Singing Loudly

"If he cracked a joke,
Then you chortled for days..."

Milosevic has begun the defense against some 60 charges of war crimes. In his opening he expresses this oft heard sentiment: "The former Yugoslav president began his defence by denouncing the International Criminal Court as an illegal institution."

With the release of Passion of Christ, I feel compelled to give a very Kierkegaardian expose into a religious feeling that has been rustling around inside of me for awhile. I’m not a theologian, I’m probably not a “good” Christian, and it’s certainly not my intention for this to be something to evangelize. If you care to read you should go for it, but I’ve made necessary disclaimers that it’s heavily imbibed with Christian (although certainly not conservative Christian) beliefs.

I know that it’s been a difficult year for some of my friends; I’ve also had a heck of a year. And I can’t really say it’s been altogether spiritual for me in the former understanding of the word, but I remember vividly about 10 year ago when my friend was in a near-fatal car accident going to visit him in the hospital. I later told my mom that I really didn’t think I had been praying for him like I thought I should. She said to me that sometimes we have a prayer life and sometimes we have a life of prayer; she said, “I believe that every sigh and groan you offer is considered to be a prayer.” That has slowly formed the shell of my religious beliefs.

I think that the one thing that I really have talked to my friends about, and experienced spiritually, is how the idea of boxing spirituality into a certain set of what are considered religious tasks, is a damaging idea. I think that spirituality was always meant to be integrated with who we are as people. When I have studied traditional cultures I found that there are often spiritual activities tied to all sorts of everyday things. Like the Celts for instance had prayers or charms (depending on whether we are talking about pagan or whatnot) that would they would say when milking a cow or lighting a fire or any other activity that affected their daily life.

There is something about that which is really appealing to me. In a lot of traditional religions (not meaning Baptist) there is a sense of attachment of spiritual realities to the physical realities. Example, the rain isn’t coming so the God must be mad. There is a limit to this as it can cause a detrimental situation. If you recall the situation of Job, every evidence suggested that he should (like his wife suggested) just curse God. Job was able to have a faith which was super-circumstantial, it was above the circumstances. He was able to recognize that there was a higher reality, a spiritual reality, that was at work in a way which was not very visible.

At the same time, I think that sometimes what happens to us Christians when we divide everything up into secular and sacred, and we have our job and life personality with our church personality and our home personality is that we end up going in a bad direction. We end up associating spirit with life and flesh with death. What I mean by this is that if you follow the history of the certain religions is that you can see views that look at life deeply routed in the physical expression. Giant feasts with wine are seen in the Old Testament.

In a sort of knee jerk reaction many Christians associate the physical with sin. There is a fear of falling into sin that makes many Christians want to cut off all of these things. For example there are some who say that too drink is absolutely anti-spiritual. But there is no evidence in the Bible that this is true: Jesus didn’t accidentally perform his first miracle by turning water into wine; it wasn’t like he was backed into a corner. So it obviously must not be the great sin some people would have you believe it to be.

It does go further than that because drinking can be more of a take it or leave it thing. There is a lot of room between complete sobriety and drunkenness. Sex, for instance, is a wonderful thing. It needs to be in the right context but when it is it isn’t something to be shameful about. So many of us are taught to look at the ground when that word is mentioned or when things are discussed, or when they aren’t discussed. It’s unfortunate when kids have to learn on the playground what things are. I think that is a product of how ashamed many people, because of their beliefs that separate.

I think that often us Christians are separated from being able to live as humans, because we think that to be human is essentially to be sinful. We were created in the image of God and so there is something good and glorious about being human. There is a way in which some people approach faith that is damaging. They say that all things human and physical and of the temporal world are of the devil and all things invisible and of the spiritual world is Godly. That is actually heresy and is something that can lead Christians into serious trouble and lead into living a guilt-ridden and depressed life.

There is no hope for being authentic people if we can’t deal with the fact that we are humans. Sometimes in our faith walk, or journey, we shun the good aspects of humanity along with the bad because we are so afraid of sin. But God didn’t say that when we accept what Christ did and become saved we will leave this world and be transported to some astro-plain. He could have if that was the plan but it wasn’t. He believed in redeeming humanity because he was still happy with what he created. He believed in it so much that he became human to redeem us. From the Christian understanding of what Jesus did he was resurrected in the human form. Even now Jesus is in human form. This expression of solidarity, that approval, is so crucial in living through faith.

The reason I’m saying this is that when I’m going through the grief of life it doesn’t always help when people give me the spiritual explanation. Sometimes I think that I’ve strayed from the faith by believing that being human was wrong but God is content with me being human. Come what may in the difficulties and joys of being human.

Anti-aging and anti-wrinkle creams, at one time, were considered illegal by the FTC. Why are magazines filled with the ads today? Was the court, in 1944 just being paternalistic to females?

Before the Federal Trade Commission Act was passed in 1914 there was little way for consumers to really be protected unless they went through the rigors of trial. Really, it wasn't until Congress amended the mandate of the FTCA from unfair methods of competition in commerce to both unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce that it really was able to protect consumers.

