What do Spurrier and the Rules of Civil Procedure Have in Common?

Nothing.

But you better believe that if our Gamecocks ever make it to the National Championship while we are practicing law, we'll do the same thing.

We love the SEC.

Hand Painting - The Zebra

We recently came across an artist by the name of Guido Daniele. Mr. Daniele does finger painting - not painting WITH his fingers, but actually painting his fingers. And his knuckles. And his entire hand. Actually, he's what you call (or they call) a body painter; he paints pictures on his body, and then photographs them for posterity (at least, the posterity who are willing to pay him some money for his efforts).

The paintings are nothing short of impressive. Here's Zebra:

Quote of the Week

Let's not even mention butter beans:

"A contrasting view is presented by theorist Gayle Rubin, who endorses a system of sexual pluralism. Rubin posits that American culture has a fundamentally unhealthy view of sexuality, one that demands conformity and repression to an extent that would never be tolerated in other areas of human existence. According to Rubin, society is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that sexual preferences could simply be a matter of taste; that sodomy, for example, could be a lot like lima beans — some like ’em, some don’t, and some could take ’em or leave ’em. She believes the answer is sexual pluralism, a society where sex is judged and limited only by “the way partners treat one another, the level of mutual consideration, the presence or absence of coercion, and the quantity and quality of the pleasures they provide.”

- Substantive Due Process and the Problem of Horse Sex, by by Natalie Daniels (Washington Bar Association, November 2006)

Tim Tebow and Education in South Carolina: Musings on why WE should have won the Heisman Trophy

Turns out home school kids are good at something besides spelling bees. Word on the street? They’re good at football, too.

Tonight, for the first time in it’s 72-year history, a sophomore won the most coveted award in all of college football – the Heisman Tropy. Tim Tebow, the heralded quarterback for the University of Florida, beat out two other quarterbacks and a running back to earn the trophy, and with it, the admiration of Gator Nation.

The only people happier than the Orange and Blue? Home school Nation. Why?

Tim Tebow was home schooled.

You read that right. Those shy, awkward, sheltered, denim-wearing (explains why Tebow chose to go to school in the jean-short wearing mecca of Gainesville) social oddballs produced a Heisman winner. And those shy, awkward, sheltered, denim-wearing social oddballs produced us, a second year law student at a second tier law school.

Come to think of it, that should have been our trophy.

We were home schooled. Just like Tim Tebow.
Our parents are missionaries. Just like Tim Tebow’s.
We played high school football. Just like Tim Tebow.
We should have won the Heisman. Instead of Tim Tebow.

Ok, that's where the analogy breaks down. We did play football in high school (see also, flag and two-hand touch), and we were good, REAL good. We just didn't play FOR a high school.

But don't blame us -- blame the state of South Carolina.

When we were in high school, the political hot topic (at least in the home school circles) was whether home school kids should be allowed to play for their local high school's sports teams. We had friends who helped spearhead the efforts for equal access in South Carolina. Some of them were motivated by their desire to play college soccer some day. For all intents and purposes, playing high school soccer experience is a necessary prerequisite.

The political push for equal access peaked in 1996, when the South Carolina General Assembly decided they knew best – and equal access was not it.

Despite their hard work, South Carolina home schoolers had lost the game. Or was it South Carolina that dropped the ball?

In that very same year, 1996, Florida passed a law that allowed homeschoolers in the state to play for the high school in which district the homeschooler resided. Tim Tebow took advantage of that law, and played football for his local high school. His high school won the state championship, and he went on to play college football for UF. Coincidentally, 1996 was also the first year the University of Florida ever won a national championship in football.

The rest is history. As in, Tebow made history. All season, he’s been setting records. Tonight, he became the first sophomore quarterback to EVER win the Heisman Trophy.
And it doesn't stop there. Tebow's impressive skills, and his likeable charm and charisma, have made him many a fan around the SEC (and the country).

In fact, one state has even named a bill after him, Alabama’s Tim Tebow Bill. What's the law about? Letting home school kids play on their local high school's teams. Go figure.

Do you think, if the Tim Tebow Bill becomes law, it will be because the legislators thought those home school folks actually had a good idea, for once? We suppose its possible. More likely, the people of Alabama will pass that bill for the same reason their university shelled out $32 million for Nick Saban.

Football.

In the world of Southern football, anything they [insert rival SEC school] can do, we can do better. If a simple education initiative can get Florida a Heisman winner and the caliber quarterback you need for a National Championship team, you can be darn well sure that Alabama will do anything to compete. In fact, we wouldn't be surprised if every state with an SEC school in it shortly follows suit.

Except South Carolina.

They had their chance. The same year as Florida. Was "future Heisman winner" on their minds when the Florida legislature voted that bill into law? The odds makers say no. More likely, they were just looking at the tangible benefits of allowing equal access. South Carolina could have made the same decision - for those same right reasons.

Had they had some sense about them, in addition to the many benefits that equal access could have had on ailing South Carolina schools, it might have been the Gamecocks with a Heisman Trophy winner tonight. And rather than the mess we know as the 2007 “quarterback quagmire,” it could have been the Gamecocks who were looking at 2 more years with a record-setting player under center.

But better late than never, right? Maybe South Carolina can make the right decision now, even if for the wrong reasons. A wrong reason like, say, football. The loyal fans of the University of South Carolina want nothing more than to win a national championship. Even just a SEC championship. We're pretty sure they'd settle for a Heisman winner.

All our General Assembly has to do is draft it’s own Tim Tebow Bill. If they need some help, we've got a whole group of home educators who probably have some dust covered drafts of similar legislation lying around their house. Yeah, its over their in the corner next to the quilting materials and behind the 16 musical instruments.

You want a Heisman trophy winner, Gamecock Nation? Get on the phone first thing Monday morning and tell you legislator to pass the Tim Tebow Bill on the first day back in session this January.

