I like beer. A lot.
'Twas not always thus, you know. Back when I was a young'n, long before I became the strict contstructionalist powerhouse you have all come to know and admire, I had a shameful secret.
I hated beer.
I hated the smell, the taste, the way it made me feel full and gassy. I would drink it at parties because a) that's usually all there was, b) everyone else was doing it, and c) it was cheap. I would fill my cup at the keg, sip on it for hours, and when no one was looking, sandbag half of it into the bushes. I know, I know. Stone me to death with your scorn if you must, I deserve it.
In college, it was even worse. At college parties, there was generally a plethora of alternative alcohol choices, and I would always have mixed drinks. Problem is, hard liquor generally led me to make extremely poor life choices, primarily in the realm of who I decided to randomly make out with at these parties (and occasionally shamefully wake up with the next morning). Also, when I would go to bars, mixed drinks are always more expensive than beer and I drink them a lot faster. All of these factors led to dire consequences, for my life, liver, and financial solvency.
The year I graduated from college, I said to myself "Self! The time has come to dedicate intensive efforts to cultivation of an appreciation for beer! No more shall I be that freak in the corner furtively sipping on a Smirnoff Ice!"
I threw myself into the task with gusto, starting with tasteless "Lite" beers of the Bud and Miller variety, gradually moving up to local microbrews and international sensations. By the end of the summer, I had gained a deep appreciation for the joys of yeast and hops, and was sporting the beginnings of an impressive beer gut.
Then I moved to a new state that was basically the Disney World of beer. Anyone who reads this blog knows to which state I am referring. I can only imagine the dull and lifeless farce my life in this great state would have been if I had not fortuitously done advance work in Beer Appreciation 101. After 2 years in this state of beery nirvana, I am now a full-blown beer snob, and darn proud of it.
So, here in the aftermath of our Nation's birthday, I raise a glass/bottle/red plastic keg cup to our (unofficial) National Libation. Join me, won't you?
Beware 'The Canned Beer Apocalypse'
Friday
Britney Spears has a new roll
Bungled belated apologizer? No, nothing to do with KFed (thank god I haven't heard that name since he was flipping burgers in a Super Bowl commercial?). Apparently a few months ago Britney hit a photographers car one too many times (perhaps her song was playing at the time?) and felt the need to apologize yesterday. Unfortunately, nobody proofread her statement:
I need a redeye, a cigarette and a vicodin, stat.
"I apologize to the pap for a stunt that was done 4 months ago regarding an umbrella," Spears said in a statement posted Wednesday on her Web site. "I was preparing my character for a roll (sic) in a movie where the husband never plays his part so they switch places accidentally. I take all my rolls very seriously and got a little carried away. Unfortunately I didn't get the part." (stupidity in original).
I need a redeye, a cigarette and a vicodin, stat.
Who needs a legal career?
Who says there aren't any good job prospects out there? I was pretty sure that I was set on a prestigious legal career, but now that I have found out about this job, I am seriously reevaluating my priorities.
Sure, becoming a high-powered wheeler dealer at Biglaw SEEMS like a great and desirable thing, but really, life might be too short to let this new and extremely exciting opportunity pass me by.
Maybe I should tell this guy too. I think he may be losing his job.
Sure, becoming a high-powered wheeler dealer at Biglaw SEEMS like a great and desirable thing, but really, life might be too short to let this new and extremely exciting opportunity pass me by.
Maybe I should tell this guy too. I think he may be losing his job.
Everyone's favorite legal doctrine: Standing!
The 6th Circuit dismissed a suit claiming Bush's domestic spying program is unconstitutional today for lack of standing. The NYTimes doesn't have much:
The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was not on the legality of the surveillance program, but it vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit. That court had found the post-911 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.
The fulltext is here. Standing fails for a lack of injury-in-fact. The opinion reminds me a lot of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, albeit without the snarky Scalia "alas" ("Respondents' other theories are called, alas ..."). There are three theories for injury: (1) We can't make overseas telephone calls because we're afraid the government is listening and it could violate our confidentiality with the other person on the phone; (2) People in other countries won't want to communicate with us; (3) There is a legitimate expectation of privacy in these communications which, if invaded, gives rise to injury-in-fact. The plaintiffs have six causes of action (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Separation of Powers, APA, Title III, FISA) and tied the injuries to the claims.
