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.

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.

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!"

Long weekend up ahead

On a not-so-uplifting note, Mr. Bush will be delivering his final words to the American public as the Commander in Chief tomorrow evening. Such a sad, sad day...and I say that not out of sarcasm. Although his speeches make my IQ drop five points each time I tune in, he did a lot for this country at a critical time. Bash him all you want, but anyone with half a monkey's ass worth of brains would realize that he doesn't make the United States tick day-to-day. That's the legislature. He doesn't pass laws that keep gays from marrying, he didn't cause to market to tumble, he didn't create Hurricane Katrina, he didn't tell the oil companies to jack up the price of gas, and he wasn't the first president to not give a damn about your phones being tapped. So pull your fingers out of your ass and quit whining about him. The day has come for you haters...his term is almost over. Mark my words however, as he will go down as a remarkable figure in presidential history primarily due to the way he handled the war. People weren't too fond of Reagan when he left office, but they sure as hell bow down to him now. I just hope Bush raises the middle finger to those that hate him and says, "Kiss this, you liberal sissies!"

Now, since I'm full of energy this evening, time for another topic...

For one of my classes, we read one of those famous Martin Luther King letters in celebration of the upcoming holiday. It seems a bit absurd to read such a document in a law school course since he wasn't exactly an attorney (not that he claimed to be) and it really has nothing to do with Contract law. Maybe something from Gandhi would be more sufficient (at least he had a law degree). It's funny how people in this world seem to think that the holiday is his day. For example, "No class on Monday due to Mr. King's holiday." Well, let's get this straight. It's only his holiday if he were here to celebrate it. Technically, it's simply a day of remembrance. If it was his holiday, then he'd be here to celebrate it. So in all actuality, it's my holiday because I'm the one doing the celebrating. For that matter, it's not even a celebration. It's a day off from school. If it were a celebration, we'd all be throwing down Cinco de Mayo style. Okay, so maybe I will be throwing down Cinco de Mayo style, but that's not because of the particular holiday. My reasons for tossing back the 12 oz. bottles of Jesus Juice on this day of recognition extend no further than the simple fact that I don't have to be at school that day.

Not to detract from Mr. King's contributions to the Civil Rights' movement, but shouldn't there be an Abraham Lincoln holiday as well (okay, so we do have a President's day, but I still have to go to school, so it doesn't count). Hell, he got shot too. Now, I'm not a history major, but I'm pretty sure he played a significant role in the Civil War (which was the start to the abolition of slavery, correct? Once again, I'm no history buff...history is for wienies with nothing better to do with their spare time.) and contrary to popular belief there is no truth to the accusation of Lincoln owning slaves. Maybe I just want an additional day off from school, but that's beside the point. From now on, I think we should create holidays for every time a famous person gets shot. That way my kids will earn a degree without ever stepping foot on a college campus. After all, isn't that the American dream...getting rich by doing nothing? Or do I possess an ill-conceived notion of what the true American dream really is?

Helping hand

Part of the law curriculum includes a pro bono requirement that essentially requires us to do free work which, if you think about it, makes little sense. Most of the pro bono opportunities consist of providing legal assistance to the needy. We haven't passed the bar yet, so it's kind of like awarding an engineering project involving the design and construction of the Golden Gate bridge to a group of welding and electrician students from vocational school. The bridge is doomed to fail. I'm sure our legal assistance won't be of much help either. But it is what it is...an opportunity to test our skills in a laboratory-like environment. A way to bypass part of the requirement is to take a Poverty Law course, so that's what I'm doing this semester. I'm not really sure why it's a requirement. It's great for those that desire to help those in need, but I don't really see much effort getting put into it by those that don't really have an interest in doing so. Engineers aren't required to design electric cars for the poor, investment bankers and stock brokers aren't required to give financial assistance to those that file for bankruptcy, and the NRA isn't required to teach hoodlums how to safely operate the trigger of a TEC-9. I'm not saying that I'm against helping the needy, but I have enough crap to worry about in law school. Save it for later and then maybe I'd be interested.

Back at it

Well folks, I'm back!!!!!!!! Don't blow your wad just yet...at least wait until you finish reading this post. School starts back up tomorrow. It marks the start of the second half of my law school fun. I had a month-long break that included Bourbon Street bar hopping, watching Tide fans mope around the French Quarter after getting tea-bagged by the Mormons, and of course a healthy dose of fried chicken. Oh, I forgot about showing off my elite skills in the sporting category...I kicked ass in some pool, avoided doing the splits at the bowling alley, made people whine over losing a game of darts, and of course schooled those that dared to challenge my video gaming prowess.

Tick, tock

On a vacation away from the blog til school starts back.