You want a national championship, Steve Spurrier? Our suggestion: drop one political hot topic (the Confederate flag) and pick up another one – the Tim Tebow Bill. It’s a win-win situation, one of the easiest, cheapest, low-risk high-payoff recruiting strategies you could make, and it's a lot more pertinent to your job as a football coach.

What have we got to lose? If the state is scared about some adverse affect on education, just check the rankings. It’s hard to go much lower than 50 out of 50. Last I checked, the only thing South Carolina is ranked lower in that education is, well, football.

But we doubt The Head Ball Coach will take our advice. And we doubt the Legislature will either. Of course, that's probably because neither read our blog.

Instead, South Carolina's schools will continue to compete for the bottom of the barrel...not unlike our football team.

And we’ll go down in history right alongside Darren McFadden, Colt Brennan, and Chase Daniel.

Almost a Heisman Winner.

Worst Apology. Ever.

You can read the full story online.

Here's the gist:
Todd Graham used to coach football for Rice. He now coaches Rice's rival school, Tulsa.
At this year's Tulsa v. Rice football game, the Rice marching band performed a 10-minute halftime show entitled "Todd Graham's Inferno." The show consisted of a "music and a skit that paralleled Dante's "Divine Comedy," and acted like it was searching for Graham."

At the end, the band's director called Graham a "douche bag" over the Rice Stadium's public address system.

You can imagine the reactions.

And now, for the apology from the band director:

"I always apologize when people are upset. It's just what you owe people.

"When you're being creative and putting something out there, you know what you meant. But as soon

as it's out there, it belongs to the people who heard it; and, when it upsets them, you apologize.

"The intent wasn't to be mean or insulting. It was to poke fun and be funny. Since it came across different than that, then I certainly apologize.

Not only is the band director ignorant when it comes to apologies, but he's ignorant when it comes to language, too.

"[Douche bag] was sort of a mild insult . . . it was used to get the point across but not dirty . . . In all common usage I see, it's devoid of any literal meaning. I looked it up and it means someone that talks big about himself and that is a jerk."

A quick Google search would disagree.

Maybe that's why the pinnacle of his academic/professional career is a MARCHING BAND DIRECTOR. Of course, with a name like Chuck Throckmorton, what do you expect?

Giving him the business

It's no secret, we Manville folks tend to watch a lot of football. A lot. And as anyone who follows football knows, or any sport for that matter, history is important.

Coaches know it - a good history of coaching can make up for a bad year, while an unsuccessful past creates a short fuse for fans and the higher-ups.

Players know it - any record they achieve warrants at least a passing nod at the previous record holder, and players often talk about the track record of this team or that game in anticipation of an upcoming match.

Announcers know it too - when they're not giving an oral description of what's taking place on the field of play (which we can all see anyway - that's why we turned the tv on in the first place), they're usually talking about this historical stat or that historical fact or trying to impress/entertain/bore us with their knowledge of past sports trivia.

But guess who you don't see making much mention of history? The referees and umpires. Of course, we don't really expect it - their job is to control the present game. The closest they come to discussing sports history is the replay booth.

Which is why this video clip is so brilliant. Listen to the referee's description of the penalty called on the field.



Now, that in and of itself is funny.

But we were curious, so a little Google search revealed that this was no spontaneous stand-up by the ACC official - it was in fact an allusion to the annals of football refereeing history, an inside joke that only a handful of sports scholars will get.

Here's what I found: In 1986, the New York Jets played the Buffalo Bills. During a play, the Jets' player (Marty Lyons) who tackled the Bills quarterback got a little violent, and began punching the quarterback (Jim Kelly) in the head. A fight ensued.

Now, evidently this created some sort of problem for the referee. What penalty to call? We assume that the classic "Personal Foul" or "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" penalty was not yet in existence, otherwise that would most surely been the call. But instead, the referee faced the press box and announced:

"Number 99 of the defense, after tackling the quarterback, was giving him the business down there!"

See for yourself:


We don't expect that this will inspire many referees to start spicing up their announcing - after all, making light of the game will likely cause any disgruntled fan/coach/player to lob accusations of partiality.

But every now and then, a recognition of the great Zebras who have come before you is a fitting touch.

We salute you, Mr. Historically Savvy and Ballsy Football Referee Guy.

Message in a Bottle

First, we should note that it recently came to our attention that the previous 3 or 4 blog posts have had a subtle sort of "human anatomy" theme running through them. We agree, and apologize for any confusion/suspicion that may have caused. Said theme was completely unintended, though it hindsight it strikes us as rather humorous.

-----------------------

An article has been posted on the bulletin board in the law school library for several weeks.
We've never stopped to read it, but the title is always an eye catcher.

"Bottled Water: Worse than Gasoline?"

Today we finally decided to go read the article, only to find that it had been removed from the board. We haven't found it on Google yet.

But we did find this article, which discusses in detail the bottled water industry. Personally, we have never been a fan of bottled water. For one, we don't like the way it tastes, especially compared to the well water we grew up drinking. For two, we've NEVER been able to justify paying money for something we could easily get for free (and don't like the taste of). Coke or Guinness doesn't come out of the tap in our sink, but water does. Judging by this article, there are a lot of other people who share our sentiments.

