I can't think of a stand up comedian who has yet to turn to the time honored tradition (I am following the strain of commentary regarding tradition due to the recently passed festivity of Thanksgiving) of making witty comments as to the process of airport security. It is a nuisance few, except the cavity check fanatics (see, even I can make an airport security joke), would go through if not to ensure their ultimate safety.
Today I had my first run-in with these bastions of aeronautical invulnerability and fastidiousness: I had to have my bagged check. First, the person who checked my bags was a guy in his mid 40s. I was fine with this as long as when the cavity check came it would be performed by the attractive 21 year old woman working security (they exist!). I almost made the last comment out loud, but figured I would be best off not tempting the great fates as I had already been pulled to the side.
The man begins to unload my clothes, and I, being the upstanding citizen that I am, remembered that I had packed a tubular shaped um... tube... of toothpaste that was above the maximum of 3.4 ounces, which quickly I informed my own personal laundry airer of. He gave me a sideways glance and said "That is not what I am looking for, but thank you."
If someone said that to you, and you honestly believed that you had committed no harm, you would crack a joke too, right? In my infinite wisdom, I thought it would be appropriate. My retort was along the vein of "I don't think there is anything sharp, flammable, or explosive in there, but hey, I didn't pack my bags. I need to thank that Osama for that." Ever heard the Biblical verse warning of wasting your seed before swine? Yea... I was drowning the swine in seed. He looked at my sideways, unimpressed with my quick moving wit, and muttered "cute" and began to pull my underwear out of my bag. Here is where the 21-year-old-hot-chick-who-should-be-working-as-a-cocktail-waitress (this is Reno after all) gets called onto the scene (Maybe a comic book would fit the situation: "The Fantastic Adventures of Rectral Intrusion Girl"). She gets the pleasure of sorting through my underwear. I think the security guard thought he was funny as well. No more jokes...
The passed my bag through the x-ray machine two extra times, for a total of three, and asked me "Sir, are you aware of any small metallic objects in your bag? Perhaps three inches long?" Having been stunned to silence be securities attempt at humor, I was honest and said no.
One more check in the bag brought about the culprit: he pulled back the bottom flap (apparently I have a false bottom in my bag I was unaware of) and pulled out a BOXCUTTER.
Ever not had any air in your body? Imagine having the wind knocked out of you without ever receiving the punch, and you are beginning to get where I was at. I answered a slew of questions, and the one that cleared me of any criminal intent (barring negligence) was "What do you do for a living?"
When you have been discovered in an airport with a boxcutter in a post September 11 world, how would you phrase your response? I am a law student. I am a recent college grad and you know how bad the economy is (that would likely be the worst choice). Thank God I had a real excuse: I used to work at Long's drugstore and must have dropped it in there. Now, if I had a timeline of my life before me as I spoke that sentence I may have been writing this as my explanation on a nice yellow legal pad rather than into my blog. I haven't worked at longs for 5 years.
So, how did the boxcutter get into my bag? I am not sure... but you can bet the bottom dollar that tomorrow (I couldn't help it once I started) I will not be thanking Osama.
Second, I flew out of Oakland Airport. HOW DID THEY MISS THIS?! It is their job to stop boxcutters, employed by the 9/11 hijackers, from getting onto the flight. I could have hijacked a plane and I didn't even know it. Good thing for them I didn't... And, you know, I have morals, a bright future, and a desire not to hurt others.
Oh, and on a final note, the toothpaste I thought I would lose? They let me keep it. Why? Because I was honest about having it. So, now we have a tip for those attempting to sneak something through in a toothpaste container: be honest that it is there, and you shall be allowed to leave with it. Seems like a good plan to me.
I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving, and has an even better holiday season. In you traverse the globe to whatever your destinations might be, remember to check the false bottom you didn't know you owned for boxcutters you didn't know were in your bag. If not, it could be a minor 30 minute inconvenience.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Speed Up...
I remember reading Scott Turow's "One L" as an undergrad.
The first few pages were written around now, just thirty years ago. Turow had snow and the weight of tradition (he went to Havard law) pressing down upon him, but here, the lift seems no more bearable. His experiences brought him along a dark spiral. Thankfully, I have not experienced that at this point (earlier I did).
To be sure, I am concerned about finals, at least not in the same strain as my classmates. Desperation can be seen in a few (I have heard over 5 outbursts regarding the insanity, inanity, and incomprehensibility of criminal law); the rest seem resigned to their reality, but none seem comforted by the facts of their reality: they are law students.