The court was not impressed: "By claiming six causes of action, the plaintiffs have actually engaged in a thinly veiled, though perfectly acceptable, ruse. To call a spade a spade, the plaintiffs only have one claim, namely, breach of privacy, based on a purported violation of the Fourth Amendment or FISA." So, the court redefines the claims, redefines what they consider the injuries to be for the new claims, and, shock of all shocks, finds there's no standing on any of them. It's one of the classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't chokehold-like cases: If you've already done the illegal act, you're punished; if you haven't, you don't have standing yet to challenge its constitutionality.
That being said, isn't it easy enough for the ACLU to find someone who's facing prosecution as a result of the surveillance? Maybe the hard part is figuring out if a charge is, or is not, based on information obtained by the wiretapping? Could the executive remove all injury-in-fact by never disclosing how they got the information through some sort of executive privilege?
The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was not on the legality of the surveillance program, but it vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit. That court had found the post-911 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.
The fulltext is here. Standing fails for a lack of injury-in-fact. The opinion reminds me a lot of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, albeit without the snarky Scalia "alas" ("Respondents' other theories are called, alas ..."). There are three theories for injury: (1) We can't make overseas telephone calls because we're afraid the government is listening and it could violate our confidentiality with the other person on the phone; (2) People in other countries won't want to communicate with us; (3) There is a legitimate expectation of privacy in these communications which, if invaded, gives rise to injury-in-fact. The plaintiffs have six causes of action (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Separation of Powers, APA, Title III, FISA) and tied the injuries to the claims.
The court was not impressed: "By claiming six causes of action, the plaintiffs have actually engaged in a thinly veiled, though perfectly acceptable, ruse. To call a spade a spade, the plaintiffs only have one claim, namely, breach of privacy, based on a purported violation of the Fourth Amendment or FISA." So, the court redefines the claims, redefines what they consider the injuries to be for the new claims, and, shock of all shocks, finds there's no standing on any of them. It's one of the classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't chokehold-like cases: If you've already done the illegal act, you're punished; if you haven't, you don't have standing yet to challenge its constitutionality.
That being said, isn't it easy enough for the ACLU to find someone who's facing prosecution as a result of the surveillance? Maybe the hard part is figuring out if a charge is, or is not, based on information obtained by the wiretapping? Could the executive remove all injury-in-fact by never disclosing how they got the information through some sort of executive privilege?
He's suing their pants off!
Or has his litigation de-pantsed them? The lunacy of it all made them drop trou? If you're sick of hearing about the guy who's seriously trying to get $54 million from a laundromat for mispressing his pants, don't click here.
Thursday
The Onion on ID
Georgia school board bans 'Theory of Math'. This reminds me of an argument my French host brother, age 21 at the time, liked to use to rationalize his mathematical deficiencies (this is a dude who failed the French exam to be a licensed carpenter twice). His theory was that math was totally worthless since someday someone might discover that, throughout history, mathematicians forgot to carry a 1 somewhere, and therefore everyone would have to go back and figure out everything again. I spent a good, oh, fifteen seconds trying to relieve him of the idea that the foundations of mathematics are based in ancient, potentially-faulty arithmetic before I let him continue blissfully playing Gran Turismo 2. Even the close-to-home connection between knowing something about math and not sitting in the house without a job playing video games all day escaped him: I concluded he forgot to carry something.
Nothing spices up dull research like a clever footnote (or 55)
I love, love, love it when I stumble across totally random and utterly hilarious footnotes in judicial opinions. Wild-goose chase research is my least favorite part of my new job working for The Man, so it was delightful to discover that a judge cares enough about me (and others like me) to force his poor clerk to do hours of research digging up a random asstortment of movie quotes to pepper his opinion with.
A few examples:
Text of opinion: "Block-booking, a per se violation of the antitrust laws is an illegal practice [FN21]..."
