and makes a great rental (do people still rent movies???).

3. What is up with that McKinney woman? I'd like stick the drill seargeant from Full Metal Jacket on her: "What is your major malfunction [bitch]?" Brief recap in case you were in Jamaica for the past week: McKinney is the congresswoman who struck a police/security officer in the Capitol building, claiming that she had been discriminated against based on racial profiling. Following the incident McKinney vowed to file criminal charges and also to pursue all available civil remedies against the officer.

She did a 360, though, apologizing for her actions yesterday on Capitol Hill. Apparently she just doesn't get it, though, because her "driver" then threatened a CNN reporter going into the Capitol building. The man told the reporter that he was a police officer, which he obviously was not; and McKinney confirmed that he was merely her driver and friend.

A Washington, D.C. grand jury is supposedly investigating the whole incident, and will possibly (hopefully) file criminal charges thereafter. That's a good idea, but here's a better one: why not just let Dick Cheney take McKinney hunting during the next break?

Grumbing

2006-04-06T07:35:00.000-04:00

By no means do I profess to be some kind of Alan Dershowitz, Brandeis, or Holmes--or any other one of the brightest legal minds of this century--however I continue to be astounded by the gross lack of legal knowledge of some of the 3Ls at my law school. For example, someone in my advanced Civil Procedure class asked the professor the other day what an attorney's "notice of appearance" was. The professor's response was almost equally as entertaining, because he appeared initially shocked, but out of professional courtesy tried to act as though it was a legitimate question for law student just 3 weeks shy of earning a juris doctor to ask.

His answer was comical, though: "It's basically an attorney showing up in court, and saying, 'I'm here.'" I recall this same professor becoming upset on an occaision when a 1L was unable to tell the professor what the 'v' stands for in the title of a case. I am taking for granted that the 3L who didn't know what an appearance was would know that 'v' is the abbreviation for "versus."

It's funny, because all these law students have no problem identifying abbreviations like: $$$, LV, the interlocking C's, the block 'G'/horsebit, or D&G . . .

(Respectively: money, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Gucci, and Dolce & Gabanna.)

Move Over Matlock

2006-04-02T10:21:00.000-04:00

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled last week that a trial judge can force defense counsel in a criminal proceeding to turn over evidence they have that might be useful for impeachment of the prosecution's case. I almost couldn't believe what I was reading when I saw this. Isn't the climax of every dramatic criminal trial the point when the defendant's attorney charges the prosecution's star witness by barking: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" Sure it happens on TV, but I've seen it happen often in real trials too.

Aside from taking much of the drama out of the courtroom, the court's decision seems to infringe on defendants' Fifth and Sixth Amendement constitutional rights. The only problem is that the defendant in the case that prompted the Mass. court's decision took a plea to a lesser charge--the Supreme Court generally doesn't hear cases that have already been disposed of. So we'll have to wait a while for the next case to come along that might get challenged on its constitutionality in the nation's high court.

Merely getting into the Supreme Court might not be enough, however. Given the way Chief Justice Roberts dissented in Georgia v. Randolph, he seems to take a stance against criminal defendants. Alito didn't participate in Randolph, so his vote could be crucial if the Massachusetts holding ever comes under the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Senator's Prevarication

2006-03-30T07:18:00.000-05:00

The Governor of Georgia is expected to sign a bill making the Bible a required "textbook" in 2 elective high school classes. If so, Georgia would be the first (and only) state to teach the bible in its public schools. A state senator who was one of the bill's sponsors told NBC that it was useless to require a textbook for these courses, essentially saying "Why use a book that analyzes the bible's teachings when we can use the actual book? That would be like using a textbook to teach the Constitution instead of using the actual text."

Is this woman serious? I don't want to sound like a huge advocate for the textbook industry, because I generally think it's a farse--constantly revising textbooks in the most minute ways simply to require students to have to buy new books every year, instead of recycling previously used texts. However, don't textbooks break up the material--like the text of the Constitution--to present it to students in bite-sized portions, and then presenting a series of problems to challenge the students to apply the material they have just read.

