Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Condom arguments

I have a lot of crap to write about ranging from humping toads, computers taking over the world, silly church people arguing about the use of condoms, and Obama's claim to being part Irish. So which one do I talk about today? After flipping a four-sided coin, I've decided to discuss silly church people. It would be great to discuss Obama's heritage as a white man and watching toads frolic in the street, but I must refrain and save those topics for another day.

My reasons for discussing church folks is two-fold: (1) the four-sided coin ultimately determined my fate in this matter; and (2) I actually contemplated taking a Canon Law course in an attempt to becoming one step closer to graduation (then I realized what a stupid idea that was).

To justify posting this on my law school blog, I must come up with a law school reason. That reason is clearly stated in prong two of my reasons for discussing church folks. Now that I'm a broke, homeless bastard (I will gladly accept donations), I need to ensure my financial aid funds are available over the summer to pay the rent. In order to get financial aid for the summer, I'm required to take classes. Well that sucks, what are my options? There are only 3 options for classes offered on campus this summer. I've either taken the others or they won't help me graduate. One of those available courses is Canon Law. For those not in the know, Canon Law is the law as it relates to religion. I don't know much more about it than that. Mostly because I don't give a rat's ass about the law of the Church since the Church no longer rules the world. I assume the Church we speak of is the Catholic Church...after all, I'm in a Catholic law school...I highly doubt we'll be learning any of that Muslim or Baptist nonsense at this institution. After coming to my senses, I've pretty much set my mind on studying abroad over the summer. My ambition to study abroad does not stem from a desire to learn about other cultures and provide aid to dying apes in the Congo. It simply comes from the fact that I need financial aid to pay the rent. That simple. However, there is one thing that interests me about these other countries: what does the beer taste like over there?

Now that I've justified the existence of this post on a law school blog, time to discuss silly church people arguing about condoms. Apparently there is this brilliant (sarcasm? yes.) pastor out there that is concerned with AIDS and is criticizing the Catholic Church and the current Pope about their stance on the AIDS epidemic. First, this pastor is a complete idiot. Does he not realize that the Pope carries with him a cult following that will be quick to kick his ass for talking bad about their master? Second, he misconstrues the Pope's logic behind his stance on the use of condoms. The Pope says that abstinence is the only method to preventing AIDS and he is definitely correct. However, crazy pastor dude thinks that the Pope needs to come to his senses and realize that people don't wait for marriage and instead screw like rabbits. Where crazy pastor dude goes wrong is when he starts to question the Pope's stance on condoms. The whole reasoning for the Pope failing to endorse the use of condoms is because of religious beliefs. Think about it, once the Catholic Church accepts and endorses condoms, it basically sends the message to all priests and school children that fondling is okay in the community now. So my message to crazy pastor dude is, "Shut up. The Pope doesn't care about what you think. He doesn't care about what anyone thinks. He's the man. He flashes his wand and millions bow down. Get over it." Crazy pastor dude thinks that the Pope would be of great assistance by endorsing the use of condoms, but like I said...doing so would go against the Catholic belief that sex should only be used for's not okay to partake in silly, sloppy, hot monkey sex.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

I'm back...finally

It's been about a month since the last post. I kind of forgot about the blog. I'll blame that on the new kegerator and Mardi Gras. Apparently this year's Mardi Gras had the largest turnout in 20 years. At least that's what one of the local news' channels stated. 13 people were shot this year, yet only one died of combat wounds. Not too bad.

Now that I'm back in the swing of things with school, I'll get back to posting on a regular basis. So stay tuned.

Thursday, February 19, 2009


Mardi Gras and the new kegorater have me occupied til the festivities are over. I'll be sure to have great stories afterwards.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Tis the season!!!

Not Christmas, not New Year's, not the goat festival...the heart of Carnival season has arrived. The 2009 Mardi Gras parades start rolling through my neck of the woods beginning this Friday. It's that magical time of year where people from all around the world come together in my city to share beads, boobies, booze, and more. The great thing about Mardi Gras is that it is, in effect, our Spring Break for law school. I guess they assume we won't be completely sober for classes...which is probably a valid assumption. To kick the festivities off just right, I have a brand new keg-o-rater. That means my residence will act as the official bar (for my own consumption that is). I'm sure I'll have some interesting observations about this year's festivities as they kick into full gear. So stay tuned.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Chopping block

The Supreme Court recently handed down a case holding that a passenger in a vehicle can be frisked during a traffic stop provided that the officer has reasonable suspicion that the passenger could possibly be armed and dangerous. This could be good...this could be bad. I'm not a fan of the criminal mind, but at the same time I don't exactly trust law enforcement to the fullest extent either.

