MLS All-Stars 2, Celtic 0

Thursday night was the 2007 MLS All-Star Game at Dick's Sporting Goods Park here in Denver. The game was good. The complex was even more impressive. This was our first time in a built for soccer stadium in the States - it was pretty nice. But what was better was the 24 fully lit fields surrounding the stadium. All perfectly manicured fields of thick grass (and 2 synthetic turf fields). This is a soccer Mecca.














The game was fairly good too. We thought the MLS boys played pretty well as a team, considering their practices had come at a bare minimum. They were creative, spread the field well, moved the ball, and had numerous scoring chances.

Not to mention the missed penalty kick. Let's be honest though, that was a good dose of retributive justice for Johnson's blatant dive in the box.



In our opinion, there was not enough of this...


....and too much of this. We're glad he's here, and it was cool to see him. We have pictures, but we refuse to post them - his face is on the web enough as it is. But he's not the savior of the MLS, and its gonna be the De Rosario's, Toja's and Angels that make this league great. And some success in games between actual teams, not a stacked group of all stars versus off season clubs.

Imperialism - yeah, it's back.

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, former MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Of course, we don't really need Tony Blair anymore, so maybe he'd be a good match for your country. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up revocation in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up aluminium. Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix ize will be replaced by the suffix ise. You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up vocabulary. Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up interspersed. There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney,upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as Taggart will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is Devon. If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become shires e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as Men Behaving Badly or Red Dwarf will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American football. There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American football is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays American football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2008. You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders,your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called rounders, which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called Indecisive Day.

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time,you will go metric with immediate effect and conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer,and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. The substances formerly known as American Beer will henceforth be referred to as Near-Frozen Knat's Urine,with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine. This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen,Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13. From November 10th the UK will harmonise petrol (or Gasoline, as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon- get used to it).

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation and have a great day.

Top Ten Posts - A Blogging Faux Pas

We're pretty sure that linking to our own old blog posts is probably a major faux pas in the weblog world, but we had a recent new reader tell us that he/she thought some of our entries were rather humorous and could we direct to him/her to some older funny posts. Add that to the fact that we've noticed a slew of new readers in the past few weeks (Georgie, you may be our favorite), and we think a top 10 list of our favorite/your favorite blog entries would be appropriate for the people who have just recently pulled up a chair at the Table.

In no particular order (and it may be more than 10 when we finish):

Supercuts

Tales From Meyer's Pride: The Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter

Tales from Meyer's Pride: Wrong House, Wrong Driveway

Topographic Variety

I'd like to buy a vowel (or a moment of silence) - this is especially good because of the two "anonymous" comments

MPC Employee of the Week: Jesus

Winston: The Heaviest Sleeper I have Ever Seen

MPC Roofing Tricks of the Trade (i.e. me playing with big toys)

If you could ask the Chief Justice one question, what would it be?

Law School Life Imitates the Office (BBC)

Yankees: Worse than Fire Ants

Boston, Here We Come (With the Follow Up)

Sleuth is a Wall Street Journal Contributor

Jefferson and Madison

Good news friend Georgie, it appears that you can have your cake and eat it too! Fortunately, you can maintain your deep respect for Rehnquist and Scalia (which, we might add, we share as well) while simultaneously siding with Jefferson and Madison (two of our personal heroes), because at least on this issue, they all agree. Well, sort of.

Your Wikipedia article suggests that Rehnquist was the first to posit the notion that the “establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference.” Actually, he stole that idea from Jefferson.

We figured that if this discussion went far enough along, the Danbury Baptist exchange would likely raise its head – this is really getting to the heart of the disagreement over usage of the “wall of separation.” Even though we wrote a short research paper on this in college, we had to go back and reread the letters again last night. The full text is here, if you want to check it out: http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/baptist.htm

To put it briefly, the Danbury’s were concerned that their state’s constitution, in granting religious privileges, made those privileges a creation of the state, rather than an inalienable right recognized by government (such as those inalienable rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Connecticut’s state church was the Congregationalists, and Baptists were frankly afraid that at some point, if the Congregationalists had enough power, they would force the Baptists to conform their religious beliefs, i.e., the state would encroach on the Baptist’s free exercise.

Note that in Jefferson’s reply, he sort of sidesteps some of the issues. He never really discusses the Connecticut constitution, and he never really acknowledges the Danbury’s request that he assist them in their state battle with the Congregationalists. Instead he refers strictly to the Federal Constitution, and reminds the Baptists that as far as American goes, the legislature has declared that Congress will make no national law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting its free exercise.