The FTC is an administrative body that can enforce this mandate through broad investigatory powers, adjudication within, and litigation in the court system. Therefore, if a company is engaged in some sort of deception the FTC can bring a suit against that company to force it to cease and desist.

One of the first ways this came up was in the realm of false advertising. In 1944, the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, helped to define what was necessary for deception under the FTC in the Charles of the Ritz decision. Here was a company that marketed a cosmetic product called "Rejuvenescence Cream" and made over 1 million dollars from its sales during 1935-1939. A period of time where the Great Depression was in its worst and people were jumping out of buildings. A cream was able to make over a million in sales.

The Court agreed with the cease and desist order issued by the FTC. Using the word "Rejuvenescence" was held to deceive the reasonable person because it suggested something that was medically impossible. The FTC had experts in the medical field come in to testify this was medically impossible. The court said that the reasonable person was "ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous" of society.

Look in any of the advertising magazines today and you'll see plenty of ads for anti-wrinkle creams. In More magazine (aimed primarily at older women) has a full page Neutrogena ad that says, "Get 10 years back with Retinal Correction." How is that different from Charles of the Ritz? In Vogue magazine Estee Lauder has an ad that starts, "Can you change the destiny of your skin?" It then goes on to discuss the marvels of genetics. Finally Bazaar offers that if all of this doesn't work then "is it the right time to ask your doctor about Botox?"

What has changed in the 60 years since Charles of the Ritz? Are these ads still aimed at the ignorant and credulous? Is the FTC trying to not be paternalistic to women? I'm not sure what prompted the change but the FTC now Policy Statement Regarding Advertising that supplies companies and advertising firms concrete rules for what they can and cannot advertise. Ultimately they must have a reasonable basis for making their claims. If they don't have a reasonable basis it is a per se violation of section 5 of the FTC.

My guess is that the FTC has realized that technology has changed and it is not possible to have anti-aging creams.

In the NY Times Magazine, Randy Cohen answers an actresses question (Registration req'd) concerning whether she is due a role in a production she helped to create.

She specifically states this: "I worked with the playwright, brought in a director and played the lead in every backer's reading. Both the director and the writer assured me that I was ''attached'' to any full production." She was not given any part at all and wonders whether she was due their promise.

Cohen's reply seems to rest on the fact that he doesn't believe this is the full story. He protects his actual answer by stating that "Like many collaborators, those working on a play often exaggerate their own contributions and minimize that of their colleagues"

This, I've learned the difficult way, is the norm in the theater world. People want a bigger role than they actually have which often makes them exaggerate their contribution. Aside from my ego, this is the reason I won't write collaboratively when I'm writing plays. The last time I did the guy ended up taking all of the credit for the play, and I foolishly didn't have enough documentation to really prove my involvement.

Ultimately Cohen gives his utopian answer, "Your having contributed ideas does not in itself entitle you to a role in the play. That's what actors routinely do; that's what the development process is meant to encourage." Cohen falters with his belief that Equity is going to be of any protection to the majority of actors:

Still, all who contribute to a venture should share in its success. The actress Alison Fraser, who starred on Broadway in ''The Secret Garden,'' told me one way this happens: ''This is what Equity workshop contracts are all about. You work for a basic, low rate, but if the show goes into production, you have a guarantee of either the role or three weeks' salary. Plus a tiny percentage of subsequent productions.''

Nice in theory but this doesn't work out in most situations. With the play that is going up in the Fall the theater company has only one member who is Equity. The show is a non-Equity show. Most actors are not in Equity, less than 25% of the actors in America are Equity actors. At one point I had the opportunity to work towards some Equity credit, but I declined as I have no intention of acting or stage managing. I am protected by the Dramatist's Guild where I'm an active member. Most of the actors who I work with, however, are without a union.

The reason is that Equity is extremely difficult to get into. Many auditions are Equity only auditions. This leads to situations amazingly similar to this actress who wrote The Ethicist. If she is exaggerating than the writer and director have no obligation to allow her in the show. However, I've seen situations just like what she says where an actor or actress helps a lot with the development only to be cast away. Of course, since she is not Equity (more than likely) she won't have anyone out there to protect her interests.

With music I've really been digging the following:

Dropkick Murphys - Tessie (for the longest time I didn't like Dropkick Murphys because they always seemed to gimicky. This is actually a good song though. A nice mix of piano, bagpipe, and fun lyrics.)

The Postal Service (Anything by this group is pretty good. Again, when they first came out I didn't really think much of them, but their music is growing on me. It's pleasant to listen to.)

Pink Floyd - The Final Cut (Animals has been my favorite Pink Floyd album since I started to like them. The Final Cut is growing on me more and more as the years go by. Roger Waters = genius).

My obsessions as far as books:

E.M. Forster - A Passage to India (He's my favorite author hands down. I'm about to re-read one of my least favorites - Howard's End. His sentences are beautiful.)

Charles Wheelan - Naked Economics (I know nothing about economics and want someone to teach me. What more is there to say?)

Currently my favorite play:

Don DeLillo - Valparaiso (Much better than I thought it would be. It won't stay my favorite for long, but for a couple weeks it will hang out. Characters saying things like this, "Livia. This primate fetus you're schlepping around under your belly button. Was it conceived in the traditional sort of in-your-face manner?" Livia: "Yes, it was.")