I read a story, I think on "Anonymous Law Student," about a professor telling her students at their last class "Relax. This was the goal. You ran as fast as any human could, and you are now standing on the podium. Be sure you know your material, but don't lose focus of your achievements..." Unfortunately, none of our professors echoed this to us. We are going to a tier two law school. For those outside of the know, we are not the best, nor the worst. We will have jobs, but not truckloads of money deposited in our bank account because we have a degree and a pulse.
Despite our "lowly" ranking (only in the world of law and medicine is someone who graduated cum laude considered lowly or underachieving), I think now is the time to look back and be proud of the paths we have walked. Some took the road less traveled via another sort of grad school, others struggled through to exceed expectations, and even fewer still are wondering why they are here at all with the opportunities they had presented to them; but we all have a common goal: work hard and be somewhere leading to greatness.
The fact that where we are respresents a place of greatness in society aside (The phrase "Wow, law school. That is amazing." does get tiring after the first month if only because of the inevitable "How is it?" proceeding, which none of us hope to or are prepared to answer.), I am looking back, and I am proud.
I grew up in a upper lower class home, and I have moved higher. I graduated from a university renowned for its six year average in four years and did so with honors. And, now, I am at a law school which is held in high regard. And, now, I have made it through the toughest time of law school: the first semester of my 1L year.
My story is not unique, so, as we gear up for finals, for those people who have walked along side me (thank you all for your help), and for those walking a similar path at other universities across the nation, congratulations. Look back, and be proud. Look forward with anticipation; the best, worst, most challenging and most rewarding are all yet to come.
Now... just make it through finals week.
The first few pages were written around now, just thirty years ago. Turow had snow and the weight of tradition (he went to Havard law) pressing down upon him, but here, the lift seems no more bearable. His experiences brought him along a dark spiral. Thankfully, I have not experienced that at this point (earlier I did).
To be sure, I am concerned about finals, at least not in the same strain as my classmates. Desperation can be seen in a few (I have heard over 5 outbursts regarding the insanity, inanity, and incomprehensibility of criminal law); the rest seem resigned to their reality, but none seem comforted by the facts of their reality: they are law students.
I read a story, I think on "Anonymous Law Student," about a professor telling her students at their last class "Relax. This was the goal. You ran as fast as any human could, and you are now standing on the podium. Be sure you know your material, but don't lose focus of your achievements..." Unfortunately, none of our professors echoed this to us. We are going to a tier two law school. For those outside of the know, we are not the best, nor the worst. We will have jobs, but not truckloads of money deposited in our bank account because we have a degree and a pulse.
Despite our "lowly" ranking (only in the world of law and medicine is someone who graduated cum laude considered lowly or underachieving), I think now is the time to look back and be proud of the paths we have walked. Some took the road less traveled via another sort of grad school, others struggled through to exceed expectations, and even fewer still are wondering why they are here at all with the opportunities they had presented to them; but we all have a common goal: work hard and be somewhere leading to greatness.
The fact that where we are respresents a place of greatness in society aside (The phrase "Wow, law school. That is amazing." does get tiring after the first month if only because of the inevitable "How is it?" proceeding, which none of us hope to or are prepared to answer.), I am looking back, and I am proud.
I grew up in a upper lower class home, and I have moved higher. I graduated from a university renowned for its six year average in four years and did so with honors. And, now, I am at a law school which is held in high regard. And, now, I have made it through the toughest time of law school: the first semester of my 1L year.
My story is not unique, so, as we gear up for finals, for those people who have walked along side me (thank you all for your help), and for those walking a similar path at other universities across the nation, congratulations. Look back, and be proud. Look forward with anticipation; the best, worst, most challenging and most rewarding are all yet to come.
Now... just make it through finals week.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Irony
I love acronyms. How else can a message be displayed in a quiet manner, but still carry the full force of it being spelled out?
Sometimes, however they are misapplied, misunderstood, or those naming an organization don't realize what they have done. Today, I bring the latter.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_7734/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=1i32p2EO
Read the story through. It is the normal social guardians claiming that video games cause violent tendencies (I, a product of these violent video games, have not committed a violent crime since I was in middle school. I think it is just 12 year old kids being 12. Hormones, they make us stupid and violent.). Sure, maybe they do.