To us, this is more a discussion over the once common idea that each state could regulate religion as it saw fit, rather than any national debate over the role of religion in government. Frankly, we find it odd that any single group in modern America would build its entire First Amendment jurisprudence and political/legal doctrine on a few words in a private letter between Jefferson and a bunch of Baptists (after all, it's the Presbyterians who've got it going on, right?) What's more, while Jefferson was no doubt an influential founder, he wasn’t even in the country when the Constitution was drafted. Funny that he is the Con Law expert.

As your Wikipedia article mentions, the phrase has been used in multiple modern Supreme Court opinions, but it was never even mentioned once for nearly the first 100 years of our judicial system (once in 1878), and then not again until Everson (1947). Since then, the courts generally cite Everson as the precedent for this notion of church state separation. And as an aside, you will not once find the notion of separation of church and state in any of the congressional debates that took place when the Bill of Rights were adopted.

Interestingly enough, while Jefferson was a huge proponent of the Bill of Rights, and was initially perturbed that the Constitution did not include one, Madison was in fact opposed to such a Bill of Rights. Madison, like the Danbury Baptists, feared that a Bill of Rights might one day be misconstrued to allow the state to remove religious freedom, since (under the bill of rights) the State had “created” that freedom.

When Madison finally caved to the pressures of the states (many of which were refusing to ratify the Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights), he proposed this language for the First Amendment: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”

It appears to us that he too was concerned mostly with the establishment of a national religion, namely a certain sect within Christianity (i.e. Congregationalist, Baptist, Episcopalian, etc.).

As we read from a lecture on this topic a few weeks ago, Madison was a member of a committee in Congress which chose and paid for Congressional chaplains, and he signed a law as president that gave federal monies to aid a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible (particularly to the Indians). Our guess is that government action like that today would get struck down by the “separation” clause.

As for the The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, we'll have to get to that in another post. Stephen is calling for us to come help him with the cabinets in the baby's room.

To us, the discussion all comes back to our original point – the “separation” phrase is misunderstood, and even more importantly, misused. The Founders created a system that allows us the freedom of exercising whatever religion we choose. You are certainly entitled to argue for a removal of all religion from the public sphere of civil government, and as we mentioned before, we think you have some strong arguments in your favor. But that removal certainly wasn’t the way the system worked initially, nor did the Founders intend it to be designed that way. Further, if our society has evolved into a post-Christian culture (as some historians argue), whether through increasing religious plurality or a larger number of people who are just not religious at all, we are free to change the system. But the point is that WE change it, not a group of nine dudes in black robes. And we change it based on legislative initiative, not through those same nine dudes proof-texting their political preferences from private letters and super-legislating from the Bench.

If the Supreme Court assumes that the Constitution has a wall of separation between church and state, and then says that a certain law is violating the Constitution's separation of church and state, they are simply begging the question.

And that’s a phrase we’ll choose to avoid.

Presupposing a Supreme Being?

Georgie commented on our earlier post about the usage of the phrase "separation of church and state." For fear that any response may get lost in the comments, we reply here.

First, every American is certainly free to believe what you will, religious or irreligious. We respect your beliefs, as we know you respect ours. Respect does not require agreement; by the same token, neither does disagreement excuse disrespect. This is the beauty of the American system – you won’t find such freedom in many places, for instance, most Muslim countries (and we would argue that this freedom is not unconnected to the Christian presuppositions we mention below)

Second, whether you believe in Supreme Being (and its effect or non-effect on our institutions) is one thing. Whether the people who created those institutions believed in such a being is another. Georgie thinks he is in the minority when it comes to presupposition of a Divine, we personally have no way of knowing whether he is or he isn’t – polls seem to fluctuate too much based on who’s giving them and what results they want. Regardless of present polls, however, this still does not change the fact that those who created the institutions by which we govern ourselves were a religious people who did presuppose a Supreme Being.

Take for example, our beloved South Carolina, where the people presuppose a God, and assume that liberty some how flows from that God. The preamble to the Constitution begins:

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful
to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
preservation and perpetuation of the same.