Consider (excerpted from the article):

"Thirty years ago, bottled water barely existed as a business in the United States. Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets--$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year."
-----------------

"A chilled plastic bottle of water in the convenience-store cooler is the perfect symbol of this moment in American commerce and culture. It acknowledges our demand for instant gratification, our vanity, our token concern for health." -----------------

"We buy bottled water because we think it's healthy. Which it is, of course: Every 12-year-old who buys a bottle of water from a vending machine instead of a 16-ounce Coke is inarguably making a healthier choice. But bottled water isn't healthier, or safer, than tap water. Indeed, while the United States is the single biggest consumer in the world's $50 billion bottled-water market, it is the only one of the top four--the others are Brazil, China, and Mexico--that has universally reliable tap water. Tap water in this country, with rare exceptions, is impressively safe."
-----------------

"[I]n Fiji, a state-of-the-art factory spins out more than a million bottles a day of the hippest bottled water on the U.S. market today, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have safe, reliable drinking water. Which means it is easier for the typical American in Beverly Hills or Baltimore to get a drink of safe, pure, refreshing Fiji water than it is for most people in Fiji."
-----------------

"You can buy a half- liter Evian for $1.35--17 ounces of water imported from France for pocket change. That water seems cheap, but only because we aren't paying attention."
-----------------

"In San Francisco, the municipal water comes from inside Yosemite National Park. It's so good the EPA doesn't require San Francisco to filter it. If you bought and drank a bottle of Evian, you could refill that bottle once a day for 10 years, 5 months, and 21 days with San Francisco tap water before that water would cost $1.35. Put another way, if the water we use at home cost what even cheap bottled water costs, our monthly water bills would run $9,000."
-----------------

"Today, for all the apparent variety on the shelf, bottled water is dominated in the United States and worldwide by four huge companies. Pepsi (NYSE:PEP) has the nation's number-one-selling bottled water, Aquafina, with 13% of the market. Coke's (NYSE:KO) Dasani is number two, with 11% of the market. Both are simply purified municipal water--so 24% of the bottled water we buy is tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi for our convenience. Evian is owned by Danone, the French food giant, and distributed in the United States by Coke."
-----------------

"Bottled water is not a sin. But it is a choice."

We'd suggest you buy a Nalgene bottle of some sort and start using that instead. It's a lot cheaper.

Of course, we're biased, considering Columbia has been ranked as having one of the top 3 best tasting municipal water in the country.
Then again, we don't even drink Columbia's municipal water - ours comes straight from the ground.

If we had a dollar for everytime we've made this same mistake

This story would be a lot more believable if the opera singer's name was Borat. We suppose it's understandable, though: "Mila kuda si planina" is so dang close to "Mila kura si planina."

New perspectives on the phrase "grow a pair"

"[H]owever, some doubt has been expressed on the willingness of men to undergo the procedure to extract the cells..."

"Testicle stem cell harvest plan: A man's testicles might be a source of stem cells to help him fight serious diseases, US scientists have shown." BBC News, September 19, 200

Quote of the Week

You can run, but you can't hide:

"Where a person, to avoid service of summons, shelters himself in his wife's petticoats, the laying of the papers on his shoulder will be a sufficient service." - Supreme Court, 1893

What would we do without Supreme Court Justices?

Ya think?!?

"The nudity of the dancer is an integral part of the emotions and thoughts that a nude dancing performance evokes. The sight of a fully clothed, or even a partially clothed, dancer generally will have a far different impact on a spectator than that of a nude dancer, even if the same dance is performed. The nudity itself is itself an expressive component of the dance, not merely incidental conduct."

- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (White, J. dissenting) (arguing that nude dancing SHOULD fall within the protection of the First Amendment)

And you Yankees thought we were strange

According to this report, boiled peanuts (those wonderful little snacks that come in small brown paper bags, are necessary eats at any football game, and are best when purchased from a road side stand) actually have health benefits that can help fight diseases.

Evidently the boiling process preserves phytochemicals within the peanuts; these phytochemicals "have antioxidant qualities that protect cells against the risk of degenerative diseases, including cancers, diabetes and heart disease."

This is probably a good thing, since our Gamecocks are often the source of our high blood pressure and severe cardiac stress.

Life Imitates The Onion

"8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights"--headline, Onion, May 26, 1999

"No Charges Filed Against 8-Year-Old Who Had a Handgun on School Bus"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 12, 2007

- From today's WSJ Opinion Journal

Let's not Rush to conclusions

As we anticipated, people have strong and differing views on Rush Limbaugh. That’s why we began the title of our post with “Say what you will.” Our point was not to defend or demolish Rush Limbaugh’s political theories or cultural critiques, but to point out that regardless of what you think about him, he’s good at his job. Our opinion on this point remains unchanged.

What is his job? As we alluded to, and as he often states on his show (which I have listened to for more than 5 minutes), his job is:

“Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.”

What’s absurd? That an elected official would purposely misrepresent the words of a private individual with whom he knowingly and consistently disagrees, in order to smear that individual’s reputation, and then attempt to use his political clout to force that private individual to shut up. How did Rush illustrate this? By being equally absurd and auctioning off the written “threat” on eBay. What’s more, he gave the ridiculous proceeds to a support the very people he was alleged to have criticized.

That’s clever, if not brilliant.

Georgie and Married Man raised some interesting points:

"you don't think rush limbaugh is a hypocrite for calling for tougher sentences for drug felons and then developing a drug habit of his own?”

First, that’s a straw man that has little to do with the current topic. Perhaps that was Married Man’s point. Whether Rush is a hypocrite (in terms of drug use/punishment) is of no consequence when it comes to what he said about soldiers, how it was portrayed by Reid and the Drive By Media, and how Rush responded with one of the more clever things I’ve seen.

Second, we don’t happen to think that Rush is a hypocrite. If Rush argued for stricter drug punishments, and then was convicted of drug usage and said those stronger sentences didn’t apply to him, that would be hypocritical. As far as we know, he hasn’t done that. If Rush condemned drug usage, and denied that he had a problem (in the face of counter evidence), that would be hypocritical. He hasn’t done that, either. But to advocate for a certain standard, even if that person fails to live up to the standard, is not necessarily hypocritical. I once read a good definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is best understood as saying something while intending to do something else. For example: if a person has a tendency toward alcoholism, and advocates for sobriety (himself abstaining from drink), but while at a party is given a drink and gives in to the temptation, we would say that person is weak. But not an hypocrite.