Note to the Georgia state senator: When I studied Constitutional Law, we used a textbook. And a treatise. Both of which contained the full text of the Constitution in their respective appendices. This was done on purpose. It simply wouldn't be appropriate to go straight to the text of that document without first looking at the last 200 years of its treatment. Clearly Georgia's ill-fated intent is to slide the book into its curriculum in a manner so that it escapes judicial scrutiny that would otherwise find a violation of the separation of church and state.

Coincidentally, a good friend of mine told me, just last night, something that hits home pretty hard right now. He is a lawyer who took the bar in several states including Georgia, which was his first exam. He recalled sitting down in a big gymnasium and the proctor stating in a hillbilly southern twang: "Make sure you put yer name on the book--you git 10 points fer puttin' yer name down 'ere." I think that just about sums up Georgia's new brilliant curicular scheme.

In a World of Sequels

2006-03-28T23:04:00.000-05:00

We are about to get yet another sequel. Everybody groans when they hear about them, right? Incidentally, I heard that Basic Instinct 2 was one of the worst-grossing films at the box office last weekend . . . but this sequel should be welcome--CNN reported that George Clooney and the gang would be starting work on Ocean's 13 later this year (story here).

White House Shakedown?

2006-03-28T14:30:00.000-05:00

President Bush accepted the resignation of his Chief of Staff this morning. His replacement is Michael . . . er, Josh Bolten. CNN reported the personnel move was prompted by the president's lowest-ever approval rating, and a consequential need for a White House "shakedown."

Call me cynical, but does it seem logical that the president's approval rating has anything to do with his chief of staff (or any other cabinet member for that matter)? How about removing the president or vice president instead--that seems like a far more sensible solution to the problem. After all the lies and deceipt, Bush couldn't even pass the character & fitness examination for the state bar, yet he's still allowed to run the country (further into the ground and deeper into debt).

On a random side note: don't wear buttonfly jeans when traveling via air. The buttons are inherently metal, and although they won't ordinarily set off the main metal detector, they will absolutely cause the "wand" to alarm. This alarm will follow with some overweight, undereducated, and underpaid (or overpaid, depending on how you look at it) middle-aged man with chronic halitosis asking to feel your "package."

Dear Barry Bonds

2006-03-27T09:42:00.000-05:00

The following appeared in the "letters to the editor" section of a current magazine issue:

Dear Barry Bonds,

Find some reputable friends. You can't expect to hang out with those BALCO guys without raising suspicions. That's like asking people to believe you hung out with Black Sabbath and never snorted rat tranquilizer. You need a squeaky-clean pal. How about new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts? He's never used a performance-enhancing substance besides Aqua Net.

I always like it when worlds collide--sports, public policy, and the law (not to mention the fashion magazine in which the letter appeared)--because it is evidence that people are well-rounded and are able to apply general principles to areas other the ones for which they might have originally been intended. It's all part of the cliche "thinking outside the box."

On the Brink of Extinction, Our 4th Amend. Rights Were Thrown a Life Preserver . . .

2006-03-24T14:48:00.000-05:00

. . . too bad we probably needed a life boat.

After having some time on the plane to read the Court's opinion in Georgia v. Randolph, 04-1067, it seems there is less to celebrate than I had first thought. Particularly I am troubled by the Chief Justice's dissent, in which he raises a red herring argument of domestic abuse to support his belief that the Georgia Supreme Court should have been reversed. Fortunately, Justice Souter explains very well in his majority opinion why Roberts' dissent holds no water.

What is most troubling, to me, is that I was beginning to think Roberts was a pretty decent (rational) jurist--now I'm not so sure. If a man is not safe in his castle, where is he safe? Roberts' viewpoint is wishy-washy, and could easily be manipulated to pave the way for the justification of NSA wiretapping.