Or Colorado, where we presently are working, which is by no means a part of the “Bible Belt”:

We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the
Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government…

Or consider the self-evident truths contained in our own Declaration of Independence, from which we glean our American notion of equality, and which declares in no uncertain terms that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These examples should suffice it to say that Justice Douglas had not misspoken when he premised his opinion upon the assumption that our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.

Third, Justice Frankfurter has frankly missed the point. At issue is whether a parent can choose to allow their child to leave school during the day to be instructed at a religious center. Frankfurter’s beef is twofold: he seems to have a problem with the fact that children are “forced” to remain in school and participate in the regularly scheduled curricular activities, and he doesn’t like the fact that religious instruction can substitute for school credit. First, the children left behind are not being required to do anything they weren’t already required to do – attendance is compulsory. They were going to be in school, like it or not. Second, if fully private and religious schooling is recognized under law as sufficient educational instruction, and it is, then supplementing a public school education with third party instruction is completely acceptable. If the left behind kids want an excuse to “get out of school,” they’re more than welcome to go the religious instruction with the rest of their classmates. And if the school already allows exceptions for students (i.e. permission to leave school for musical instruction, athletic competition, etc.), the First Amendment jurisprudence is relatively clear that to deny such an exception to a person because of the religious nature of their request is a blatant violation of the Free Exercise Clause and is subject to strict scrutiny.

To be honest, we think even Justice Douglas has some sketchy points, and our initial post was not to condone or condemn the case or the opinions. It was merely to recognize the correct usage of two phrases that we find frequently misused.

But since you brought it up…

Things you will never see in the New York Times, and why we will likely be opposing counsel to the ACLU somewhere along the way...

This news is actually a bit old, but we forgot to post it back in May. We cannot find this story anywhere in the New York Times archives, while a simple search for "ted & haggard & sex" brings in pages upon pages of hits. Fair and balanced, anyone?

McLEAN, Va. (AP) - Court records show a former president of the Virginia
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is expected to plead guilty to
charges stemming from child pornography possession case.

A judge in Alexandria today scheduled a plea agreement hearing for 51-year-old Charles Rust-Tierney of Arlington. It was not clear what charges would be included
in the plea agreement.

A grand jury indicted Rust-Tierney earlier this month on one count each of receipt and possession of child pornography. According to federal sentencing guidelines, a conviction at trial on both counts could have resulted in a prison sentence of 11 to 14 years.

Rust-Tierney -- who also coached Little League baseball in Arlington -- has
been in jail since his arrest.

At pretrial hearings, two judges refused to grant bail, describing the pornography in question as some of the most sickening they had ever encountered.

Monday's with MacDoug(all)

This weekend's Denver 07' activities included a drive-in theatre outing on Saturday night. Now, lest you scoff at the idea of a drive-in theatre, let me tell you, this was not your average park 'n watch.

$9 for a triple feature that began at 9pm and lasted until 3:30am. Fantastic Four, Shrek the Third, and Ocean's 13. Rich's F-350 with my Z-71, backed in side by side with the truck beds full of futons, blankets, pillows, and lots of popcorn. I'm not sure, but this movie marathon will probably rank high on the "physically draining activities in Denver list," right below climbing a Fourteener.

Besides the Surrogate from Arrested Development making an appearance in Ocean's 13, the other most notable "actor I recognize from a different movie/tv show" was in fact our own Rob MacDougall.

Ok, so Rob isn't on another movie or tv show.

But Rob's latest image (which is really a modern cover of an old MacDougall classic) was eerily present in Shrek III, and the look is certainly one worth emulating. He is, dare I say, a thing of beauty. If Rob were an acting man, I'd say he certainly could be cast in Pirates of the Caribbean III (which was playing on Screen 2 behind us at the drive-in). But no, Rob is in fact a cute little animated creature who managed to score the role of Puss in Boots in Shrek the Third. Now, about that sexy Spanish accent:

Commonly misued phrases

There are two phrases that we constantly hear misquoted and misused.

"Separation of Church and State"
"Begs the question"

Today, as we read through a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, we witnessed a judge get not one, but both of these phrases correct in one brilliant stroke of the pen.

Separation of Church and State:

"[T]he ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. [citations] Our Nation's history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. [citations] After all, “[w]e are a religious people whose
institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach, 343 U.S. at 313, 72 S.Ct. 679. Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally
permissible.