Contrast that with Reid who, faced with Rush’s clever idea of raising money for a veteran’s children charity organization, attempted to take credit for the idea (which was not his), encouraged people to support the cause and give money to the charity, but then refused to support the charity himself. I’m not sure if that qualifies as hypocrisy, but sure as heck walks the line.

“however, your STRONG defense of rush limbaugh really bothers me. i'm not calling for him to be taken off the air and am mindful of your free speech argument. if you actually listen to this man for 5 minutes, however, it's really hard not to feel yourself enraged with anger. either at the people he's talking about or at himself for his hatred.”

Hatred is a strong word. We’ve listened to Rush off an on since we were in high school. He is not a man of hate. We’re not sure what exactly you’ve heard that makes you “enraged with anger”, so we’ll refrain from attempting to defend something we know nothing about.

this show, and shows like this, are harmful b/c they are so freakin' divisive.”

We’re not sure what you mean by “shows like this.” Since you admitted that you are mindful of free speech arguments, we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t mean conservative talk shows in general. If you did, then the sole “divisive” feature of the show would be its political leaning. This leaves us with either talk shows in general, which we doubt you meant, or else this is a reference to similar shows of hatred. We know of no such shows.

It’s not our position to offer an apology for Rush. We happen to think he’s generally an intelligent voice in the midst of increasingly noisy political discourse. We don’t always agree with him, but we generally do. More importantly, however, we recognize that Rush is a constant target of attack by those who disagree with him, and (like this recent instance) they generally choose to attack the person, rather than analyze the merits of what he has to say. Rush has often jumped to the defense of others when they have been attacked unfairly.

For once, we thought we’d do the same.

Say what you will, Rush Limbaugh is good at what he does

Harry Reid's latest political maneuver is absolutely disgusting, despicable, and contemptible. He does not deserve the title of Senator, he has no business representing our government, and even a place as corrupt as Las Vegas does not deserve such a dirty politician.

Most of you have probably heard the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment. As usual, Rush said nothing wrong. As usual, he was right. And as usual, those who oppose free speech and the free exchange of ideas intentionally, purposely, and maliciously twisted Rush's words. The goal? Make a self-proclaimed and outspoken American Patriot look like a hypocrite (Rush), while making these America hating "americans" look like actual patriots. Not only did multiple Senators use the floor of the U.S. Senate as a soapbox for defaming Limbaugh (see also the torts of slander and libel), but 40 Democrats signed a letter to the President of Clear Channel (radio syndicate that hosts Limbaugh) strongly encouraging him to confer with Limbaugh about Limbaugh's commetns. Translation: Make him stop staying stuff we don't like...or else. These weren't just any Democrats - these were the big dogs.

As the saying goes, never kid a kidder. Rush Limbaugh makes a living off of illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Which is why he put the letter on eBay, with the proceeds going to help the children of soldiers killed in the war. Rush promised personally to match the auction proceeds. It sold for $2.1 million. Rush kept his word. The Dems looked stupid. Brilliant.

This is where Reid gets disgusting. At 12pm today -- no coincidence, one hour before the auction ends and the start of Rush's daily radio show -- Reid went on the Senate floor and ATTEMPTED TO TAKE CREDIT FOR RAISING THE MONEY FOR the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. Absolutely incomprehensible. The clip is here - Breitbart mislabels it as Reid's thank you to Limbaugh. It was no such thing. It was a blatant attempt by Reid to credit himself and the other 39 nutjob Democrats for the idea of putting the letter on eBay and giving the money to the kids.

This blatant lie and outright thievery makes me want to puke.

Reid criticized an American general. When that backfired, he chose to misrepresent a patriotic American and abuse his position as Senator by leveling personal attacks on a private citizen.
He further abused his power by threatening a radio syndicate to censure the speech of one of its shows, and when the historic letter documenting his and his hooligan cohorts' abuse of power was flipped around and used as a vehicle for good, Reid tried to take credit for the fruit of that creativity. Not only did he take credit, but he encouraged the members of teh Senate (and presumably the American people) to support the cause by bidding and/or contributing to the charity, but simultaneously refused to give a single dollar from his own pocket.

But that shouldn't surprise us. After all, Reid illegally uses campaign funds (i.e. other people's money) to tip the doormen at the Ritz Carlton (i.e. for his personal expenses).

Of course, who are we to talk? The only thing we've ever given the Ritz Carlton are $150,000 of stolen jewels.

Life Imitates The Office

"I've created an atmosphere where I am friend first, boss second. Probably entertainer third."

“When people say to me: would you rather be thought of as a funny man or a great boss? My answer’s always the same, to me, they’re not mutually exclusive.”

David Brent, general manager of the Slough branch of Wernham-Hogg paper merchancts in the BBC's television comedy The Office.

"Everyone Wants a Funny Boss. Survey: Humor is key for Good Managers"

Tom Musbach, Yahoo!.com HotJobs Article (October 16, 2007)

USC v. USC

Since it probably won't happen very often, we felt it necessary to point out that the REAL USC is now ranked ahead of that Southern Cal school in the AP Top 25 this week.

And just as a reminder, the last time South Carolina and So Cal played head to head in football, the Gamecocks were the victors of a a 38-14 victory in October of 1983.

Child's play in Iraq

Augustine wrote that "Moral character is assessed not by what a man knows but by what he loves." We would add that character, along with courage and leadership, is also assessed not by what a man says, but by what he does.

That's why we like this piece from American Thinker - it's thought provoking, if not right on the money. Whether it's current Congressmen or presidential hopefuls, Democrats or Republicans, we are growing weary of politicians who do more whining than working, and who's "new solutions" are nothing more than just recycled rhetoric.