Re-read the story, though. What is the name of the group responsible for this study? The National Institute on Media and the Family. Now, turn that into an acronym. What does it come out to (omitting smaller regularly ignored words in acronyms)? NIMF. Seemingly innocuous, right? Read it phonetically. Ni-m-ph. What does it sound like? How about, nymph? For those of you who, at this point, don't see the humor in the irony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymph
The long and the short of it is that I find it funny that a group claiming to be the vanguard for social norms and moralistic references displayed before our children would name themselves something which spells out to the acronym of what is, of essence, a mythical ancient Greek whore.
Well played, NIMF, well played.
Sometimes, however they are misapplied, misunderstood, or those naming an organization don't realize what they have done. Today, I bring the latter.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_7734/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=1i32p2EO
Read the story through. It is the normal social guardians claiming that video games cause violent tendencies (I, a product of these violent video games, have not committed a violent crime since I was in middle school. I think it is just 12 year old kids being 12. Hormones, they make us stupid and violent.). Sure, maybe they do.
Re-read the story, though. What is the name of the group responsible for this study? The National Institute on Media and the Family. Now, turn that into an acronym. What does it come out to (omitting smaller regularly ignored words in acronyms)? NIMF. Seemingly innocuous, right? Read it phonetically. Ni-m-ph. What does it sound like? How about, nymph? For those of you who, at this point, don't see the humor in the irony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymph
The long and the short of it is that I find it funny that a group claiming to be the vanguard for social norms and moralistic references displayed before our children would name themselves something which spells out to the acronym of what is, of essence, a mythical ancient Greek whore.
Well played, NIMF, well played.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
They Never Learn
In the 1950/60s (to be fair this is a trend with roots throughout the panoply of human governments) Congress, state legislatures, and the public en masse failed to recognize the necessity of forward progress. Civil rights were nullified or expressed as non-existent within the text of the Constitution. Birth control, widely denounced by both religious institutions and its followers, was not permitted (Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479) in many, possibly most, states. Segregation failed to respond to the obvious inefficiencies and racial bias (the final nail in the coffin being the infamous doll test: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2919.shtml). Social unrest and dissatisfaction was ubiquitous, and society refused to change.
Graciously the era which brought these challenges also brought reform, placing politicians in positions of power who intended to better America's welfare. Great Presidents and Congressmen stepped to the plate and made America sit up and at attention, grasp their society, change their destiny, and hope for a better tomorrow. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon (yes, I said it. He screwed up at the end, but he wasn't the worst president we have ever had), Carter (Yes, I skipped over Ford. Face it, he was a place holder. A Presidential Proxy, I suppose.), and Reagan. Modern politics brought us Bush I (a true Republican. Economics were his name, game, fame, and any other words you can rhyme.) and Clinton (a democratic idealist who understood that temperance economically and social mobility created a lasting and optimistic society). The era of good feeling faltered here.
To be fair, the game started with the "War Room" strategy created by Clinton's presidential campaig. The resentment was carried onto the legislative field, via Newt Gingrich (Who names their kids Newt?) and politics became, as they had been just prior to the "Switch in Time That Saved Nine" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine) adversarial. One-up-manship became the mode of operation, and progress seemed to halt.
The last eight years aside, we seem to have come full circle. America has elected a president who has pronounced the era of political animosity over. Americans, while bogged in the mire of a financial crisis, see the horizon again. Recently my grandfather describe to me why he voted for Reagan: "He made me proud to be an American after ten long years of inaction and inactivity." That sentiment, lost on my prior to this election, came forth in a mad rush as I watched a man I believe in and trust with my nation accept the vote of the American people.
Then I turned to Congress, and read this story: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-congress-house-gop,0,5707846.story
Why, Republicans? You just heard the American public denounce the ultra conservative logjam. Why throw yourselves down that hole?
Don't get me wrong. I am happy they did. It displays their disconnect with the American Public. But at the same time, I hoped for more. Moving to the right is a denial of the opportunity to have a conversation and create a greater end. Why pass such an opportunity by?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
These men serve the Constitution. As the Preamble states, the Constitution was created by "We the People." As such, Congress has effectively pledged themselves to the people. In my eyes, moving to the right, refusing to have a discussion, hunkering in for what will undoubtedly be titled by some as the demise of America, and ignoring that age old rule we are taught in Kindergarten ("Play nice with others.") shows no interest in fulfilling their duty. Instead Republican leaders have chosen the path of adversity.
America needs change. Now, if only our leaders could know.