Beg the Question:

Second, the ACLU focuses on the religiousness of the Ten Commandments. No reasonable person would dispute their sectarian nature, but they also have a secular nature that the ACLU does not address. That they are religious merely begs the question whether this display is religious; it does not answer it. “[T]he Establishment Clause inquiry cannot be distilled into a fixed, per se rule.” [citations] Although treating the subject matter categorically would make our review eminently simpler, we are called upon to examine Mercer County's actions in light of context. “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious
doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2863 (plurality opinion). Moreover, “[f]ocus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 680, 104 S.Ct. 1355. The Constitution requires an analysis beyond the four-corners of the Ten Commandments. In short, “proving” that the Ten Commandments themselves are religious does not prove an Establishment Clause violation.

Stephen and Rich, our aspiring linguist friends, would be pleased.

The most quoted passage at Blackstone: Phase I

"At the heart of Liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2807 (1992)

Cross Country Playlist

Our hunch is that most of you are curious what a solo traveler does to pass time in his gas guzzling truck while driving cross country from Chapin, SC to Denver, CO.

Nap, mostly.

But when napping wasn't appropriate, music was obviously the preferred method of killing time. Here's the playlist:

South Carolina
Amos Lee - Supply and Demand

North Carolina
Jason Harrod - Living in Skin

Tennessee
Kenny Chesney - When the Sun Goes Down
Dixie Chicks - Fly
Brad Paisley - Time Well Wasted

Kentucky
Rush Limbaugh - The Rush Limbaugh Show
The Kooks - Inside In/Inside Out
The Killers - Sam's Town

Illinois
Wilco - Sky Blue Sky
Lupe Fiasco - Lupe Fiasco's Food and Liquor

Missouri
The Allman Brothers Band - Eat a Peach
Taj Mahal - The Best of Taj Mahal
Ozark Mountain Daredevils - The Best of the Ozark Mountain Daredevils

Kansas
Jennifer Knapp - Kansas
Rush Limbaugh - The Rush Limbaugh Show
D.A. Carson - Lectures on the New Perspective (Reformed Theological Seminary)
Douglas Kelley - Systematic Theology 1 (RTS)

Colorado
Travis - The Boy With No Name
John Denver - An Evening With John Denver

Even Beckham knows the power of a Poke N' A Push

The little things that drive you crazy

Dadu and I were scanning through YouTube clips the other day and stumbled across this video preview for last Saturday's FA Cup Final. The video is not half bad (though we're not quite sure what "Joyment" is).

But what we really liked was the music.

And we have spend the last 3 nights and probably over 5 hours searching the internet to find out where that music came from. Thus far, no luck.

So check out the video, and if you have any idea what movie this music came from, let us know. We won't be able to sleep well until we figure it out...it's driving us crazy.

Buy one suit, get the second half price. Legal advice not included.

We've been budgeting for and weighing the options of two major expenses lately: a house and a new car. Perhaps we should have included a third consideration. Summer clothes. While many law firms are moving to a more casual dress code around the office, our firm in Denver is maintaining the traditional "suit and tie to work" sort of atmosphere. This of course means we need to revamp our suit and tie collection (with heavy emphasis on the suit part) - which means money. Big money. We're $taring at the receipt right now, thinking how today'$ wardrobe enhancement$ could have been a nice down payment on a house.

Oh well. As we and Murray always used to say, "You can't put a price tag on looking good."

Actually, we never said that. Nor has Murray. But it sounds like something he'd say, and we agree wholeheartedly.

We don't know how the sales biz works for people at clothing stores (do they work off commission, salary, hourly, or some combo?), but in our limited shopping experience we've found that the salesmen at men's clothing stores are always an odd bunch. Don't ask us why, they just are.

Terrible jokes.
Terrible shirt/tie combinations.
Terrible salesmen.

Actually, one man who helped us today was pretty nice, and we ended up purchasing from his store. But as we were checking out, we encountered another sales associate (a middle aged woman who wears clothes 3 sizes too small and smokes 3 packs a day too many) who fit the "odd mold" much better. Seeing she was jealous of the contribution we had just made to the other salesman's retirement fund, we struck up a conversation with her:

Us: "The nice thing about spending this much money on suits is that we don't have to do it very often. The next time we buy a suit, it'll be the kind with no pockets that they put on you when they lay you in your coffin." [we winked at her playfully]

Sales dude: "Yes, its an investment for sure."

Us: "No kidding. Hopefully this should get us through law school"

Sales Lady: "Law school huh? You can afford all of this. You'll be making the big bucks. There's plenty of money and work for you out there."