Currently my favorite movie:

The Big Lebowski ("Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!")

Compare and contrast:

This quote

The "geologic column" which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible....There is no reason not to believe that God created the Universe, Earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis."

Creation Science website

With...

Today...fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently, is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Pope John Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Yesterday I went to see Garden State with a girl who I stopped dating a few months ago. While it was certainly a good movie it might not have been the best choice for two people who used to have budding feelings for each other. Somehow it didn't connect to me that there was also a little love story in the film.

Don't worry, that shouldn't be a spoiler. It is readily apparent from both the print ads and TV spots, but in typical Curtis fashion I wasn't paying any attention to that. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't what I got. It is a good movie that is very well-written. I think that the editing of the film was a little rough, but I still enjoyed it overall.

Despite any superfluous feelings I might have experienced, the movie itself is quite touching. I only laughed aloud a couple times, but I did feel a lot of sorrow and also joy for the characters. Zach does a great job in developing characters that are believable and interesting. I found myself feeling sad during parts of the film where Zach didn't try to push the sadness. There are definitely scenes where he tries to force you into feeling for the characters, which I don't think work as well as scenes. However, when it is just natural Zach does a good job with letting the script and acting bring out the emotions of the characters in a non-abrasive way.

I would offer examples to illustrate, however, I would feel bad about revealing even the smaller surprises. This really is a movie that you ought to experience first hand. My problem was that I expected a brilliant film because of all the hype and it was not able to live up to my imagination. That said, it's a good film, it's enjoyable, you might find some good music, and hopefully leave feeling like you've been able to glimpse into a world where you wouldn't mind living. At least that is what the movie did for me.

More Cate? Vote Kerry.


Cate Edwards and her mother soon to embrace.

The Tax Court has issued an opinion (Acrobat Reader req'd) that should speak to the heart of most artists who have dreams of making it but are currently working another job to get by while engaged in pursuing their dreams.

On July 20, 2004, the United States Tax Court filed an opinion for the case, Calarco v. Commissioner. The opinion is impressive in that it clearly creatively explains the law demonstrating that opinions can be entertaining and informative. Before the "Prologue" the opinion begins with an apt quote from Henry VIII, "Taxation! Wherein? And what taxation?"

The Prologue section shows how "tax law has been a fount of literature for 5,000 years." In it the Judge is able to discuss such a wide range of literature from Gilgamesh (which everyone ought to read, today) to Gulliver's Travels to A Tale of Two Cities. All of which point out possible changes to tax policy. The Judge then shows his appreciation for fun, witty, and one of my favorite musicals: Urinetown (to pee you have to pay the proper fee). Many authors are cited as working as tax collectors (Chaucer, Thomas Paine, and Nathaniel Hawthorne). The history of tax law and creative forces is saluted by this opinion.

I believe that the court correctly decided the issue of whether this taxpayer was engaged in playwrighting for profit. However, I think that part of the analysis was unfair to writers. The taxpayer in this case was a phD professor at Wayne State University. He taught in the theater department while writing plays in hopes of making it. It is a costly pursuit that can only have a deduction if it is considered a trade or business.

Using tax code regulations the court was able to weigh factors in determining if the claim of profit motive was merely a pretext. In my opinion the court gets most of the analysis of the factors correct. However, the eighth factor seems to be too quickly dismissed.

The eighth factor is the financial status of the taxpayer. The regulations provide that an absence of substantial income to the taxpayer from other sources may indicate a profit motive, while the presence of other substantial income may indicate a lack of profit motive. This is particularly true if the activity has personal or recreational elements. This factor does weigh against petitioner, as his primary income is from his teaching position, and allowing his playwrighting deductions would largely offset his teaching wages.

Does the Judge treat the "may" like a "shall"? Some playwrights work a job to make ends meet while they wait for their dream of being performed and profit making to come true. Writing, in this case, could still be considered to have a profit motive despite the fact that their day job provides "substantial income."

That is my only issue with the analysis of the first issue. The second and third issue are more involved in substantive (and complex) tax law. I encourage everyone to read the prologue, analysis of the first issue, and epilogue of the opinion. You'll see an interesting discussion concerning what differentiates (for tax law purposes) writing as hobby and writing in hopes of profit. More importantly you'll see that court opinions do not have to be inaccessible and uncreative. Rather, they can be quite entertaining.

Will Baude alerts me to a tax court opinion, that in structure alone seems quite enchanting. Any opinion that is structured like a play and has an epilogue is my kind of opinion. Unfortunately I've been swamped with work, but I'll read it tonight and my impression of both the form and substance. Roughly the question is whether a claimed professional playwright is a playwright for tax purposes. Fascinating.

Today I was reading a criminal procedure case that mentioned the "Invisibility Cloak" from the Harry Potter novels. I took note that it was a 9th Circuit case and decided to do a little research on the use of Harry Potter metaphors in the 9th Circuit jurisprudence.

There was a little more than I expected:

US v. Bonas (2003): After the recess, the Assistant United States Attorney advised the district court that it could dismiss simply by "uttering the magic words, that the court finds that manifest necessity exists." But this is not a Harry Potter novel; there is no charm for making a defendant's constitutional rights disappear. By bypassing the opportunity to urge the district court to make a record supporting its finding of manifest necessity, the government forfeited the right to try the defendant again.