One interesting contradiction from Roberts' dissent, however, is that he refers to the Fourth Amendment's implicit (or inherent) protection of privacy, which was mostly abrogated forty years ago by Katz (holding that the Fourth Amend. is not a ubiquitous right to privacy). Hopefully Roberts was only flexing his muscles in Randolph because it had no direct impact on the outcome. The next few months could be telling, as far as our Fourth Amendment rights are concerned. A decision is expected soon regarding the admissibility of 911 phone calls/transcripts (Davis v. Washington, No. 05-5224; Greenhouse's story here).

Good Mawning Mon

2006-03-23T09:03:00.000-05:00

Greetings from Ocho Rios, Jamaica. What a long-awaited and well-deserved vacation--far far away from nagging people who think they're smarter than everyone else just because they went to some high-priced school. I have much to share about the past few days--when I was having extreme difficulty getting Internet access. But there was one thing that absolutely could not wait: The Supreme Court affirmed Georgia v. Randolph, 2006 WL 707380, yesterday (hallelujah!). I think this decision came on the brink of me contemplating relocating to some distant country, with the hopes that their legal system was, by chance, less corrupt than ours. You can read Linda Greenhouse account here. Enjoy!

Happy St. Patty’s Day from the Motherfucking Texas Court of Criminal Appeals!

2006-03-18T03:17:00.000-05:00

Happy St. Patty’s Day from the Motherfucking Texas Court of Criminal Appeals!

Andrea Yates will be re-tried for the murder of her five children in 2001, said the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals yesterday. Yates is apparently mentally ill: She admits drowning the kids in the bathtub, and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, which resulted in a mistrial. Her attorney argued yesterday that jeopardy attached, and that re-trying Yates violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The court found his argument unpersuasive.

This happened in Texas for Pete’s sake. Isn’t this the state that’s executed more people since reinstating the death penalty than any other state (if not all of them combined)? Why couldn’t the first jury convict this lunatic, then? She killed five innocent children. She admits it. What’s the question? Hellooooo . . .!

Don’t give me the “it’s inhumane to execute crazy people,” argument, because that argument is bullshit. What are they supposed to do with this woman, put her in a “hospital” for the rest of her life? Who’s that going to help? Are there not enough insane people in Texas that healthcare workers are in danger of losing their jobs? Why do we send anybody to these institutions if they don’t even have a mathematic possibility of a chance to recover, be reintroduced into society?

Perhaps this is the first posting I’ve made to this blog that demonstrates I’m not a flaming liberal. People are quick to assume that I’m liberal because I have liberal views on certain issues. But I’m not a liberal. By the way, I think there are a lot of conservatives who are also unhappy with the current administration. In my opinion, honesty and integrity are far better ways to judge people than political or philosophical alignment (or misalignment). Yes, I admit it (judging); but who doesn’t judge? Anybody who says they don’t is lying. Judging people is not inherently bad—prejudging people is bad.

Oh, btw, the title is taken from Fred R. Shapiro's scholarly article, The Politically Correct United States Supreme Court and the Motherfucking Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: Using Legal Databases to Trace the Origins of Words and Quotations, in LANGUAGE AND THE LAW 367, 368 (Marlyn Robinson ed. 2003).

Double-Edged Sword

2006-03-15T04:53:00.000-05:00

About midnight last night Microsoft Word shut down on my computer. I was working on an article that has been ongoing since August, and was putting the finishing touches on. I have the program set up so that it is supposed to "auto save" ever few minutes, so I thought I'd be fine.

Long story short, the auto save did its job--it saved everything--but unfortunately the file it saved everything to was corrupt, so I couldn't open it! I tried everything, but after working with it until 5 a.m. it appeared that I was going to have to manually cut & paste every single footnote, line by line (that amounts to about 10K words).

Oh, I did say I'd make it short, sorry. Alas, there is a happy ending--after waking up about 10:30 this morning, refreshed from 4 hrs. sleep, I remembered that my hard drive backs up to a separate network drive every day at a certain time. Within about 10 mins. I figured out how to reload the article (before it became corrupt), and I was in business! I still had to recreate about 3 hours of work since the backup, but that was it.