It is true: government is run like a business, and many businesses are structured like our government. And yet most elected officials, if they acted as corporate directors they way they act as politicians, would be booted out by the shareholders quicker than you can say cumulative voting. Their ideas are as unoriginal as Gob Bluth, and their efficiency and productivity make Columbia's downtown Wendy's look like a well oiled machine.

Talk is cheap, Washington, and its a fact of life that you only get what you paid for. And just like any business, if the customer's don't get what they demand and deserve, they'll take their business somewhere else.

John Paul Stevens and a correct constitutional jurisprudence

As always, any article by the New York Times should be read in conjunction with at least 5 other sources in order to ensure accurate and unbiased journalism.

To help balance today's NYT article about Justice Stevens, we recommend this blogessay on originalism (as described by Blackstone's own J-Lo).

Down on the Bayou

The following was written a few years ago by some Auburn fan prior to the Auburn v. LSU game. Evidently it spread like wildfire through cyberspace, gathering so much attention that Auburn fans purportedly now chant "Corn Dogs!" at every LSU v. Auburn game. Since South Carolina plays LSU this weekend, we thought that a reposting of this dissertation is appropriate...
--------------------------

LSU fans smell just like corn dogs.

Yes, it is often said, but so, so true.

LSU fans do smell like corn dogs.

I would never tell them that to their face though. This is something better said at internet distances. Even now, I am afraid.

I am afraid that they'll know I said it. I'll walk past an LSU fan someday, and he'll see that look in my eye that gives it away. That look that says, "gee, what is that smell? Is it corn dogs?" The next thing you know, I'll have flat tires on my car.
If you only learn one thing from me today, remember not to tell LSU fans how they smell - you know, like corn dogs.

LSU fans seem, somehow, sensitive to that whole corn dog issue.

I think this may be why a lot of fans get beaten up by LSU fans. If you attend a game in Baton Rouge, try to avoid telling them that they smell like corn dogs. Say something else instead. Like, "Wow, LSU sure does have a great team this year. This is going to be a great SEC game."

It's hard. I know. It's like when you're having sex and you try to think about baseball. That corn dog smell is just so overwhelming. It makes it hard for you to think about football or baseball or whatever else. Your brain wanders into corn dog topics like: "Gee, I wonder if I took a bite of your finger, if you would taste just like a corn dog?"; or "Is this a real person or is it a giant corn dog trying to make me think it is a real person?" or "What did that giant corn dog just say?" or "Excuse me, Mister, why is it that you smell just exactly like corn dogs smell?" or, of course, after a silencer: "Madam, did you just let the corn dogs out?"

Heck, after what I've heard about LSU fans, I think it may be better not to smell them at all. Okay, not all of them. Some of them are nice. Sure. Smell the nice ones. That's okay.

You know what else is a bad thing to do? Holding your nose around them. They are real sensitive to that, too. Try holding your breath. But don't be obvious about it. Somehow they know you're trying not to breathe in the corn dog smell. And that offends them. They'll likely punch you for that if they catch on to what you're doing.

If you do breathe it in long enough, though, it'll permeate your whole body, and then you'll smell like a corn dog just like they do. But don't say, "Dang, now I smell like a corn dog." They take offense to that. And they will throw things. But not corn dogs. Hard stuff. Stuff that leaves bruises and makes you bleed. Then you may have to get stitches or something. Just don't say it. If you do start smelling like a corn dog, just shut up about it. Okay?

I think kids are acutely aware of corn dog smells too. Counsel your kids on how to behave around LSU fans. If LSU fans are driving around town, do not let your kids stick their heads out of your car window and sniff the air. No. Keep your windows rolled up. An odd change in their expression - indicating they smell corn dogs - might get a wrench or pipe or some other object tossed at your windshield. So, that's
dangerous. Let your kids stick their heads out of the car windows as you drive - on some other weekend

I know you are just as puzzled as I am about some of this corn dog stuff. What puzzles me most is that I've never actually seen any of these LSU fans with a corn dog in their hand. Okay, maybe there's no mystery there - maybe they already ate the corn dogs. Who knows?

Maybe there's a corn dog factory in Baton Rouge and they all work there. Maybe, there's a corn dog lotion that they wear, or a French perfume. Maybe their city council puts corn dog juice in the water supply - kind of like fluoride. The politics there are probably weird. The big political issue during the city election is whether they should add more ketchup or more mustard to the water. Don't comment on it though. It's not politically correct over there. It's like a malnutrition issue or something. It's like the corn dogs are probably added to the water to prevent starvation or something.

I know when you go to Baton Rouge, you're thinking: "Ahhhh. Here I am in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I'll bet the people here smell just like boiled crawfish or shrimp etoufee' or some fancy Cajun food." But just stop thinking that. That's just a myth. They smell just like corn dogs.

In fact, please listen to my advice. Leave them alone about the corn dog odor. And don't try masking the odor with something stronger. They'll curse at you. They'll say something like: "WTF, how dare you smoke a cigar in my home," or "WTF!! Are you too good for the smell of corn dogs?" and they'll cuss out your kids too: "WTF!!! Little Mister fancy pants over here acts like he doesn't want to smell like corn dogs."

Cajuns are not like us. Don't you see that, yet? They are really sensitive about being sniffed and about their corn dog aroma. They know they smell like corn dogs and it is no laughing matter to them at all. I know, I know. We sniff the bammers and the UGA dawgs and the Ole messes, and we keep a straight face with each of them, but don't press your luck with the Cajun tiger fans. Don't refer to Death Valley as corn dog valley either. I mean that's just wrong. Even if you've been drinking, they'll beat you up and curse out your kids.

Along these lines, be extra careful when you laugh in their direction - even if you're laughing about something else. Like baseball or football, or sex or whatever. If you can't control yourself and you must laugh though, do not snort. The snorting makes them think that you smell their corn dog body odor from a distance or that you're choking on it or something. They'll likely burn your van for that. We lost a campus building over just one snort.