US v. Birdsbill (2003): The Ready court concludes that "Dr. Abel's . . . failure to reveal . . . [the formula underlying the AASI test] means that the formula has not been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny." Another court has come to the same conclusion and compared Dr. Abel's formula to the "magic of young Harry Potter's mixing potions at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." In the Interest of CDK, JLK, and BJK, 64 S.W.3d 679, 683-84 (Tex. Ct. Appeals Jan. 3, 2002). This Court is not equipped to interpret or test Dr. Abel's formula, and because Dr. Abel has not released his formula for testing by other scientists, it remains merely an untested and unproven theory.

[Editor's comment: I realize that they did not come up with this metaphor in the 9th Circuit, but they do use the metaphor and apply it correctly. That is close enough]

US v. Gonzalez (2003): Gonzalez would have us adopt a theory of the Fourth Amendment akin to J.K. Rowling's Invisibility Cloak, to create at will a shield impenetrable to law enforcement view even in the most public places.

Does the frequent use of Rawlings by the 9th Circuit say something about the quality of Rawlings or illustrate the demise of legal writing on the 9th Circuit? I would say the former.

Most people know little of the Curtis skill of playing the guitar and singing. I tell most people that I can just play a few basic chords, because I'm not comfortable playing around most people. The truth is that I can play quite well from a few lessons in classical guitar when I was 14-16 to a lot of playing along with the radio. I've learned to hear a song and be able to figure it out and play.

There have been a few times that I've put this skill to use. In my experience, being able to play the guitar and sing (albeit only decently) is quite the asset. Last Spring I was dating Mandy for about three months. It was probably around month two that I gained the confidence and desire to play a song for her. I chose to sing her California Stars.

I'm not sure what it is about that song but it scored major points. I love the lyrics and enjoy playing the song too. It isn't too difficult to play, so I'm able to be a little goofy and act overly emotional during it.

Then there has been one other girlfriend that I've played a song for on a couple occassions. What I'm thinking of is when I played a song for Heidi that I wrote. Somehow it was enough to bring her to tears. At one point I had the lyrics and chords written down, but I've since misplaced them. I remember the chorus:

Some days I actually forget
That this is really something
One smile from you and that is it
This is really something
Being hard is hard so sick of it
This is really something good
This is really something good now

I wasn't really happy with the lyrics that I wrote for her, but she loved it. There have only been a couple times a girl has cried tears of happiness due to me, and that was one of them.

Tonight, after reading some constitutional criminal procedure I grabbed my guitar and started to play a few songs. I called my friend in New Mexico and played her a newer song by Fountains of Wayne which made her laugh. I just need to get a little more comfortable with playing for people, because it does seem to bring happiness if you have even a minor amount of talent.

...and love like this means more.

They play with skill, talent, and poise and they win with dignity and respect. Congrats on a well-deserved gold.

[I've finally had time to write some more of this short story. If you want to follow from the beginning Epiode 5 is available here]

When Sheriff Mundle questioned used car salesman Rembrandt Roué about his whereabouts at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 12 (the coroner's estimated time of DiDi Stuart's murder) Roué thought about it for a minute and then said, "The twelfth ... let's see, that was last Thursday ... Well, sure. I was with my lady friend Suzie. Suzie Digits. Every Thursday she and I eat over at Madge's."

"By Madge's," the Sheriff asked to clarify, "you mean the Rumpus Supper Club?"

"Yes, every Thursday we eat at the Rumpus Supper Club."

"You rea-lize, Rembrandt, that since you're the last person seen wi' the late Ms. Stuart that you're our number one suspect fer the murder?"

"DiDi Stuart was murdered?" Roué asked disbelievingly.

"Roué, don't play foolish cat 'n' mouse games wi' me. You know as well as I that TV reporter DiDi Stuart was murdered near Lock Lake over there on the Ole Walsh Place. A crafty sumbitch like yerself is gonna' know all 'bout sumpin' like that if only to find out how you could profit from it."

Rembrandt Roué's superficially amicable disposition didn't change at the Sheriff's malignment of him; Roué didn't respond to him at all. The sheriff thought that Roué either had the best poker face he had ever seen (aside from Jack the Spoon's) or he truly was cold-hearted enough not to be affected by anyone insulting him to his face.

"Would you like to tell me what you and Ms. Stuart were talking about?"

"Hmmm ... that was on Thursday, as well. I was driving past the old abandoned toaster factory to pick up Suzie in one of our recently acquired sports utility vehicles when I happened upon a woman (in a lavender polka-dotted, eggshell blue miniskirt) who was fooling around with the engine of her beautiful, brand new cherry red Ferrari. I remember thinking to myself, "Well, that isn't something one sees too often in Rumpus."

"Witnessing a lady in evident distress, I decided to stop and help the fair maiden. I asked her, 'May I help you, Miss?' 'Yeah,' she said, 'take me someplace I can grab a bite to eat, someplace that won't make me vomit.' So I turned the car around and dropped her off at Madge's (the Rumpus Supper Club) before going back to pick up Suzie. Sheriff, I am not a man bothered by much, but that DiDi Stuart has ... I mean, she had a mouth on her that would have embarrassed a sailor, and a woman as pretty as her. Shameful."