[FN21] "Damn it all, why is everything we're good at illegal?" Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (20th Century Fox 1969).
Text: "Defendants ask this Court [FN29]..."
[FN29] "There's only one question you should ask yourself: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" Dirty Harry (Warner Brothers 1971).
Text: "Defendant Reid explained that distributors expect [FN32]..."
[FN32] James Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?" Goldfinger: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." Goldfinger (GB United Artists 1961).
Seriously, of the 55 footnotes in this opinion, 28 of them are movie quotes. I highly recommend it to all of you. 2000 WL 264295 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Awesome.
A few examples:
Text of opinion: "Block-booking, a per se violation of the antitrust laws is an illegal practice [FN21]..."
[FN21] "Damn it all, why is everything we're good at illegal?" Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (20th Century Fox 1969).
Text: "Defendants ask this Court [FN29]..."
[FN29] "There's only one question you should ask yourself: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?" Dirty Harry (Warner Brothers 1971).
Text: "Defendant Reid explained that distributors expect [FN32]..."
[FN32] James Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?" Goldfinger: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." Goldfinger (GB United Artists 1961).
Seriously, of the 55 footnotes in this opinion, 28 of them are movie quotes. I highly recommend it to all of you. 2000 WL 264295 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Awesome.
You'd think they'd double check the numbers by now
Enron, unlike my fourteen-dollar math explorer, cannot add:
"More than 20,000 former Enron Corp. employees who finally received the first payment from a portion of millions in retirement funds lost during the company's collapse have been told they either were overpaid or underpaid because of a computer glitch."
It'd take a team of rocket scientists to figure out in whose favor the errors skewed:
"About 7,700 ex-workers were overpaid, and about 12,800 were underpaid."
"More than 20,000 former Enron Corp. employees who finally received the first payment from a portion of millions in retirement funds lost during the company's collapse have been told they either were overpaid or underpaid because of a computer glitch."
It'd take a team of rocket scientists to figure out in whose favor the errors skewed:
"About 7,700 ex-workers were overpaid, and about 12,800 were underpaid."
Al Gore
Al Gore told The Today Show that he has no intentions of running for office again. In a stunning coincidence, Gore II's announcement came on the same day his son, Al Gore III, informed the world (again) that he likes pot and pills.
I'm curious how damning it would be for a political campaign if the candidate's kid gets caught with drugs. Damning enough that it becomes a proper time to say you aren't interested? Like the third grader who doesn't want it any more anyways because he couldn't get it? As a side note, it must suck to have your drug stop and mug shot appear as a headline on CNN.com.
I'm curious how damning it would be for a political campaign if the candidate's kid gets caught with drugs. Damning enough that it becomes a proper time to say you aren't interested? Like the third grader who doesn't want it any more anyways because he couldn't get it? As a side note, it must suck to have your drug stop and mug shot appear as a headline on CNN.com.
Finally a solution for chronic spousal crippling in Monona
The Wife Carry, baby. If you look closely at that picture, you can pick out Ant.
SeventhCircuitOPedia
We've all heard of Wikipedia and her ugly, but infinitely entertaining, step-sister Conservapedia, but let the world wide wisdom now present to you SeventhCircuitOPedia:
"The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is engaged in an interesting experiment in democracy. The court posted its Practitioners Handbook to the web and opened it up for revision by members of the bar, no holds barred. Attorneys are encouraged to make comments, change information, add topics; in short, post whatever they think is important to know about practicing in the 7th Circuit.
As funny as it would be to change the handbook's scope of review entry to "complete lack of judgment" in substantive appeals and "total fuckup" for procedural ones, there will apparently be a monitoring system to remove web graffiti. I can see the big law firm execs now: "Tell the partner to start writing the brief and get those damn associates to deface any useful information the other side could find in the practitioner's handbook. I loooooooooooveeeeee POWER!" Ok, maybe not that last part, but you have to find something for that big mess of associates to do all summer that won't totally sink your firm...