So the moral of this story is . . . don't rely on machines too much. Er, uh, just spend the $100 it costs to get a good backup program, and know how to use it.

Who Would've Guessed it Would've Been Tony?

2006-03-13T16:43:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm not sure that getting shot in the stomach counts as getting "whacked"
per se. I can't imagine the writers/producers killing off the
main character in the very first episode, so we'll have to wait
and see . . .

Sopranos Are Back Tonight . . . If Anybody Still Cares

2006-03-12T11:51:00.000-05:00

Who are the Sopranos, you ask? Oh, actually I can't blame anyone for asking that question. The Sopranos is an HBO original series about a Jersey mob family that started in 1999. Despite huge accolades, the show's producers have refused to keep production on schedule, resulting in sporadic sprinkling of episodes here and there, not coinciding with normal broadcast seasons and with a complete lack of predictability. If any other show had been mishandled and mismanaged in this way it would have been off the air--e.g., I can't imagine Seinfeld would have lasted all those years if nobody knew if or when a new episode was ever going to come out.

Nonetheless, after being off air for nearly 2 years, Emmy-award winning The Sopranos' season six debuts tonight on HBO at 9 p.m., for its putative farewell season. One Vegas website is even giving odds on which stunod will be the first to get whacked.

Don't get me wrong. I always liked your cousin. But whackin' Philly's brother was a major poke in the ass.
--Silvio (played by actor/musician Steven Van Zandt)

Six Gets the Buckeyes Three

2006-03-11T09:59:00.000-05:00

Finally the mess with Ohio State basketball is over! The NCAA levied a 3-yr. probation against the team, which does NOT exclude the 7th-ranked Bucks from this year's tournament, and hopefully will keep Coach Thad Matta in Columbus. "The $6,000 payment was a blatant violation," said one bureaucratic pinhead on the NCAA infractions committee about the money former Coach Jim O'Brien gave to the 8ft. Serb (like 6 or 7 years ago). Click here to read the story from ESPN.com.

Isn't it a little unfair that the NCAA can impose sanctions on Ohio State this long after the fact, and under circumstances where none of the involved players or even the coach are still at the school? We need a statute of limitations for these people! The hardest blow levied against the Bucks is that they'll have to take down the 1999 Final Four banner that hangs in the Schot. The idea behind that is that if a team that wins a game or tourney is later found to have violated some NCAA rule, they forfeit the victory(ies) and it is supposed to be like the game(s) in question "never happened." What a bizarre phenomenon. Apparently these halfwits have never heard of "harmless error."

I can't think of a single thing that a person can do, and later make it as though it never happened. It's such an impractical and mystifying concept. Wouldn't an asterisk make more sense? Just think--if this "making it like it never happened thing" were really feasible, imagine the people who could really benefit from it: Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon . . . maybe Scott Peterson.

I wonder about people in high administrative positions, especially those who have powers that often go "un-checked." Is there some class that you take prior to assuming one of these jobs that teaches you how to maximize abuse of discretion? If so, I can sure think of one law professor who took the class--what an incompetent, irrational, waste of office space . . . and I feel confident that the person I'm talking about will never read this because she's not the type to read anything that she herself didn't write. Although, judging by the way she graded my exam, I'm not entirely convinced that she even knows how to read.

Anonymous comments are welcome, if you think you can guess the identity of the mystery prof, but I'll never tell . . .

How Could I Forget!?!

2006-03-09T09:03:00.000-05:00

Maybe it was the combined 12 hrs. of sleep I've had over the past 4 days . . . fatman David Wells lashed out at MLB commissioner Bud Selig yesterday, calling him a "piece of [expletive]." I'm not really sure what "[expletive]" is, but looking at the context of what was said (see the story here), I'm pretty sure it was "shit."

