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.