"The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is engaged in an interesting experiment in democracy. The court posted its Practitioners Handbook to the web and opened it up for revision by members of the bar, no holds barred. Attorneys are encouraged to make comments, change information, add topics; in short, post whatever they think is important to know about practicing in the 7th Circuit.
'Our proposition is that everyone knows more than any one person,” says Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook. “As a group, the attorneys practicing before our court know more about appellate practice than any single person. With our wiki, we’re drawing on that wisdom.'” story
As funny as it would be to change the handbook's scope of review entry to "complete lack of judgment" in substantive appeals and "total fuckup" for procedural ones, there will apparently be a monitoring system to remove web graffiti. I can see the big law firm execs now: "Tell the partner to start writing the brief and get those damn associates to deface any useful information the other side could find in the practitioner's handbook. I loooooooooooveeeeee POWER!" Ok, maybe not that last part, but you have to find something for that big mess of associates to do all summer that won't totally sink your firm...
Sturgeon surgeons
If you're ever boating around Florida's Suwannee River, watch out for the kamikaze sturgeon:
"Leaping sturgeon have injured three people on the Suwannee this year, including a woman on a Jet Ski and a girl whose leg was shattered when one of the giant fish jumped aboard her boat. Eight others were hit last year... 'You’ve got people sitting on the front of an open boat, and the boat is going 20, 30, 40 miles per hour. The fish jumps up and usually slaps these people right across their face and upper chest. Almost every one of them universally has been knocked unconscious.'"
Who wants to be the guy at the pearly gates telling St. Peter you died from taking a Gulf Sturgeon to the schnozz? WJD needs to get down to Florida pronto and get those insolent ass fish to read some battery statutes.
"Leaping sturgeon have injured three people on the Suwannee this year, including a woman on a Jet Ski and a girl whose leg was shattered when one of the giant fish jumped aboard her boat. Eight others were hit last year... 'You’ve got people sitting on the front of an open boat, and the boat is going 20, 30, 40 miles per hour. The fish jumps up and usually slaps these people right across their face and upper chest. Almost every one of them universally has been knocked unconscious.'"
Who wants to be the guy at the pearly gates telling St. Peter you died from taking a Gulf Sturgeon to the schnozz? WJD needs to get down to Florida pronto and get those insolent ass fish to read some battery statutes.
Tuesday
Don't hate the playa, hate the game
Arthur Friedman has a guy with his same last name, my boy CT's homie Milton Friedman, rolling in his grave. Milton, a proponent of the free market, played like there would someday no longer be any playing. Arthur Friedman, however, hating on players, needed a good cry in front of a jury over being played on.
He got $4,802 from the guy who legally alienated his wife's affections by, apparently, having mad skillz. What he really needed, of course, was a whambulance that serves whamburgers and french cries, and he needed it stat.
"'This guy ruined my life -- he backstabbed me,' Arthur Friedman told the Chicago Sun-Times. 'What he did was wrong. And I did what I had to do to get my point across.'"
What ever happened to the good ol' days of meeting out in front of the saloon and taking care of this like men?
The cunning affection-burglar German Blinov "doesn't deny having a relationship with Natalie Friedman while she was married, but he was surprised to learn he could be sued for it." Like the rest of you, I'm asking myself WWWJDD, and I think he'd advise Mr. Blinov to read the goddamn statute book before gallivanting around town inserting himself into someone else's affections. He must have an affection alienation affectation ... or is it now an affliction?
He got $4,802 from the guy who legally alienated his wife's affections by, apparently, having mad skillz. What he really needed, of course, was a whambulance that serves whamburgers and french cries, and he needed it stat.
"'This guy ruined my life -- he backstabbed me,' Arthur Friedman told the Chicago Sun-Times. 'What he did was wrong. And I did what I had to do to get my point across.'"
What ever happened to the good ol' days of meeting out in front of the saloon and taking care of this like men?
The cunning affection-burglar German Blinov "doesn't deny having a relationship with Natalie Friedman while she was married, but he was surprised to learn he could be sued for it." Like the rest of you, I'm asking myself WWWJDD, and I think he'd advise Mr. Blinov to read the goddamn statute book before gallivanting around town inserting himself into someone else's affections. He must have an affection alienation affectation ... or is it now an affliction?