Us: "That's what we're counting on."

Sales Lady: "It's true. My brother got his law degree, but he doesn't practice law. Well, he can't
practice law, really."

Us: "Oh? Why is that? What does he do?"

Sales Lady: "Well, he's in jail. He got his law degree while he was in jail. But even when he gets out, he won't be able to practice, cuz the Bar won't let him. It's probably the whole jail thing."

Us: [speechless] [also, staring]

Sales Lady: "Yeah, he murdered his wife. [laugh/chuckle] So he's been in prison for a while. But even though he can't practice law when he gets out, it'll be nice to put on his resume."

Us: [in our head: What the !@%$#?] [and, "please tell me she's kidding about the getting out part] [and, "yes, we're sure that ol' Juris Doctor will look real good on the resume, right under Prior Residence: Georgia State Penitentiary"]

Sales Lady: "Yup, everyday he'd get on the bus from the jail and go to school. Pretty good deal, the State paid for all of it. Now he gives, like, legal advice and stuff to the other inmates, and he's a Trustee for a lot of them and works up in the Warden's office."

Us: [still to ourself: hmmm, can't think of a better person to trust our life and our life's earnings to. "Legal services for hire - I'll help you take the law into your own hands..."]

Sales Dude: "Wow."

Sales Lady: "I know! I always wanted to get a law degree, it was just too much money. Kinda makes me think I should kill somebody so I can get that same deal as my brother."

Sales Dude: [thinking: Noo, wow, you're an idiot and I can't believe you just said that] "Wellll, I'm sure it's cost him a lot more than just tuition."

Us: [almost out loud in very high voice: "Shiiiiiiiit."]

Sales Lady: "Yeah, but - it's Free! I mean, absolutely free! You can't beat that!"

========

We walked away. Part of us soo badly wanted to stay and probe this woman's mind with leading questions that would border on absurdity (yet with feigned sincerity), but we decided our time wasn't worth it at this point. After all, we don't know what they bill behind bars, but on this side of the barbed wire we're charging around $75 - 80/hour as a summer associate. The peace of mind that we won't kill you is free.

Why Georgia is paying for inmates to get a worthless JD we'll never know (assuming its true). Why that woman ever thought a free worthless degree was worth killing someone is depravity at its finest(?). Surely this woman was joking, you say. We personally don't think she was.

What we said earlier is true, you can't put a price tag on looking good. You also can't put a price tag on not being in jail for murdering somebody. But we're pretty sure that if you DID put a price tag on it, its worth way more than the "Buy One 25-Life Sentence And Get a Juris Doctor Degree For FREE" deal they're running down at the Ga Pen.

Which makes our large clothing purchase look like a steal. Pun very much intended.

Monday's with Motorcycles (and, by association, Us and Murray)

A public service announcement to those of you who ride bikes (or motorcycles) and to the rest of you who should be looking out for said bike riders:

Wednesday Warbling

Diamond Dave is known for many things: his unique way of talking, his graphic dreams, his love for motocross, and his lips. It's those lips that allow him to be one of the greatest warblers I have ever heard. A regular Roger Whittaker. See for yourself.

Monday's with Murray (and Macey and Mr. Dave)

Back by popular demand, this time in rare video format:

What do this picture, most of my college experience, and 1L law school exams have in common?

We are taking a much needed break from studying - going on 15 hours today. We were actually in the study zone, as it were, until just a few minutes ago when our mind suddenly made a whole bunch of connections. Unfortunately, they have very little to do with our next exam. Fortunately (for you), they have everything to do with this blog.

First, a quick story from a few weeks back. As a lunch time special lecture, USC law school hosted two USC law alumns, Joe Rice and Ron Motley. Lest you think poorly of USC law, we present these two plaintiff's attorneys as evidence to the contrary. As our civil procedure prof later noted, Motley and Rice are, financially speaking, the two most successful attorneys in the history of the world. You read that last line correctly. Go Cocks.

These guys made a name for themselves as the brains behind the asbestos litigation, the tobacco company suits and the Bridgestone/Firestone tires rollover litigation (to name a few), and are now taking on litigation for the 9/11 victims, suing the Arab Bank for financing Hamas and Hezbollah, and a suit against an Arab Sheikh for kidnapping, human trafficking and child enslavement (essentially the thousands of kids that have been forced to become camel jockeys). You could call this an alternative form of counter terrorism - suck the financiers of terrorism dry. The pending litigation was the topic of their lecture. Oh, and if you're curious, you can read the amended complaint for the 9/11 suit - if we were you, we'd skip over the first 200 pages (all plaintiffs and defendants names) and get to the end of the complaint, where they list the damages...at $1 trillion dollars. Mmhmm, 1,000,000,000,000 dollars.