Two things: First, see my posting here discussing time & place for certain language, and how constitutionally protected language shouldn't be censored (or punished). Second, regardless of how appropriate or inappropriate Wells' comment was, don't you think the news has a duty to report what happened? This is news for pete's sake! If Justice Harlan can say the word fuck in the U.S. Supreme Court in the context of facts of a case (see Cohen v. California), why can't ESPN simply report the news, as is (or was)?

One more thing, for anybody that thinks I'm an insensitive prick for calling Wells fat--have you seen him? Just kidding about that. I think there are certain people who should not be free from ridicule in that regard, or at least that they have opened themselves up to that ridicule from being in the public eye and having a certain position. This would include professional athletes, who are making millions of dollars to play sports. Also, cops. Do we really want fat cops--do they really "serve and protect," or are they a liability to law enforcement? Hmm . . .

Darkness

2006-03-09T01:05:00.000-05:00

I really don't feel like I have anything to say right now (mark your calendars!). Actually, I have so much to say, but not really anything I feel like making available to the both of you . . .

It's not like there isn't anything going on worth talking about, I'm just experiencing one of those states of mind when I probably can't talk about anything without being overly cynical. Maybe I'm just really looking forward to summer, and can't wait to put this academic year behind me. That, of itself, is really quite unfortunate because right now things are really pretty good--in terms of school, this is unquestionably the best semester for me. I literally love all my classes (even my professors)! Sure, I've had good classes before, but I've never had a semester without a single idiot professor that thought they were the second coming of Mohammed's cartoon.

It's like being a tortured soul, because I now have what I want but I can't enjoy it, because I am preoccupied with past experiences. If those who can't do, teach; what do those who can't teach, do? Write? Maybe that's not a good hypothesis--there are too many good writers to lump them into that category. On that topic, btw, I read a couple of great articles this week: a friend of mine just had his note on trade regulation of Kava and other supplements. You can find it at 66 Ohio St. L.J. 1311 (2005). I also read a scholarly analysis on the word fuck. Yes, you read correctly. Fuck. Hopefully the fact that I blogged "the word" it won't result in some NSA/government probing investigation of me for kiddie porn, or something--oh, that actually reminds me of something in the article. Something I won't post. But it's a great analysis.

The gist of the article, in case either of you are interested, is that there is a time and place for different kinds of speech, but the discretion of time & place is constitutionally protected (with a few delineated exceptions). I'm really excited about this article, and I can't wait to tell you when it comes out. Believe me, I will.

Go Bucks!

2006-03-06T02:26:00.000-05:00

The Buckeyes' victory over Purdue, Sunday, sealed an outright Big 10 Championship, which joins the Lady Bucks Big 10 Championship, and the football Buckeyes' co-Big 10 Championship, to be the first Div. I-A school to win conference championships in football, and both men's & women's basketball, all in the same season.

Somebody say, "Vince who?"

Somebody Check to See if Martha Stewart Recently Bought Stock in RIM

2006-03-04T09:19:00.000-05:00

Good news for all you "CrackBerry" addicts, NTP, the company seeking an injunction against RIM, the makers of BlackBerry wireless devices, has just dismissed its suit in exchange for $612 million. RIM's CEO said it "wasn't a good feeling writing that kind of check", and that his company "took one for the team."

Don't feel too bad for the guy, though, WSJ reported RIM stock up 19% since the announcement. Somebody keep an eye on Martha's portfolio . . .

Whether or not the settlement amount was equitable for RIM depends on how much it would have cost the company to redesign their software around NTP's patent(s), some of which I think were recently denied by the PTO. I doubt the 3 million CrackBerry users really care how or how much, as long as they can keep using.

It's about time!

2006-03-04T08:58:00.000-05:00

For anyone on the brink of losing faith in our legal system--it looks like justice has been served. And if you're still reeling over O.J., get over it! I'm sure Ron Goldman, with all O.J's money, has gotten over it by now . . .

For the latest in white collar crime and congressional bribery not originating in Ohio, click here to read about former Rep. Randall H. "Duke" Cunningham's (R-Cal.) 8-yr. sentence. According to the Times, Cunningham stole $2.4 million (you can also read the original complaint here). In the long run he probably got off easy, because what cellmate is gonna want to make a fat, 64-year-old republican his wife?