"Okay, your holiness, let's go check out yer story wi' Miss Digits."

As Sheriff Mundle and Rembrandt Roué left the dealership conference room where they had been speaking, the Sheriff walked up behind an unusually pensive Reggie Crome-"agnon," star quarterback of the Glenedin County Red Dragons football team and Roué's assistant, and asked him whether the Dragons would win the state championship that year (even though the Sheriff knew that the team probably wouldn't win since the Dragons hadn't had one winning season in the past 17 years and for a "star quarterback" Reggie wasn't particularly exceptional, nor was he particularly bright, nor much of a leader for that matter; Reggie was a really good team player and that was about it; a good quarterback needs to be a bold and intelligent leader and someone his teammates can trust unconditionally, like Donnovan Check Worthy Grey was back in 1980, the last great season in Glenedin County High School's golden years).

The Sheriff and Roué pulled out of Brawn's New and Used Cars, the dealership run by Rembrandt Roué for Erik Derrik Brawn Sr., in the Sheriff's truck, and they drove to Don's Construction and Moving Company so that the sheriff could question Suzie Digits.

Like most everything else in Rumpus, Don's Construction and Moving Company was owned by Erik Derik Brawn Sr., but Emanuel Nackyball operated Don's, (not that he ever had any moving or construction business so he ran a garbage collection service on the side)

This is the insomniac edition.

The ten most recent songs to play on my iTunes:

1. Belle and Sebastian - Seymour Stein


2. Duncan Sheik - November


3. Low - Kind of Girl


4. Starflyer 59 - I Need Some Help


5. Counting Crows - Anna Begins


6. Semisonic - Completely Pleased


7. REM - You


8. Ben Lee - Cigarettes Will Kill You


9. Annie - Shoot First, Leap Second


10. Jump Little Children - Forget My Loss

Five great modern rock music lyricists:

1. Bob Dylan


2. Tom Waits


3. Frank Black (The Pixies)


4. They Might Be Giants


5. Aimee Mann

Two recent news stories that made me smile with different underlying emotions:

1. Bush praises Kerry's military record and calls for a halt to the negative ads. Here.


2. Peace talks aimed at ending ethnic violence in Sudan's troubled Darfur region are resuming in the Nigerian capital, Abuja. At least they're talking.

For Professional Responsibility we were asked to ponder six questions to discuss in the first class.

1. Is the practice of law a "Learned Profession," or is The Law just another business?

Lawyers are called to act with professional conduct. The practice of the law has long been governed by various rules that the states determine and enforce with the help of model rules. I don't believe it is just another business, if for no other reason, than it is a skilled art.

As Roscoe Pound stated there are four key elements of the profession: (1) a substantial intellectual training and the use of complex judgments; (2) clients must trust those they consult as they can't evaluate the quality of the lawyer's work; (3) self-interest of the lawyer is sublimated to the client's interest and the public good; and (4) it is self-regulating.

Now, I think that clients can, and often do, evaluate the quality of the lawyers work and I think that the lawyers sublimation is greatly exaggerated. Other than that I agree.

2. If it is a learned profession what distinguishes lawyers from other professionals like CPA's, architects, clergy, engineers, chemists, physicians, if lawyer are (or should be) distinguishable?

The easy answer is that all of these professions are distinguishable because they do different things. What is unique about the lawyer (and probably the physician) is that everyone will come into contact with the law at some point in their life. Be it a will, an arrest, a divorce or marriage, or maybe a more complex litigation.

I'm actually finding it difficult to distinguish the profession of a lawyer and physician. At least in terms of how they relate to the public at large. The others seem to be much easier to differentiate.

3. Does permitting lawyers to advertise undercut the Legal Profession's claim to be a learned profession? Would you vote to ban lawyer advertising if given the chance?

No and absolutely not. In 1977, Justice Blackmun wrote the majority in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (433 US 350) where he held that the 1st Amendment protects truthful lawyer advertising. He states, "we find the postulated connection between advertising and the erosion of true professionalism to be severely strained."

Advertising itself has become an art in America. There is nothing wrong with advertising if for no other reason than it's a large mode of conversation with the average person. People listen to the radio, watch TV, and read magazines. Truthful advertising isn't a bane to the image of lawyers. Rather it humanizes us and makes us more accessible to more people.

I've noticed that the Elite Law Firms don't have conventional advertisements. What they do is sponsor events which is supposedly classier than advertising. If you go to a nice theater or opera you'll see a page devoted to Weil, Gotshal & Manges for their faithful support. For some reason that is considered more professional than the personal injury attorney who has an ad on during the Jerry Springer Show. To me it is simply targeting your clients.

Law to me is supposed to be about helping your client and not about keeping an image. Who cares if the elite look down on TV advertisements if we're able to reach out to more people?

4. How can we tell when certain conduct is "unprofessional"? Should we allow law firms to "go public"? Allow non-lawyers to be full partners in law firms?