So, just remember. You can love one another without sniffing each other. You can enjoy the clash of a couple of good football teams. You can enjoy the thrill of the rivalry. But after the game, please heed my words. Please just move along. No sniffing the opposing fans this Saturday. Okay? Get your corn dog jollies at home.

Enough with this corn dog talk. Let's play ball...

Sleuth plays football in the Ritz Carlton: Postlude

There remains only the summing up.

Throughout the remainder of the evening, the Fab Four were summoned on several occasions to return to the Ritz for questioning, etc.
Each time, they were escorted by Jessie H.
Each time, they walked through the front entrance of the Ritz.
And each time, the Foursome were met by multiple Ritz staff and personnel, who opened the doors and stood at attention as they whooped and hollered and applauded and shook the hands of the unlikely heroes.

[PICTURE: Eagle-Eye Jonathan identifies the captured crook]

Jessie H. was a likeable character, and the Fab Four soon felt comfortable enough to converse with Jessie about the events of the evening. It didn't take long to discover that the whole thing had been recorded on the hotel's video surveillance camera. The boys pleaded with Jessie to see it, but he firmly resisted (and probably with good legal reason). Daniel was perhaps the most visibly frustrated, and Jessie finally offered this consolation: "I've been a security guard and personal body guard for celebrities for a long time, and I've seen a lot of surveillance tapes - but I've never seen anything like this. You guys were AWESOME!"

Say no more, Jessie, say no more.

The next morning, the Manager/Operator of the Phoenix Ritz honored the Four before the entire Blackstone group, and he presented them with multiple Ritz gifts, including clothing and gift certificates for a free night stay at any Ritz in the world.

Later that morning, the Boys were summoned to the hotel lobby, where they learned that the $140,000 worth of jewelry had been on loan from a local jeweler, and did not actually belong to the Ritz. As a token of gratitude, the local jeweler brought the Four to his store, where he presented them each with a new $550 watch, along with several hundred dollars worth of men's cologne and women's perfume.

After the final Blackstone banquet on Thursday night, the Four, along with dozens of other interns, had lingered in the conference hall taking pictures and enjoying the last few hours in the Ritz. Slowly, the numbers had dwindled as more and more folks left to return to their rooms or to head to Nixon's. Sleuth, Jonathan and Chris remained, talking with the few lawyers and other distinguished guests who were still in the conference hall. As they turned to leave, they stopped to shake hands with the head of Blackstone's parent organization and the banquet's key note speaker, Alan. After they thanked him for his speech and for helping make Blackstone possible, Alan turned to them both and offered one last parting charge to the three young men:

"Now, go change the world."

Charged with those words of exhortation, and a mere twenty minutes later, those three men (and their valuable fourth partner) seized the day and the opportunity to live up to Alan's challenge. And while they were at it, they seized a couple of would be criminals too.
[Video footage of the Fab Four retelling the entire event is forthcoming]

[Picture: three of the four with Alan]

Sleuth plays football in the Ritz Carlton, Part 3

The boys were thankful to see the security guards arrive. Actually, Chris and Sleuth were thankful. Jonathan and Daniel got the crap scared out of them.

Since it was nearly 11pm, the doors were locked so that only exiting through the side entrance was permitted. For some reason, still undetermined, the security guards took the longest possible route and ran around the outside of the building, so that their arrival to the scene of the action required reentry into the building. Through the locked doors.

Now, while the struggle between good and evil was taking place on the Ritz floor, Daniel and Jonathan had alertly moved to guard the exit doors, both standing with their backs to the exit to stop any further attempts at escape should (Allah forbid) the crook wriggle free. As they stood there in shock and awe, watching their two friends struggle for their lives and helpless to offer any true assistance, their minds were equally on edge with the thought of the escaped felon who was on the loose outside the hotel. For all they knew, he could be lurking in the shadows just outside the exit, waiting for his friend to escape, or even worse, devising a plan to come back and rescue his waylaid companion.

It was at that very moment that the security guards encountered the locked doors.

Jonathan and Daniel nearly wet their pants.

Knowing the doors were locked, the guards had made no attempt for peaceable entry, but booked a beeline for the doors and immediately began pounding with all their might, demanding that they be let in. For Jonathan and Daniel, this was none other than the sound of the escaped crook, angered by what had happened and returning with a posse of bandits, armed with assault weapons and burlap sacks.

The justified fright was soon overcome, and Jesse H., the head security officer, busted through the exit, grabbed the crook from Sleuth and Chris, and body slammed him against the wall. The thief was escorted away to an interrogation room in the back of the hotel.

Our heroes crowded around the suitcase to examine the objects of the crooks attempted robbery. The scene was photographed, and the Fab Four helped the Ritz staff clean up the spilled jewels. They did not look like much, but they would soon learn that the jewelry was valued at a total of nearly $15o,000. After answering some questions and filling out their contact info, the Fab Four were anxious to be on their way. The events of the last 20 minutes were still surreal, and the four men were more concerned about missing out on the hanging out at Nixon's than they were with what had just taken place. As they prepared to leave the Ritz for Nixon's, they came across a group of lovely young ladies who were likewise about to head back to the bar. Concerned for their safety, given the fact that a criminal was still on the loose, the Fab Four offered their protection (and their arms) as they escorted the women to Nixon's.

It's been said that there are only two things that are guaranteed in life: death and taxes. I would add, while perhaps not a guarantee, you can bet on two more things: news travels fast, and when it reaches its destination, it's generally only about half true. For example, note the following account of what happened next in this story:

Meanwhile, word of the foursome’s heroics rippled in to the front of Nixon’s, the official bar of Blackstone. I had the privilege of being the first in the bar to hear about the melee due to my proximity to the door. The news came in: “[Sleuth], Jonathan, Chris, and Daniel tackled a couple of guys that were stealing from the Ritz! But one of them got away.”

