Superbowl Parable

We overheard this story on the radio last week:

Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady went to see God, and God asked Peyton Manning, "What do you believe?"
Peyton said, "I believe in family, winning, and going after everything you can when you got the opportunity."
God said, "I like that belief, take a seat on my left side."

God turned to Brett Favre and asked, "What do you believe?" Favre said, "I believe in winning, going after everything, taking care of family."
"Man, I really like that belief, sit on my right side," God replied.

Finally, God asked Tom Brady, "What do you believe?"

Tom Brady replied, "I believe you're in my seat."


We're taking last night's game as an indication that God didn't exactly agree.

Foreclosing on the NYT

Query whether Hillary, if elected president, will bail out the increasingly struggling New York Times much like she intends to bail out thousands of Americans who borrowed more money than they could afford when they purchased their last home.

It seems consistent, and would only be fair. Consistent, because both plans mean propping up a business that "the market" has determined is not profitable/successful. Fair, because, well, she owes them.

Palmetto Politics

Our Boring Governor

Laughing with the next (?) POTUS

Who has the funnier family, the Obamas, or the Romneys?
We laugh, you decide.

Beer Politics

Which of the presidential candidates would you rather have a beer with in 2008? That's the question that the National Beer Wholesaler's Association is asking. An interesting question, though we fail to see how that "quality" bears any relation to the requisite merits for elected office. If anything, it's probably a disqualification - most of our more entertaining drinking buddies would make terrible presidents, and fun for pints does not = good for president.

And yet, the poll is revealing. After all, our generation epitomizes the coffee shop and pub culture - we're generally not going to march, or riot, or get too dirty in one cause or another, but by golly if we won't sit around and talk about it over a cup of coffee or a couple of beers. For Gen X, perhaps the most important characteristic we look for in relationship, and in trusting someone, is authenticity. Who are more authentic than then the folks you regularly imbibe with, or the seemingly intelligent philosophe who's always at the coffee shop?

A few other comments:
The leader in the poll is Obama. This underscores our general perception of his campaign as one of identity politics and/or populism. "You drink with me and I'll drink with you...and we will drink together, and we will vote together..."

Ron Paul and John McCain are second and third. This probably because we can count on them having some pretty sweet war stories that will come out after pint 5 or 6.

One wonders why Huckabee and Romney are even on the poll. Mormon's don't generally drink, and the once Baptist preacher probably wouldn't even step in the bar with you to begin with. Maybe it's some sort of twisted desire to be the one who gives them their first drink.

Hilary is right in the middle. This is baffling. We're not sure who would vote to have her along on the pub crawl, especially since the thought of her laugh combined with alcohol reminds us too much of Jessica Walters as the ever-tipsy Lucille Bluth in Arrested Development.

Perhaps most surprising is how low John Edwards ranks. Surely, after the bookoodles of money he's made as a noble plaintiff's attorney, we could bank on ol' John picking up the tab for the night. Which is why we'd vote him number one.

Supreme Court YouTube

If Supreme Court justices were ever to enter the world of YouTube, it would probably resemble something like this footnote from a recent opinion by Justice Scalia in Scott v. Harris:

JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that our reaction to the videotape is somehow idiosyncratic, and seems to believe we are misrepresenting its contents. See post, at 4 (dissenting opinion) ("In sum, the factual statements by the Court of Appeals quoted by the Court . . . were entirely accurate"). We are happy to allow the videotape to speak for itself. See Record 36, Exh. A, available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb and in Clerk of Court's case file.
The video is there for the watching. Enjoy, Justice Stevens.

Overheard

The law school has a limited number of "deluxe" study carrels available for student use. We use "deluxe" to distinguish these carrels, which are given only to winners of a school-wide lottery OR distinguished members of the SC Law Review, from the regular carrels available on a first come first serve basis. Also, the deluxe carrels have a door w/lock, window, filing cabinet, and built-in shelves.

What they do not have is soundproofing.

The carrels stand approximately 8 feet high, but the walls do not extend to the ceiling. There are about 20 of them side by side and several rows wide. Though most people are respectful of the fact that the carrels are located in a library, and house people who are intent on studying, there are a handful of people who fail to maintain the desired level of quiet.

Those people also seem to forget that everything they say can be heard by anyone within earshot, regardless of whether their door, or their neighbor's door, is closed.

There is one particular person who especially annoys us in this regard. It doesn't help that he is a rather large chap, or that his voice is unusually high and breathy for a man of his size. He speaks with a distinct Southern accent, sort of like Huckleberry Hounddog.

All semester, this particular gentleman would have telephone conversations in his carrel. Generally, he sounded exasperated, perturbed, and upset with the person on the other end. Without fail, however, he would end his conversation with a rather forced "I love you too."

We speculated that he was a newlywed, who's long hours in the library were taking a toll on his relationship with his new bride.

And then we heard this conversation during the final week of Final Exams last December. It was all we could do to keep from laughing out loud as we imagined what was being said on the other end of the phone while we typed out word-for-word what was being said. Like usual, our friend was speaking in his wit's end, frustrated voice:

Huckleberry Houndog: "Yeah, I just finished."

[Our imagination about the what the other conversationalist must have said to warrant that response]: Are you done with your exam?

Huck: "It was about property and stuff."

Imagination: She probably just asked, "What was the exam on?" [funny, you'd think his wife would be on top of this. Also, it doesn't bode well for your grade when your description is "property and stuff"]

Huck: "I don’t really have any clue."

Imagination: She must have asked "How do you think you did?"

Huck: "I can tell you this, every single one of my classmates is going out to have a beer right now."

Imagination: She said, "It was pretty difficult, huh?"

Huck: "Here’s a toned down version: imagine Andre the Giant giving a proctology exam."

Imagination: She must have asked "Well how hard was it?" But ew, please don't make us imagine that.

Huck: "I’m still pulling his foot out of my rectal cavity, it’s pretty far up there right now."

Imagination: If this guy's wife is as smart as he is, she probably had just asked "What's a proctology exam?"

Huck: "No Ma’am, I’m gonna go home and watch a Western, watch John Wayne kill a few people and call it a night."

Imagination: The wife probably just made sure that he wasn't going out drinking with his classmates. She must really have him on a chain...who says ma'am to their wife??

Huck: Let me tell you something, Mother. On the morning of December 12th I don’t want you calling the house early, because I’m gonna be asleep in my bed.

Imagination: MOTHER?!?! NO. WAY. It's his mom he's been talking to all of these weeks? WOW, this totally changes everything!! Quick, find someone to come listen to this...

Huck: "Mom, I’m hanging up the phone. I don’t want to listen to another one of your lectures."

Imagination: This is unbelievable.

Quote of the Week

District Court Judge Rakoff:

''To Federal prosecutors of white-collar crime, the mail fraud statute is our Stradivarius, our Colt .45, our Louisville Slugger, our Cuisinart - and our true love. We may flirt with RICO, show off with 10b-5, and call the conspiracy law ‘darling,’ but we always come home to the virtues of 18 U.S.C. §1341, with its simplicity, adaptability, and comfortable familiarity. It understands us and, like many a foolish spouse, we like to think we understand it.”

See for yourself: 18 U.S.C. 1341 - Fraud and Swindles.

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)