We can tell based on the state rules that apply to the lawyer. For some reason I'm not comfortable with the idea of law firms going public. I know they are business making ventures, but I'm not sure that investors would always have the same interests as clients. The firm is supposed to be looking out for the interests of the clients and not an outside investor. I would be more alright with non-lawyers being full partners in law firms as long as they are bound by the same ethical duties as the lawyers.

5. Is it legitimate/justifiable for the legal profession to adopt rules that primarily protect its "public image" as opposed to protecting the public? If so, why?

As long as the rule isn't hurting the public or unfairly restricting constitutional rights of those in the bar then I see no problem with adopting rules that protect the "public image" of lawyers. Although, I think the term "public image" shows that lawyers often think they are more important to the public than they might be in reality.

6. Is Rule 6.1 for the benefit of the public or the profession?

This rule is one that encourages, but does not require, lawyers to do pro bono work. It states, "a lawyer should voluntarily contribute financial support to organizations that provide legal services to person of limited means."

I actually think that the rule is one that is meant as more of a benefit to the public. However, like all volunteer work, I think that it probably ends up worth a benefit to both the public and the profession. It helps the lawyer become a more rounded person, it is a good experience, and it teaches you things about aspects of the law you might not normally experience.

Then it is able to give back to our community and help those around who often need assistance.

Any thoughts?

I've ironed out my schedule for this semester, and I'm a little surprised how left-leaning my load is this time.

Consumer Law: obviously a class that is oriented towards helping the underdog against the corporate machine. At least, if we're going to use cliches and vague descriptors to describe the law. It isn't the other side of the coin: creditor's rights.

Criminal Clinic Chief: This is simply helping the new clinic students win criminal trials against the DA's. At least by most impressions (although I disagree) this is a liberal thing to do.

Constitutional Criminal Procedure: I'm not really sure if this is left-leaning or not. I think it's actually ambigious and depends on the professor's sylibus.

Death Penalty Project: A writing class that has a guest speakers so that we are able to follow a death penalty case. Not difficult to find here in Texas. Of course, it is going to be slanted towards the problems with the death penalty, which I'm fine with.

Professional Responsibility: No comment.

I read that there will be an expected 250,000 protesters in NYC for the RNC. Talk Left pondered where all of these people will be lodged? Personally I've got about 3 friends there who would love to lend a couch to a protester they know.

As many as 250,000 demonstrators are expected to march through Manhattan next Sunday, the eve of the four-day Republican National Convention, to protest the president's polices, according to protest organizers.

"People from around the world will descend on New York to give voice to those who oppose this government's policy of warmongering," says Bill Dobbs, spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, the largest protest group

I suppose that if I could find a good flight I would go out there to protest a little. More than likely the local jail would turn into my host.

Bush and his supporters ought to hire more creative advertising agencies. I really enjoy this new Kerry ad where Bush has that too familiar deer-in-the-headlights look while McCain rips into him in the 2000 debate over the attack on his military service. Too funny.

You can see the ad here.

With class assignments already posted for the coming week, I've decided that the Summer is no longer here for me. I wanted to post a few of the main things that I remember about this summer that have influenced me for the better.

The last few weeks of the school year signaled a bad summer. Due in part to laziness in not searching for a job and the only unfair grade I've received, I was worried that this summer would be terrible. As it turned out this summer was up there with the best of my life.

The change started when I received word that I was awarded a generous fellowship to work with a non-profit organization of my choice. I decided that it would be most beneficial to work in the area of immigration law with a human rights organization. This was my first real law job (if we don't count the criminal clinic), so I was able to see that I could manage on my own. In fact, with the moral support of Amber, I was able to put out a well-received memo that will be used as a writing sample. I developed a new program for this organization that will help juveniles without family become citizens of the United States. I was able to make friends who will be friends for life.

Speaking of friends, I was able to watch my best friend get married as I stood as his groomsmen. I was there when they met each other and knew soon after that they would make a great marital couple.

I had other friends who have scattered around the country come and visit. I enjoy being able to show people around the city. To show people I care about the things that I love doing. The things that they hear me talk about. My family came down to visit and I took my grandfather to a couple of movies and a baseball game. Together we all spent time together with great conversation and lots of laughter. It's always fun to see that you've gone from being a child to another adult in the eyes of your family.

I was able to do a bit of my own traveling after my internship ended. I went home to see my family. My sister and I spent quality time together. I went flying with my stepfather and sister to see different parts of Oklahoma. We all enjoyed a BBQ where my cat became the life of the party when I tried to trick my sisters and her friends into believing that I caught a "Snipe." A couple of times I ran with my step-father as he was training for the Pikes Peak Marathon, which he ran this morning.

I was asked to write a play for a little theater company and that led me to visit them after they had started workshopping the rough draft of a new play. I was excited to be commissioned to write a new play, and I think that I've written something decent. They were gracious hosts and I was able to make a new friend who will probably come to visit me before too long.

Tragedy that couldn't be ignored hit home. I returned apprehensive about what was going on. Through that fear I was able to say things that needed to be said. Recently things have been going much better for my family. Actually, things have been great. If anything, this helped to remind me that I need to relax and accept that some things aren't in my control. Of course, my normal mode is very relaxed and calm, which is usually a good way to be.