The news quickly spread from the front door of Nixon’s to the nearby tables: "[Sleuth], Jonathon, Chris, and Daniel beat up a couple of criminals in their attempted heist of the Ritz! I think one of them had a knife.”

At the bar, the above words combined with a few Hoegaardens to create the following: “Dude! Our four heroes beat up two armed robbers. Lit caught on to their plot and immediately called Chris, [Sleuth], and Daniel for backup. [Sleuth] gave one of them a roundhouse so hard that it slammed him into the wall! Chris immediately stepped in like Rocky on a Russian in the 3rd round. And Daniel and the other crook wrestled out of a fourth story window, landing in the pool. The impact stunned Daniel just enough so that the robber could get away for a second and grab the skid of a helicopter. As he held on with one arm, he fired his machine gun back at Daniel in the pool with his other arm. One of the bullets brazed Daniel’s arm—it kind of looks like rug-burn.”

Needless to say, when the four arrived at Nixon’s, some clapped while others applauded. A few cheered with vigorous merriment, all vowing to name their firstborns after the heroes.

The majority of that account is true.

As the four opened the door to Nixons, with the ladies by their side, the entire bar, packed shoulder to shoulder with interns, staff, and local yokels, erupted in applause - a standing ovation. Never before in all of Blackstone had such hootin' and hollerin' been heard. Like the Red Sea, a pathway parted through the crowd from the doorway to the bar. Like a presidential candidate on a campaign stop, the four made their way through the crowd, shaking hands and posing for pictures as they went. The bar was abuzz with the news of their heroics, and the rest of teh night was spent retelling the story of the biggest foiled robbery in Blackstone history. With the Ritz paying their tab, the Fab Four spent the rest of the night enjoying the fruit of their labors...


to be continued...

Sleuth plays football in the Ritz Carlton, Part 2

We're pretty sure that most guys, at some point in their life, have dreamed of tackling a would be criminal. That's why we love action movies, comic books, and superheros. If only WE had a chance to go head to head with the bad guys, then maybe we'd be as sweet and totally awesome as the dudes on TV. And maybe the hot girls would like us now.

Although they didn't know it at the time, that was exactly the situation the Fab Four were in when we last left them.

Imagine the familiar scene of the main street in a small western town...an empty dirt road with trading posts and saloons on either side. A few tumbleweed bouncing across the dusty street as two groups of cowboys square off, each staring resolutely at the other, daring them to make the first move. Good guys v. bad guys, everyone holding their breath in anticipation of what will happen. Time stands still...

This was nothing like that.

Jonathan was gathering his wits after being nearly run over by the fleeing jewel thieves, while Sleuth, Daniel and Chris were stuck somewhere between "speechless" and "braced for impact." The two crooks were flying full speed down the hallway toward the Fab Four - a collision was inevitable. That's when the Blackstone instinct kicked in, and the sharp minds of well-trained law students took over (though cleverly disguised by their chiseled abs and incredibly good looks). The three interns put their hands together, yelled "Triangulate!", and before you could say "Jack Robinson," the Sleuth, Daniel and Chris formed a flying V (which looks very much like a triangle) and jumped into action.

Dumb Crook #1 zigged and zagged to the right, heading straight for Sleuth. Now, when most guys dream of apprehending a criminal or warding off the bad guys, they probably imagine an amazing fist fight, or a flying tackle from a second story window. Evidently, the Sleuth had never thought about these things before, or if he had, the thought of a full fledge linebacker tackle did not cross his mind in the seconds leading up to his formal introduction to Dumb Crook #1. So when the the crook came barreling down on him at full speed, he did what immediately came to mind, and stepped aside to avoid the hit.

And then he tripped him.

Not just any trip, mind you, but a bonafide I-will-make-you-wish-you'd-never-walked-by-me trip. In fact, just to make sure the nature of his tripping was clear, Sleuth put a little umph behind his tripping leg. Instant replay later showed that he actually scissor-kicked the robber in the kneecaps.

[Below: Chris and Daniel show off their battle wounds]

Up went Dumb Crook #1's legs, down went Dumb Crook #1's head. His face planted right in the carpet. Sleuth whirled around, only to witness Chris "That's why my friends call me Whiskers" pounce on top of the crook like a cat on a mouse. Though the details are a bit hazy, the Fab Four later discussed and confirmed that at this point a voice from heaven boomed out: "Dogpile!" Sleuth needed no second invitation. He dove on top of Chris, and the three wrestled around on the ground for over a minute. Sleuth managed to get his right arm around Dumb Crook #1's head, and kept him in a headlock while he kicked and punched and kept yelling "It wasn't me...I didn't do it." The getaway car keys and black suitcase laying on the floor, now open with jewels strewn across the floor, suggested that Dumb Crook #1 was not being completely honest.

With Sleuth and Chris occupied, this left Daniel in a one-on-one with Dumb Crook #2. Unknown to many, Daniel was a star wide receiver in high school, and despite being removed from the game for over 4 years, his football skills were still sharp. So, like any good wide receiver does after his team has turned over the ball and he's suddenly faced with playing defense, Daniel did exactly what he was trained to do:

He dropped down in the fetal position and attempted to chop block the fleeing robber.

Daniel's coach would have been proud. The robber flew threw the air and landed with a thud on the carpet behind him. To the robber's delight, the exit doors (and freedom) were only a few feet away from where he skidded to a halt. To his dismay, a 6'2" University of Richmond Law School 2L was holding on to his ankles. The two engaged in an epic hand to feet combat. Daniel was dragged across the carpet and was wounded in the battle. The crook eventually managed to wriggle free and escaped out of the side doors.

