The most quoted passage at Blackstone: Phase I

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

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

Cross Country Playlist

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

Nap, mostly.

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

South Carolina
Amos Lee - Supply and Demand

North Carolina
Jason Harrod - Living in Skin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The little things that drive you crazy

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

But what we really liked was the music.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Us: [speechless] [also, staring]

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

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

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

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

Sales Dude: "Wow."

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

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

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

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

========

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday Warbling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cho was evil.

Is allowing the above described procedures any better?

The blood truly is on our hands.

Perspective...

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

God's Grandeur
Gerard Manley Hopkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science says so: global warming and literal 6 day creation are Fo' Rizzle

"The 2007 Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy Survey on American Attitudes on the Environment reveals that Americans want action on global warming and energy conservation – and most agree that they have a responsibility to do their part." - Memorandum from the Global Strategy Group to the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy

I read and hear stuff like this every day; not so subtle ways of promoting the global warming theory/agenda. It assumes that global warming is true. It proposes that most peope assume the same. And it implies that anyone who begs to differ is out of step with reality and science.
To be honest, I haven't made up my mind completely on the global warming issue.

But I do know this - it's anything but a scientific consensus.

The liberal talking head on some PBS show I was watching the other night scoffed at another round table participant when he suggested that there was scientific evidence contradicting some fundamental premises of the global warming theory. She said something to the effect of "only a right wing conservative like you, and few others, are still having that argument about whether global warming is scientific." As proof that it is, she noted how much the media and popular culture accept it as fact.

If that is the measure of scientific validity, then my name is Abe Lincoln.
And the liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Here's why:

The memo I quoted above is based on the recently published Yale Environmental Poll. Poll results include:

**The percentage of Americans who say global warming is a serious problem has risen to 83% from 70% in 2004.

**More than two out of three (68%) Americans agree that global warming is something people can control. And fully 81% agree with the statement, “It is my responsibility to help reduce the impacts of global warming.”

**Close to two-thirds (63%) of Americans agree that our country “is in as much danger from environmental hazards such as air pollution and global warming as it is from terrorists.”

** 58% agree that "as the Bible says, the world was literally created in six days."

Wait a second. What was that? Not even evangelicals have a consensus on that last point - and yet a majority of Americans think Moses (and God) got it right?

If that's the case, why aren't the liberals and mass media on huge campaigns for 6 day creation? (Surely only an uninformed ignoramus, and few others, are still having that argument about whether 6 day creation is scientific) Why aren't former vice presidents (and presidential hopefuls) getting Oscars for documentaries supporting the "Biblical" theory (query whether 6 day creation and Biblical theory are synonymous?) of how the earth came into being? (if you don't think that Oscar was politically motivated and the biggest rigged award ever, I don't know what is)

I mean, you can't argue with science, right? Basically, if you read this poll correctly, the biblical story of creation has only slightly less scientific merit than global warming.

So why don't we here the global warming folks championing the unquestionable scientific fact of literal 6 day creation?

One possible answer is revealed further in the Yale Poll.

71% of the people polled agreed with the statement "I consider myself an intellectual."
59% agreed that "I have more ability than most people."

America is made up of an overwhelming majority of intellectuals, a majority of whom have more ability than the majority. If you don't believe me, ask 2 out of every 3 people you know. They'll know what I mean.

Humor from Father Sleuth

Our dad just sent us this. He's quite the philosopher/theologian...

Happy St. Patty's Day (Alabama style)

Despite the continued search for the Wee Lil' Man, it appears some of these folks have already discovered the "Pot O' Gold Teeth..."

Some Inconvenient Statistics

I watched a little of the Oscars the other night. Until "An Inconvenient Truth" picked up a trophy for Best Documentary. I got a sick feeling in my stomach just listening to Al Gore speak. At least is wasn't John Kerry.

Evidently, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a report on Gore's personal participation in the global warming scam - TCPR obtained utility records from Gore's mansion, which they described as "located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville":

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

The Tennessean reports, however, that Gore is buying his indulgences:

Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources. . . .

"Every family has a different carbon footprint," said Kalee Krider, a spokeswoman for Gore. The Gores' 10,000-square-foot house on Lynnwood Boulevard has a large one.

The Green Power Switch program isn't all that Gore and his wife, Tipper, are doing, Krider said.