When I started typing this post, I was going to elaborate on my views of the outcome of the Supreme Court decision. I got too bored with the first paragraph, so onto my views of criminal punishment instead (much more exciting)...

You'll never catch me dealing with criminal law because, quite frankly, I support the idea that much harsher punishment should be available within our legal system. Sending folks to the Pen is a waste of time. I don't want to pay tax dollars to feed those that steal what I've earned. And screw the three-strike rule. I vote for the 10 strike rule...chop a finger off each time one of these convicts thieves an innocent person. By the time they're down to two thumbs, the ability to steal becomes non-existent. If they get busted running from the cops, eliminate a leg...that ought to slow them down. My 10 strike rule is obviously a little extreme and out of jest, but it does provide a solution to the overpopulation of penal institutions. After all, it only takes a handful of inmates to produce the yearly supply of license plates and roadside trash collection services.

People are too politically correct nowadays. What happened to the firing squads? The argument goes: they're people too, they have feelings and rights, blah, blah, blah. I support leveling the playing field just like Obama. However, my leveling begins with harsher punishment.

Monday, February 2, 2009

More randomness

I have failed the blogosphere once again. My lack of posting could be blamed on several things, but let's just cut to the chase. I've forgotten about any loyal readers that might exist. I don't feel bad about it, so no apology coming your way...

Here are some random thoughts that just popped in my head after overhearing some whining nag bitching to the cashier about her ex-husband while I was at a local store.

Let's discuss divorce attorneys, shall we? Or better yet, why I would never be a divorce attorney. To start with, I don't really believe in divorce. It's a contract. If you breach, you shall be tortured. If you screw up and enter into a bargain (or lack thereof) that fails to provide adequate results, then that's your fault. Do your research. Generally speaking, a divorce comes about due to a lack of knowledge on your part and the failure to exert the proper effort in obtaining said knowledge. I understand that there are extraordinary circumstances in which one may not foresee trouble up ahead, but that's a drift away from the norm. Hence, very few legitimate reasons exist to justify a divorce. Such reasons may include: your wife got knocked up by the mailman, your husband likes playing with pogo sticks as much as you do, your significant other is in prison for killing the kids, your significant other has other significant others, your kids are too ugly and you're looking to find a better specimen to improve the next batch, etc., etc. Even the previously mentioned examples are your own damn fault. Sorry, but the truth hurts.

I think of divorce attorneys as being on the same level as ambulance chasers and public defenders. Most likely they're in that field of law for a reason; namely, the inability to succeed in law school. Why would anyone want to deal with battered wives who used spatulas to sever the genitals that once pleased them? Why would anyone want to deal with husbands that got demoted to dish washer from burger chef after getting caught molesting the store manager's 16-year old daughter? It's a complete waste of time. Maybe I'm just not sincere. Maybe I think you should dig yourself out of your own hole. Who knows? The big issue with divorce is determining who gets what for having to put up with the other's crap. The only equitable solution to a divorce is a classical Wild West duel. If you don't come to the show shooting blanks, you just might take home the pot.

There is a reason that representing corporate clients is much more appealing. You don't have to deal with: "I thought I could shoot that old hag. She stepped on my property and violated the restraining order." Instead you're much more likely to deal with competent folks. Competent folks get divorces too, but that's just because prostitution is more affordable for the rich...<--another valid reason for divorce.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Organazational structuring

The porn industry is now asking the government for a $5 billion bailout. The movement is being headed by Larry Flynt and Joe Francis (publisher of Hustler and CEO of Girls Gone Wild, respectively). According to Flynt, the porn industry is hurting and therefore the health of the American people is going down the tubes. Flynt seems to think that we need sex more than vehicles and home loans. He must be living in some fantasy land. Where are people supposed to have sex if they can't obtain home loans? Last time I checked, public nudity gets you tossed into jail. Once in jail, you're subject to sex with Bubba (may not be the type you're into, but it's still sex, or so that's Flynt's mindset). Using Flynt's logic, it seems the lack of being able to obtain a home loan may be a good thing. Free sex at your local penal institution is not the type of sex that most Americans are looking for, but I guess it's the thought that counts. Thanks Flynt. You're a genius.

I tend to keep my blog tied to my experiences with law school and other related crap. Not that this has a whole lot to do with law school, but I'm taking a class involving corporate law this semester. Our professor tells us that we need to stay on top of current events involving the economy. So I thought, "Porn provides for a great economic discussion." And to my fellow Americans I say, "Whack it harder pal!"