Connection number one. These guys are USC law alumni. We too will one day graduate from USC law. Rice's daughter is in our 1L class. One of our close friends here at school has a stepmom who is an attorney at Motley Rice. In the presentation, Joe Rice publicly ridiculed our buddy Blaine in front of the entire student body (Blaine graduated from Clemson and happened to wear a bright orange shirt that day). On more than one occasion we have publicly defamed Clempson, and while we love Blaine, we very much dislike tigers, especially of the orange and purple variety.

Story number two. In college, we lived in Manville. Not the small town near Myrtle Beach, but room 211 on Second South in Carter Hall. We had a huge green sign that hung in the hallway outside our door: <---- MANVILLE. Hence the name of this blog. And so much more...

Story number three. We are currently studying for our Torts exam. Our professor is internationally recognized as one of the leading experts in the field of products liability. Our exam will undoubtedly be 50% plus on products liability. Fortunately, our professor seems to enjoy history as much as we do, so a lot of this studying includes legal history and common law development.

Connection number two. Motley Rice is recognized as a leading firm in the field of products liability. Also, professor Owen is an exclusive bow tie wearer. We too wear bow ties.

Connection number three. One of the leading cases in the early history of products liability is Beshada v. Johns Manville Products Corp. It was an asbestos cases.

Story number four. Our professor has, on multiple occasions, referred to himself in the third person, as THE David G. Owen. We do not use the third person reference, but instead prefer the first person plural.

Connection number four. Did we mention Motley Rice did asbestos litigation? In fact, they did so much asbestos litigation, The American Lawyer dubbed Ron Motley as "The Man who took on Manville." Hey, we lived in Manville. And we're reading about asbestos and Johns Manville right now.

Connection number five. The picture above is a pic from college of Rob and us in front of the Johns-Manville sign at one of their plants in Tennessee. Oh, and the t-shirt we're wearing is one we got when we worked at Nexsen Pruet (one of the largest Defense law firms in SC).

Summary: I don't even know how to sum all of this up.

Lesson: there are a heck of a lot of things that are more exciting than studying for Torts, and somehow your brain will focus on those things rather than the studies at hand.

Connection addendum: A second major asbestos case was Anderson v. Owens-Corning. The USC law school is notoriously "infected" with asbestos (that's right, the building that we spend 10-14 hours a day inside, the same building where Motley and Rice earned their JD's so that they could sue the asbestos manufacturers). Certain sections of the building are sealed to keep the asbestos in. We hope to be a member of a class action suit one day. Owens-Corning, in addition to producing asbestos, also is a leading shingle manufacturer. MPC used to (and we presume still does) sell Owens Corning asphalt shingles. We have roofed several houses with Owens-Corning shingles.

Gonzales v. Carhart; Virginia Tech v. Cho Seung-Hui; and Everybody v. Bush

The juxtaposition of various news bits this week really has us scratching our heads.

First, consider this bit from the NY Times a day after the mass murder in Blacksburg:

Our hearts and the hearts of all Americans go out to the victims and their families. Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.

Within hours of the shooting, anti-gun advocates were already firing away on their keyboards, eager to make this incident a political talking point target for proposing more gun control laws. We've even read folks who are saying its high time we shoot down (repeal) the supposedly "ambiguous" Second Amendment so that the federal government will be uninhibited in passing any and all gun regulations.

Second, also just hours after the shooting, the Supreme Court handed down their decision regarding partial birth abortion in Gonzales v. Carhart. Justice Ginsburg's dissent sums up accurately the media and liberals' reaction to the ruling:

"[T]his way of thinking reflects ancient notions of women's place in the family and under the Constitution--ideas that have long since been discredited."

The majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

The conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.

Third, there's the ever present war. One editor of a Pennsylvania newspaper had this to say:

What would you call a place where Virginia Tech-like orgies of violence happen every day? Iraq. So, where's the daily outcry? The shock? The horror? The huge newspaper headlines?