Graciously the era which brought these challenges also brought reform, placing politicians in positions of power who intended to better America's welfare. Great Presidents and Congressmen stepped to the plate and made America sit up and at attention, grasp their society, change their destiny, and hope for a better tomorrow. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon (yes, I said it. He screwed up at the end, but he wasn't the worst president we have ever had), Carter (Yes, I skipped over Ford. Face it, he was a place holder. A Presidential Proxy, I suppose.), and Reagan. Modern politics brought us Bush I (a true Republican. Economics were his name, game, fame, and any other words you can rhyme.) and Clinton (a democratic idealist who understood that temperance economically and social mobility created a lasting and optimistic society). The era of good feeling faltered here.
To be fair, the game started with the "War Room" strategy created by Clinton's presidential campaig. The resentment was carried onto the legislative field, via Newt Gingrich (Who names their kids Newt?) and politics became, as they had been just prior to the "Switch in Time That Saved Nine" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine) adversarial. One-up-manship became the mode of operation, and progress seemed to halt.
The last eight years aside, we seem to have come full circle. America has elected a president who has pronounced the era of political animosity over. Americans, while bogged in the mire of a financial crisis, see the horizon again. Recently my grandfather describe to me why he voted for Reagan: "He made me proud to be an American after ten long years of inaction and inactivity." That sentiment, lost on my prior to this election, came forth in a mad rush as I watched a man I believe in and trust with my nation accept the vote of the American people.
Then I turned to Congress, and read this story: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-congress-house-gop,0,5707846.story
Why, Republicans? You just heard the American public denounce the ultra conservative logjam. Why throw yourselves down that hole?
Don't get me wrong. I am happy they did. It displays their disconnect with the American Public. But at the same time, I hoped for more. Moving to the right is a denial of the opportunity to have a conversation and create a greater end. Why pass such an opportunity by?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
These men serve the Constitution. As the Preamble states, the Constitution was created by "We the People." As such, Congress has effectively pledged themselves to the people. In my eyes, moving to the right, refusing to have a discussion, hunkering in for what will undoubtedly be titled by some as the demise of America, and ignoring that age old rule we are taught in Kindergarten ("Play nice with others.") shows no interest in fulfilling their duty. Instead Republican leaders have chosen the path of adversity.
America needs change. Now, if only our leaders could know.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Law School . . .
If one were to look at the title of this post, they would notice that the ellipse I have employed is properly spaced. For those interested, and those who have been shanghaied into reading what will almost certainly become a mind numbing post on the antithesis of life that is law school, legal dictum requires that the ellipse be just so spaced. Why? Because the legal profession, and those who further the hell fire driven goal of intentional muddling that has been created via centuries of hubris induced legal decisions and scholarship, can conclusively be titled the most anal retentive profession that terra firma has ever had the great displeasure of spawning.
Peruse the preceding sentence quickly (for all of your dictionary Nazis, get off my back about the oxymoron). Does the writing seem to drag its feet in the mud getting to a point which could easily have been made in fewer words? Does it send you to a dictionary? More than once? Welcome to legal writing. Let me give you an actual quote. "The intimate political relation, subsisting between the president of the United States and the heads of departments, necessarily renders any legal investigation of the acts of one of those high officers peculiarly irksome, as well as delicate; and excites some hesitation with respect to the propriety of entering into such investigation." First, this isn't too bad. Second, a translation into modern English would read: The political relationship between the President of the United States and the heads of the executive departments makes any legal investigation into their actions difficult, and raises hesitation whether such investigations should be held at all. Not that difficult. Why couldn't Marshall (the case is Marbury v. Madison) have stated what he meant, rather than drawing out some unnecessarily complex statement with regard to the propriety of anything?
The modern language doesn't have a need for flowery language; the modern world, that is, outside of the legal profession. The Blue Book, the book of uniform citations employed throughout the American legal system, requires lawyers pay attention to details, rather than ideas. The arguments for requiring adherence to the Blue Book rests upon the need to research sources personally. As one lawyer makes an argument, the opposition can research the rule, contort the law to their purposes, and come back with an argument of their own. Sure, I will concede the point. How about this, though? How about, as most legal dicta allows, expect people to act REASONABLY?! Can it be that hard to look up a case? Two centuries ago, I understand the need for uniformity. Today, however, I can type the name of a case into the nearest search engine and have hundreds of briefs, a few transcriptions, and commentary enough for a lifetime. Yet, still, many lawyers press for this complex system. Legal writing teachers the nation over demand the adherence of their students to these arcane, though regularly updated (again, leave me alone dictionary Nazis) rules.