Like other bloggers, I also meet new friends who have blogs. Erin and Jen are roommates in Buffalo, NY, which is a city I had never visited. Erin is just as clever, friendly, and passionate about life in person as her blog would appear. Jen has a great sense of humor and gives thoughtful and accurate advice. They are both very caring people. It is no surprise that these two became bestfriends as they compliment each other so well and both are very creative, intelligent, and sharp. Thanks to Jen for helping me to find her friends like Erin and Dayna (Dayna being a great commenter and blogger alike).

I've shared emails with other bloggers who are now friends or are budding friends. Claire is amusing, able to vividly depict her life, and friendly on her blog. What comes through in emails is how much empathy she has for what is happening in your life. Her gift with giving advice is right up there with Jen's.

Spencer stormed into the legal blogosphere this summer and hasn't shown any signs of slowing down. Originally I was interested in his blog because he is a writer. It wasn't long before my respect for his writing grew stronger as he described his writing experiences, shared his writing, and discussed his views on writing. It wasn't long before his legal knowledge floored me. On occasion I attempted to match wits with him on areas of the law, but I'm simply unable to keep up. We've shared quite a few emails where he elaborates on his impressions. All I can say is that everyone at Chicago should beware, because Spencer is going to kick ass.

Dylan can make me laugh with his posts on the same day that he infuriates me with his comments on my blog or posts on his (this is a compliment). While we haven't emailed, we've argued in comments enough that I watch what I post to make sure I can back up what I'm arguing. He is sharp enough to take me out if I don't take these precautions. It keeps me on my toes. He often seems to worry, on his blog, that he won't employed in the law. Any firm that would turn him down deserves to lose all their clients for not representing them with all the diligence they are able to provide.

I've sparingly emailed Amber and Will. However, I check for what they have to say numerous times a day. I occasionally disagree with Will, but I listen to what he says because his arguments are extremely persuasive. Amber's blog is insightful and intelligent and varied enough to always be entertaining.

Stephanie is also providing insightful entries that have changed my views. Her stories about work are fun to read because of how well she writes. I'm glad that she was convinced to start blogging, because she really is adding a good voice to the web. Hopefully more and more people will find her. Part of why it's so fun to read her blog and send her emails is that her life is just so interesting.

Then the Summer came to an end with doing a lot of clean up at the clinic when a student unexpectedly quit. I helped to iron all of that out and get things ready for the new group of students to take over. It's difficult to transfer clients from one attorney to another. I've also been able to help defense attorneys with a murder case, which was exhilarating for someone almost on the outside. I can't imagine the emotions for the people involved.

As far as entertainment goes I have enjoyed going to the park, on runs, watching movies, certain things on tv, and reading a few really good books. A few great TV shows were cancelled in the Spring, but then the Olympics came around. Movies like Super Size Me, Hell Boy, the new Harry Potter, Ju-On, De-Lovely, and Garden State were all winners. Meanwhile, I read a book on evolution, Middlesex, The Effect of Living Backwards, various plays and books of poetry, and other books this summer.

A good job experience, happy friends, family coming together, lots of trips to the bar for a beer, a little traveling, a few plane rides, and a few more dates than I expected happened this summer. While it hasn't all been great: all in all this has been a good summer.

I'm appalled by the recent barrage of ads (usually on Friday and Saturday night television) sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.



Their "You Drink and Drive. You Lose" campaign propagates the misunderstanding of drunk driving law. In fact, in every state it is perfectly legal to drink and drive.

The Texas Penal Code Section 49.04 ("Driving While Intoxicated") states:

A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place

This requires: (1) A person; (2) commits an offense; (3) intoxicated; (4) operating; (5) motor vehicle; and (6) public place.

Of course, the next step would be to look for the definitions of each of those words: What is a person, what does commit mean, intoxication, operation, etc. The important one in this code is intoxication which is defined at the beginning of the section, 49.01 as:

(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

The prosecutors can go about this in three ways: showing that you don't have the normal use of your mental faculties by introduction of alcohol (we'll limit it in this case), or you don't have the normal use of your physical faculties by introduction of alcohol, or having an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

What the NHTSA would have you believe is that you can be arrested simply for drinking then driving. Imagine if the penal code had this as the law:

A person commits an offense if the person drinks and then drives a motor vehicle in a public place.

I'm being generous by adding more elements than the NHTSA scare ads depict. The result is still very easy to meet because the definition of intoxication, a very difficult definition to prove, has been removed from the elements. What is more there is now a question of how long after you drink should you wait to drive so that you don't "lose"?

A prosecutor has to bring more to the table than the fact that you drank. You have to actually be a threat to the public because you are driving without the normal use of your mental or physical faculties.

When a Judge recently ordered a man to install a locking device on his car ignition because he drank a six pack of beer per night (with no facts that indicate the person drove while intoxicated - possible civil rights violation?), it seems that this misinformation is causing problems. The government is trying to victimize the mere fact that someone drinks alcohol. Appalling.

When you head out tonight to your favorite restaurant, your neighborhood bar, or the liquor store do not drive if you're intoxicated. However, don't think twice about driving if you've just had a drink with your meal and know that you haven't reached your limit. Be safe, be smart, and you won't lose just because you've had a drink or two.