Good Faith

2006-03-02T11:16:00.000-05:00

Most of us use the term freely, but usually not directed towards our own colleagues. So, I was quite troubled yesterday when I was admonished by a 3L, who unwittingly accused me of lacking good faith. Admittedly this term is somewhat subjective, however, under the circumstances--when it would have been obvious to a chimpanzee that good faith was not even in question--it is unfortunate that after nearly completing her juris doctor, a very soon-to-be lawyer still didn't have a reasonable understanding of what good faith actually is. I hope neither of you would be so unfortunate as to hire this individual as your counsel in the future. Perhaps, however, if you should be so unlucky, this individual will have had a chance to purchase a copy of Black's Law Dictionary prior to your becoming her client . . .

good faith, n. A state of mind consisting in (1) honesty in belief or purpose, (2) faithfulness to one's duty or obligation, (3) observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, or (4) absence of intent to defraud or to seek unconscionable advantage. Also termed bona fides. Cf. BAD FAITH.

FYI, most courts, including Ohio courts and the Sixth Circuit, have reduced this to simply "honesty in fact."

Random Advice For People Who Typically Think They're Better Than Others

2006-03-01T08:23:00.000-05:00

I picked this up out of the advice column of a popular magazine read by single professionals:

Q: I'm a lawyer, but I have this crush on the girl at the hotdog stand. Could this relationship actually work? --Legal Eagle, Brooklyn, NY, USA

A: Here's what she's saying to one of her pals: "One of my customers is kind of cute, but he's a lawyer." Really, counselor, what's your hang-up? That she's not intellectual enough for you? That she works the street? You've got only circumstantial evidence, my friend. I'm biased toward folks who make a living serving others. Maybe her job says a lot about her — but not in the way you think. She could be running the family business (meaning she's loyal), she could be paying her way through school (meaning she's independent), or she could just like hot dogs (meaning ball season will be a blast). What I'm saying is, you don't judge a dog by the way it looks—decide whether you like it after you've given it a try.

I'm not advocating that everyone ask out the hippie starbucks girl/guy, just have an open mind about people (especially if they're attractive ;-) ).

Power to the People

2006-02-28T08:11:00.000-05:00

Apparently the Bush administration finally admitted they made a mistake with regards to a single 9/11 detainee, and now has settled a civil suit with the Egyptian man for $300K (that's about 6 million Egyptian pounds!).

Ehab Elmaghraby told the N.Y. Times he wished he hadn't settled, that he wanted his day in court, and believed that he would prevail because the system was fair. "I see a lot of big cases on TV," Elmaghraby said, "I think the judges [are] fair." After spending over a year in what amounts to completely unjustifiable detention, which included his being periodically body cavity searched, and having a flashlight literally shoved up his ass, I doubt he'd be talking about fairness if he wasn't $300K richer (the NYT article can be found here).

Poor guy. The only upside I can imagine is that you can live pretty large in Egypt with that kind of dough in the bank--when my cousin graduated with a degree in engineering a few years ago, his starting salary was the equivalent of about $150 U.S. per month!

On March 28 the Court is set to hear arguments in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, after which it will decide whether the President has authority under the AUMF to adjudicate those alleged to be terrorists. See the D.C. Circuit's decision at 415 F.3d 33 (2005). Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with terrorists being brought to justice, in fact I'll donate to that cause, but I will not endorse a policy that prevents an accused individual from having a legitimate opportunity to rebut the facts alleged against him. The gov't would assert that Hamdan has had this chance, but with the President call all the shots from start to finish, the reliability of the information purported by the White House appears to be a little suspect.