[Above: Daniel's rug burn]

Meanwhile, Sleuth and Chris had finally subdued Dumb Crook #1, and although he continued to struggle slightly, Sleuth firmly held him in a headlock while Chris helped pin him to the ground. Jonathan and Daniel stood by the doors to prevent any further escape attempts, and an excited bellhop was yelling frantically into his walkie talkie for security guard assistance.

At this point, Sleuth made what some would deem a brash decision, motivated in part by the fact that he was beginning to feel a little awkward as he lay crotch-to-butt on top of a complete stranger in the middle of the Ritz floor. With words of motivation from Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris ringing in his ears, he and Chris picked the criminal up off the ground, and with all their strength slammed him up against the wall. The crook began to fight again, so Sleuth responded by choking his neck and sternly reprimanding him: "If you keep fighting I'm gonna keep choking you harder!!" As they pinned him to the wall, he began to grasp violently for his back left pocket, and realizing that he was likely trying to get a knife or other weapon, Chris yelled out to Sleuth and struggled to keep the Dumb Crook from reaching his pocket.

Security arrived just in the knick of time...

(to be continued)

Laughing old man

My brother and little sister showed me this tonight. I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while...

Sleuth Plays Football in the Ritz Carlton, Part I

The Sleuth once told me that he couldn't begin to count the number of times he'd heard or used the phrase "right place at the right time."

He CAN count the number of times that he has been in the right place at the right time. Once. More particularly, August 2, 2007.

It was a night like any other night (at least, any other night that you're spending in the Ritz Carlton in Phoenix). The Ritz staff were just finishing cleaning up the main conference room where the Blackstone Legal Fellowship had held its closing banquet for the 2007 summer internship. It was the last night of Blackstone '07 and everyone, and I do mean everyone, was headed to Nixon's (a local bar just around the corner) to top of the evening, and the summer, with some good ol' fellowshipping (and perhaps a brewski or two).

The hotel was empty. 10:30 is usually a dead time around the Ritz - too late for the average business traveler to be up and wandering around the facilities; too early for the rabble rousing crowd to be back from their night of frolicking and merriment.

Everyone from Blackstone was already at Nixon's, with the exception of a few stragglers. The Sleuth, Chris, and Daniel had finally made their way downstairs and were ready to enjoy one last night with friends. Jonathan hurriedly got cash from the ATM, so as not to keep the other three waiting. [See photo. Pictured left to right: Jonathan, Chris, Daniel, Sleuth].

Jonathan stuffed the Hamiltons into his wallet and started to walk down the hallway toward the side exit where Sleuth, Chris and Daniel were waiting impatiently. As he passed the main hallway that led past the elevators and the gift shop to the front lobby, check-in desk, and main entrance to the Ritz, he cast a glance to his left down the hall in hopes of seeing some celebrity milling about the lobby before heading out on the town. After all, the Braves, Giants, and Red Sox had all stayed in the Ritz since Blackstone had been there, and rumor had it that some of the Blackstone girls have even chatted it up with the Goo Goo Dolls one night in the hotel bar adjacent to the lobby. Seeing nothing, he kept walking.

Then he stopped. Like one of those games you see in the Sunday comics, something was not quite right in the mental picture of the main hallway that his mind had just taken. Confused, he took a few steps backward and looked down the hallway again. What was wrong with this picture? Mezmerized, he stared for over 30 seconds before suddenly processing what his eyes were witnessing.

Meanwhile, the fellas down the hall were getting antsy. One was ready to mingle, one was ready to play, and one was already tired and ready for bed. They urged Jonathan to pick up the pace, but he stood motionless and did not acknowledge their calls, instead staring down the hallway toward the front of the building. The seconds drug on, until finally he took a few steps toward them and nonchalantly said:

"Yall, I think these guys are robbing the Ritz."

No sooner were the words out of his mouth than two men came tearing around the corner, knocked Jonathan out of the way, and headed down the hall toward Sleuth and Co. As he fell backwards, he managed to yell out, "Hey, stop those guys!"

Let us give you a verbal blueprint for the lay out of what happened next. The first floor of the Ritz contains numerous paintings and various decorative objects. The main hallway along the back of the hotel, off of which the various conference rooms open up, was lined with several display cabinets. The cabinets held expensive China, artifacts, jewelry, etc. There were several more similar hutches in the hallway that led to the front of the Ritz. As Jonathan had walked by the front hall, he had noticed two men standing next to an open hutch with a black suitcase in hand, unloading jewels from the display case and into the open suitcase. At first his mind had assumed they were Ritz employees. Then he backed up and looked again. After watching their behavior and the manner in which they were removing the jewelry, he quickly was convinced that they were not employees, but were in fact dubious hooligans of the thieving variety. The jewels they were taking did not belong to them, and as we all know, that's called stealing.

Jonathan realized what he was witnessing at just about the same time that the two thieves realized they were spotted. When he stepped past the hall intersection to alert us to the fact that the Ritz was being robbed, the robbers split. Knowing they'd never make it past the bellhops and security at the main entrance, their plan of escape was the side entrance, where 3 double doors and no bodies stood between them and freedom.

No bodies, that is, except Sleuth, Daniel, and Chris.

There are certain situations in life when your mind and body begin acting, usually react, long before you've actually thought about what was actually happening. Like an animal, a person's instincts kick in, and you act not as a result of contemplated conduct, but merely as a reaction to the situation presented. This was one of those times.

In under 1.5 seconds the two robbers covered the 75+ feet between the intersection of the halls and where Sleuth, Chris, and Daniel stood surprised. Seeing only 3 average law students standing in confusion between them and freedom, the two robbers figured they could blow past these unknowing bystanders and be out the door in no time.

They couldn't have been more wrong...

(To be continued...)

Wonder what he thinks about cockfighting?

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.