"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Our constantly-misinterpreted President's words are getting twisted around again in the media. I'm here to set the record straight.
On September 30th, 2003, President Bush addressed job creation with business leaders and was asked a few questions about leaks in his administration.
Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?
True to his word, Scooter Libby has been taken care of. The President extended his executive wing and took in the helpless, if loose-lipped, Libby and commuted his sentence from a Paris Hilton-like 30 months to a "take-care-of"-like zero days. Luckily for Libby, the jury convicted him: The President unequivocally stated that the person would only be taken care of if they broke the law. If the perjury and obstruction of justice charges hadn't held, the President wouldn't have had to have acted like he did to keep his word.
Finally, an issue clear-cut enough to trim all the slack from the liberal media and force them to stop hating our President for his honesty. Watch out Jon Stewart: He'll take care of you next.
On September 30th, 2003, President Bush addressed job creation with business leaders and was asked a few questions about leaks in his administration.
Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
"And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."True to his word, Scooter Libby has been taken care of. The President extended his executive wing and took in the helpless, if loose-lipped, Libby and commuted his sentence from a Paris Hilton-like 30 months to a "take-care-of"-like zero days. Luckily for Libby, the jury convicted him: The President unequivocally stated that the person would only be taken care of if they broke the law. If the perjury and obstruction of justice charges hadn't held, the President wouldn't have had to have acted like he did to keep his word.
Finally, an issue clear-cut enough to trim all the slack from the liberal media and force them to stop hating our President for his honesty. Watch out Jon Stewart: He'll take care of you next.
Monday
O Anthony, why has thou forsaken me?
First off, thanks for the shout-out Ant. That'll get you a nice pair of front row tickets to the execution, gratis.
I find it very interesting, and more than a little depressing that around this time last year, there was quite a bit of hubbub surrounding our 2 rookie supes, Bobby and Sammy.
Will they be trailblazers or will they fall into predictable alignments? (one asked oneself)
I, for one, was very much hoping that Sammy would turn out to be a dark horse, throw off the shackles of his oppressors and grow a pair. Sadly, this has not turned out to be the case. As I have watched decisions coming down in case after case, I hear the case name, the result, and the numbers "5-4" and I don't need to hear any more. Bobby and Sammy have fallen neatly into the roles that the White House carved out for them, and have been utterly predictable ever since.
So, since there is no longer any solace to be drawn from the hopeful anticipation that there might be a shake-up down at the SCOTUS batcave, I am forced into my fallback position, begging Kennedy to stop pandering and start pissing off the right again. There was a time in recent history when much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth could be heard from the upper echelons of the Republican party every time a 5-4 decison came down, and this was all due to ol' Anthony doing something delightfully unexpected from a Repub-appointed justice.
I miss those days. Come on Kennedy, I know you still got it in you. In the meantime, keep the faith Steve-o and don't you dare die on me.
I find it very interesting, and more than a little depressing that around this time last year, there was quite a bit of hubbub surrounding our 2 rookie supes, Bobby and Sammy.
Will they be trailblazers or will they fall into predictable alignments? (one asked oneself)
I, for one, was very much hoping that Sammy would turn out to be a dark horse, throw off the shackles of his oppressors and grow a pair. Sadly, this has not turned out to be the case. As I have watched decisions coming down in case after case, I hear the case name, the result, and the numbers "5-4" and I don't need to hear any more. Bobby and Sammy have fallen neatly into the roles that the White House carved out for them, and have been utterly predictable ever since.
So, since there is no longer any solace to be drawn from the hopeful anticipation that there might be a shake-up down at the SCOTUS batcave, I am forced into my fallback position, begging Kennedy to stop pandering and start pissing off the right again. There was a time in recent history when much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth could be heard from the upper echelons of the Republican party every time a 5-4 decison came down, and this was all due to ol' Anthony doing something delightfully unexpected from a Repub-appointed justice.
I miss those days. Come on Kennedy, I know you still got it in you. In the meantime, keep the faith Steve-o and don't you dare die on me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)