They use compact fluorescent light bulbs and are in the midst of a renovation project that includes having solar panels installed on their home to reduce fossil fuel consumption, she said.

Their car? A Lexis hybrid SUV.

"They, of course, also do the carbon emissions offset," she said.

That means figuring out how much carbon is emitted from home power use, and vehicle and plane travel, then paying for projects that will offset that with use of renewable energy, such as solar power.

According to WSJ, however, "not every wealthy politician lives in a vast private mansion, and TreeHugger.com reports on one who lives more simply:"

Is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. "By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. "Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses." Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. "They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it," Heymann says. "So we bought all this throwaway stone. It's fabulous. It's got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.

Just keeping it real.

Quote of the Day: Irony or Coincidence?

“I had never really traced my family history...”

—Al Sharpton, who has repeatedly demanded reparations, upon finding that an ancestor was owned by a distant relation of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond

Yankees...worse than fire ants

"Slowly but surely they have taken over Hilton Head, they've taken over Beaufort County. They're infiltrating Jasper County...they're worse than fire ants."
-Henry Ingram

After discussing a case in property today regarding negative deed restrictions that prohibited the sale of property to Negroes and Mongolians (why Mongolians were mentioned I have no idea - guess I forgot about that huge influx of Asian immigrants in St. Louis in the 1910's), our professor presented us with an interesting story.

A dude in South Carolina (Henry Ingram), owner of the Delta Plantation just north of Savannah GA, has certain restrictive covenants preventing the sale or lease of his property to people of the "Yankee race."

These prohibitions include:
1. Anyone from north of the Mason Dixon line (or who have lived above the line for over a year)
2. Anyone with the last name of Sherman, or whose last name can be rearranged to spell Sherman
3. No redwood can be used on the property (evidently there are certain types of redwood named after General Sherman)

Thankfully, ol' Henry has lightened up a bit in his old age. Now, the modified covenant allows a Yankee to purchase the land, only on the condition that he recite a Southern Oath, promising that "when speaking of Yankees, I will refer to them as scalawags or carpetbaggers." Furthermore, these proselytized folks must "whistle or hum Dixie as a sign of [their] loyalty and as a token of [their] new outlook on life."

Ahhh...just another fine day in South Carolina property law land.

Northerners are a people lost to all shame . . . cowards by nature, thieves upon principle, and assassins at heart. . . . The tiger that laps the blood and the beetle that gorges excrement, are but Yankees of the animal kingdom . . . our feelings towards [these] scarabi and vipers of humanity should be characterized neither by rage nor nausea, but by a fixed cheerful Christian determination to . . . curb their inordinate and bloody lusts by such adequate means as natural with suggests; and, as a general thing, to kill them without idle question as to whether they are reptiles or vermin. - John Daniel, Richmond Enquirer, 1863

V-day and Global Warming (but not in my words)

I'm so busy entertaining all the various lady friends in my life, I don't have time for original thoughts on this Valentines Day.

But James Taranto from the Wall Street Journal does:

London's Daily Telegraph reports that sending flowers on Valentine's Day can contribute to warming--and not just of your sweetie's heart:

The Valentine's Day bouquet--the gift that every woman in Britain will be waiting for next week--has become the latest bête noire among environmental campaigners.

Latest Government figures show that the flowers that make up the average bunch have flown 33,800 miles to reach Britain. . . .

Environmentalists warned that "flower miles" could have serious implications on climate change in terms of carbon dioxide emissions from aeroplanes.

The Telegraph's headline reads "Valentine Bouquets 'Are Bad for the Planet.' " It occurred to us that some neglectful husbands and boyfriends are going to use this as an excuse: I would have sent you flowers, honey, but I wanted to save the planet. Trust us on this one, guys, it won't work.

On the other hand, think of how much more meaningful it now is if you do send flowers. The message: You mean more to me than the whole world. This may be the best thing ever to happen to the floral industry.

Well said James, well said.

Manville Mustache Mania

Lawyers are, by and large, clean-shaven, well groomed, suave looking shmoozers. I'm sure that someday, I will find myself conforming to this stereotype. For now, I've found my own little way to rebel against the status quo.

Two words: fu manchu.



Interviews are approaching, and with them, the unavoidable question...to conform, or not to conform. Put differently, to shave, or not to shave.

Personally, I'm sticking with the 'stache.