As another point: history. I understand the propriety (Thank you, Marshall, for today's vocabulary lesson) of summoning the lessons of the past to apply to the modern world. Law, however, employs history to teach you why you are wrong. Common law can be easily summarized as reasoned thought; the rule comes about through a normal debate considering circumstances and actors in a given situation. Perfect? Hardly . . . (Notice the perfect ellipse, please. If you don't I feel like I have wasted my $180,000 in loans.) But, the rules are not contrived for policy purposes (on the whole), but for the purpose of fulfilling the logical expectations of those people participating in any activity. The modern law, contrary to the common law, is the description of society, as it should exist, according to legal scholars. Those same scholars who require that I put spaces between my periods in the ellipses have defined the course of future interactions via the legal system. This is, as per the Constitution, subject to legislative and judicial employment of these rules, but (as I am sure many of your intelligent readers would expect) they are snooty legal scholars as well.
What is the point of this post? I don't know. But, when you read this Mike and Nick, remember this: you go to the same law school as me. Is that bad for you? Maybe... haha
I love law school. Though, admittedly, I do hate it. (Yes, Oxymoron.)
Want to know what law school is like? Nick put it as best any video game could: http://rfshq.com/free-rider-2/Tracks/92511
Word and w00t
Peruse the preceding sentence quickly (for all of your dictionary Nazis, get off my back about the oxymoron). Does the writing seem to drag its feet in the mud getting to a point which could easily have been made in fewer words? Does it send you to a dictionary? More than once? Welcome to legal writing. Let me give you an actual quote. "The intimate political relation, subsisting between the president of the United States and the heads of departments, necessarily renders any legal investigation of the acts of one of those high officers peculiarly irksome, as well as delicate; and excites some hesitation with respect to the propriety of entering into such investigation." First, this isn't too bad. Second, a translation into modern English would read: The political relationship between the President of the United States and the heads of the executive departments makes any legal investigation into their actions difficult, and raises hesitation whether such investigations should be held at all. Not that difficult. Why couldn't Marshall (the case is Marbury v. Madison) have stated what he meant, rather than drawing out some unnecessarily complex statement with regard to the propriety of anything?
The modern language doesn't have a need for flowery language; the modern world, that is, outside of the legal profession. The Blue Book, the book of uniform citations employed throughout the American legal system, requires lawyers pay attention to details, rather than ideas. The arguments for requiring adherence to the Blue Book rests upon the need to research sources personally. As one lawyer makes an argument, the opposition can research the rule, contort the law to their purposes, and come back with an argument of their own. Sure, I will concede the point. How about this, though? How about, as most legal dicta allows, expect people to act REASONABLY?! Can it be that hard to look up a case? Two centuries ago, I understand the need for uniformity. Today, however, I can type the name of a case into the nearest search engine and have hundreds of briefs, a few transcriptions, and commentary enough for a lifetime. Yet, still, many lawyers press for this complex system. Legal writing teachers the nation over demand the adherence of their students to these arcane, though regularly updated (again, leave me alone dictionary Nazis) rules.
As another point: history. I understand the propriety (Thank you, Marshall, for today's vocabulary lesson) of summoning the lessons of the past to apply to the modern world. Law, however, employs history to teach you why you are wrong. Common law can be easily summarized as reasoned thought; the rule comes about through a normal debate considering circumstances and actors in a given situation. Perfect? Hardly . . . (Notice the perfect ellipse, please. If you don't I feel like I have wasted my $180,000 in loans.) But, the rules are not contrived for policy purposes (on the whole), but for the purpose of fulfilling the logical expectations of those people participating in any activity. The modern law, contrary to the common law, is the description of society, as it should exist, according to legal scholars. Those same scholars who require that I put spaces between my periods in the ellipses have defined the course of future interactions via the legal system. This is, as per the Constitution, subject to legislative and judicial employment of these rules, but (as I am sure many of your intelligent readers would expect) they are snooty legal scholars as well.
What is the point of this post? I don't know. But, when you read this Mike and Nick, remember this: you go to the same law school as me. Is that bad for you? Maybe... haha
I love law school. Though, admittedly, I do hate it. (Yes, Oxymoron.)
Want to know what law school is like? Nick put it as best any video game could: http://rfshq.com/free-rider-2/Tracks/92511
Word and w00t
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