We all mourn the victims at Virginia Tech. As we should. Why don't we all mourn the Iraqi victims of George Bush's war? Are we numb to the numbers? When a car bomb kills 40 are they somehow less human than the 32 in Blacksburg?
Because it's a war? But we started the war. Before we did that, it was a stable, if brutal dictatorship.
Is it because people would have died anyway, because of Saddam's brutality? But now it's on us. They're dying because of what we did. Often times dozens if not hundreds a day, because we decided to go to war in a country we didn't understand. Not because we had to fight, but because we wanted to. . . .
And the blood on all of our hands.

Now for the head scratching. WE DO NOT understand how, in the same breath, people can be so adamant about prohibiting, restricting, or straight up eliminating a freedom to bear arms that is clearly enumerated in the text of the Constitution, while at the same time turn a blind eye to the clearly defined rights guaranteed to all persons (born or unborn) in America in pursuit of a woman's right to choose an abortion - a right that is not mentioned in the Constitution and is created only under the guise of the ever-elusive right to privacy.

If Congress wants to regulate the use of guns, because they think that public policy demands it, many on the Left couldn't be happier. But if Congress decides to regulate the unnecessary killing of unborn babies, because they think public policy demands it, that same Left couldn't be more irate.

Furthermore, WE DO NOT understand how people can be so upset about some deaths, yet so flippant about others. Consider:

• 33 brutal deaths at VA Tech
• 3,300 plus dead in Iraq
• 130,000 annual deaths from partial birth abortions (10% of the estimated 1.3 million abortions performed every year are 2nd trimester "partial birth abortions")
  

The NY Times described the Tech shootings as "carnage" and "unbearable."

If you want to read about unbearable carnage, keep reading.

The following are excerpts from Justice Kennedy's opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Sometimes, in the midst of academic and constitutional debates on public policy and individual rights in the abstract, it's good to stop and consider what the conduct that we're discussing actually entails. The Court describes it in rather graphic detail - if this doesn't make you cringe, or bring tears to your eyes, then you've obviously been watching too many of NBC's Cho videos:

After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, [*23] the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed. See, e.g., Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 465; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962.

The court goes on to describe one nurse's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the partial birth abortion procedure:

"'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms -- everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus . . . .

"'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does [*28] when he thinks he is going to fall.

"'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp . . . .

"'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.'" Ibid.

Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and "the process has evolved" since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965. [*29]

Cho was evil.

Is allowing the above described procedures any better?

The blood truly is on our hands.

Perspective...

The largest school shooting in American history. A dear friend in a car wreck last week now still in a coma. Fellow classmate who broke her foot last night in our co-ed soccer game - surgery to put two plates in her foot a week before exams...

God's Grandeur
Gerard Manley Hopkins

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; Bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs--
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Who said Covenant was the only marriage mill on the hill?

One of the most common refrains/complaints we heard in undergrad about our college - too many girls are there just to get the ol' Mrs degree.

We've got news folks. Covenant ain't unique.

Consider: an average Wednesday night in the law school library, briefing the cases in our Property book and trying to be a good student, when along come two cute girls who plop down across the table from us. We've never seen them before -- and we recognize just about everybody at the law school. Within seconds we've struck up a conversation, and one girl quickly asks if we'd be willing to answer some questions they have for a research project they're doing for their investigative journalism class.

This explains why we've never seen them. They're undergrads.

Perhaps unwisely, we agree to answer their questions. They never really explained what the project was about, nor gave much introduction to the questions. Pretty soon they're asking us our thoughts about girls scoping out the law and med school libraries for a date, what we think about trophy wives, and how we feel about gold diggers. Slightly uncomfortable (and confused) by their questions, we call our buddy Will over for back up. He gets peppered with questions too.

It didn't take too long for the girls to get the answers they had come for; they thanked us and told us they'd email us the final product of their research.

Well, my friends, the research is complete. You can read all about it here: Majoring in MRS is becoming less BS.

For the record, they didn't really quote us accurately. Will pointed out later that we never said anything about "visions" to be shared with a wife. Of course, we should have foreseen this problem when we noticed that the note-taking girl only jotted down a few words to every response we gave - and they weren't Yes or No questions.

So for all of you naysayers who always criticized the Covenant dating culture, take note that it isn't only the small private schools that are handing out Mrs. degrees these days. No, the folks at the big universities are pursuing that elusive degree as well.

Our hunch: wherever girls and boys are located, there also will you find the girls on the prowl. And if you boys are looking, we've got two prospects for you.