One solution could be this: change the source of remedy presently available to the unlawfully aggrieved individual. For example, regarding Mr. Elmaghraby's settlement amount, where does that money come from? The taxpayers, of course. So, why should the President be allowed to exercise these exceedingly broad powers that amount to his acting as police, prosecutor, judge, and jailor, if the penalty is eventually going to come out of the citizens' pockets? Why not make an exception to Executive immunity for this sole purpose, so that after the war on terror is over, any aggrieved individual who was unlawfully detained can bring a civil suit against Bush in his personal capacity? Surely Cheney can guarantee the funds.

Creepy!

2006-02-27T08:04:00.000-05:00

Now that Congress doesn't have to bother themselves with playing steroid police in professional sports, maybe they have the time to address this (real) problem:

Tom Zeller, Jr., Cyberthieves Silently Copy as You Type, N.Y. Times, Feb. 27, 2006.

Google Controversy . . . (yes, more)

2006-02-26T09:51:00.000-05:00

Google's new book search is being sued in federal court in California, over whether their scanning and indexing of copyrighted books is considered a "fair use." See this article in yesterday's N.Y. Times.

I was particularly impressed by the way the article distinguishes between the dist. ct. and the Ninth Circuit. Does anybody else find it difficult to follow lay-persons' news when it discusses different courts? The only problem is that, the writer does't make the actual outcome clear (i.e., whether this was a final disposition, or just some pretrial ruling) (This was particularly troubling throughout the BlackBerry case).

Normally, I would favor more copyright protection for authors, but I don't believe it's appropriate in this case: First, I don't believe Google is substantially reducing the market for any of the copyrighted material; Second, any reduction in market is probably outweighed by the good of Google making many out of print materials available to be purchased. Google exec. David Drummond made a public statement recently that I found to be very persuasive: Information does not want to be free, but it does want to be found.

The Idolatry of America

2006-02-25T12:41:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I admit that I have watched American Idol. And while I still believe the show is a waste of time, brain power, and electricity, I must admit that I do find the judges' facial expressions, and Simon's abrasive yet whitty comments to be hilarious. As my late Uncle Chet recently said, "[American Idol is] the dumbing down of America."

Anyway, something really made me laugh this week, though, because I heard on some quasi-news program that the show now requires that every contestant sign a contract that prevents them from entering into any performance contract (i.e., "record deal") with any 3d party, and not only for the entire length of the show, but for an additional several months thereafter. The show claims that this will prevent another William Hung episode.

In case anyone missed the contracts class on non-compete clauses, this contract is probably unenforceable. I haven't seen the friggin thing, but it sounds like a pretty one-sided deal to me. The only way I could see it being enforceable is if a court somehow found that the mere chance to be a contestant was consideration enough to prevent the other party from using their "talents" to earn a decent living in the near future.

Two caveats:

1) It's not impossible for a court to find the way just mentioned, probably because the term of the prohibition on future employment was not egregiously long (just long enough so that anyone kicked off the show who want a record deal on the coattails of their newfound fame could no longer do so).

2) If I were a betting man, I'd say the contract would be upheld in the State of Ohio. See Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron v. Columber, 804 N.E.2d 27 (Ohio 2003) (holding that mere continuation of an at-will employment relationship was consideration enough for the employee's assent to a covenant-not-to-compete).

Inaugural Dictum

2006-02-21T20:11:00.000-05:00

Everyone's got a blog now? Well, I make one promise (and only one) to the readers of this blog--I will refrain from ever mentioning Blakely. Fair enough? Hopefully this blog can be an outlet to air miscellaneous issues, facts, thoughts, or other observations about law and society.

Various Disclaimers*:

1) The views expressed here are neither those of my employer(s) nor any organization with which I am affiliated;

2) Although legal issues are often discussed, these discussions are not intended to constitute legal advice;

3) Any e-mail sent to the site is fair game for republication on the site unless the sender specifically requests otherwise. I will not, however, disclose the sender's name without their express consent.

4) Comments containing inappropriate or slanderous subject matter will not be tolerated, and will be stricken.

5) Style or grammar changes may be made without notice.

*Adapted from Chris Geidner's Law Dork.

All material not credited otherwise remains the intellectual property of Lengthy Dictum © 2006.