Thursday, February 19, 2009
Break
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)