Again, all in an effort to get the male swing votes I present to you Cate Edwards.


Elizabeth Edwards with her daughter Cate at the DNC.

I have a difficult time with this blog, because I can't really classify it as a personal blog. I don't share a whole lot of myself in here. Also, I can't really classify it as a law blog (or "Blawg" - yuck) because it's definately not that focused. At some point I decided I wouldn't worry about what to classify it as and just keep writing whatever strikes me.

However, there are a lot of things that I know I'll never write about. I don't share many of my very personal feelings. In a very apt post, Stephanie says,

Unlike some people, I can’t put my whole life out on the blog because, well, I’m a closed person by nature and there are thought that I protect religiously. Unfortunately, even from myself most times. I have this insane fear that one day when I die, all the scraps of paper I’ve written my random self on will be found, and then people will know me.

My problem is more that I'm not closed to myself at all. Rather, I often dig around inside myself and it's quite scary. Which is why I've really opened up to about four people. Even my very best friends only know fragments of the whole Curtis.

Remember the Serenity Now episode of Seinfeld where Jerry started to let out his emotions and became caring Jerry? He encourages George to open up and share all of his emotions with him. After George does this it scares Jerry straight. I've found that when I share too much a similar, if not worse, situation is created.

Two of the people who really got to know me have little to nothing to do with me. Of course, knowing myself, I figured that would eventually happen. Yet, like watching a poorly made snuff film, I just couldn't turn away. I walked straight into those with a smile on my face under the illusion that it would be good for me.

There is absolutely no reason to open myself up to other people. At least not any more than is needed for friendship. I think that I prefer to remain a little mysterious. There is nothing as painful as offering all of yourself to someone and having that rejected. It is the type of pain that slaps you with your own glove and then steals it. Bah.

When I do post the occasional heartfelt "blah blah blah" know that you've caught me with my guard down. In most situations I don't delete what I've posted, because I figure that the I'll bury it in the archives before many people catch my mistake. In real life I'm even more tight-lipped than here.

This one is for all of you 1L's about to begin the journey of always worrying that the professor will call on you, listening to fellow students brag about how intelligent they are, shedding many a tear over not making that moot court team, and ultimately drinking more alcohol in one year than your entire Greek House (or the Greek House you hated because you, as an independent, were better than them) consumed at that last Bob Marley Weekend Bash. This is your serious (no, seriously) guide to law school.

1. Loosen up. Law school isn't so scary once you realize that you will graduate. You will make decent grades. You might not be the next legend of your law school, but you'll survive. Law school is expensive so you should take it seriously. You should study your ass off. But in the long run you shouldn't stress yourself so much that, as they say in Real Genius, if you stick a lump of coal up your ass a diamond would come out.

2. Use study aides. You were probably the smartest person in your college and think that a study aide won't help you. More than likely it will help you. There are going to be some concepts that you might not fully understand. For the cost of study aides it is worth it. Buy them used if you want. They are a great starting ground for understanding the law. Make sure that you take your understanding to the next level. Think about how the law is going to apply; or, as they say, "think like a lawyer."

3. Don't horde shared outlines. Nobody likes the person who gets an outline and won't share it. If you make your own outline then do what you want. If a 2L gives you a "good outline" then share it with people who ask you if you have an outline. More than likely they'll get a copy of it. More than likely it won't really be that great. More than likely you'll get pegged as an asshole for trying to get an artificial boost.

4. Figure out what works for you. If you don't need an outline to understand everything then don't worry about it, however, I think that you should make all your own the first semester. It's a good way to synthesize the law. It's a good way to make sure that you understand everything. For me it was easiest to work on my outlines every Sunday. I would synthesize the key concepts that we went over in class. Usually it just formed a page or less of the outline. I've always had short outlines, but I know some people have long outlines. Many people wait until the end of the semester to outline. Just go through the process at some point.

5. Study groups are a good idea your first year. After my first semester I got rid of the study group, but I think it was great at first. Law school can be confusing and it helps to have a few people you can trust. Just meet to talk about what's going on in classes. What is an offer? Go through hypos with each other. Take each other to task for not understanding it. They are helpful to center you on what is important. It's easy in law school to make things more complicated than it really is. Law school classes are often nothing more than common sense.

6. Follow Google's motto and "Don't Be Evil." Law school is competitive and often brutal. The last thing your school and classmates need is another jerk making it hell. Don't cheat, don't rip up books, don't horde shared outlines, and be friendly with your classmates. After you get your first semester grades don't brag to everyone if you did really well. Be proud of your achievement, but don't shove it in others faces. Help to keep law school as enjoyable as it can be by making it a collegial atmosphere.

7. Most importantly, don't forget that you have a life outside of law school. If you like creative writing then make time for it. Read a few books that aren't law related, go to the movies, grab a beer with friends, and don't ignore your family and friends that have nothing to do with the law. You need to have people who are laymen. When you hang out with non-lawyer friends, talk about things other than the law. I know that you're worried about getting good grades so that you'll be able to get a good job or a good judicial clerkship. Well, remember this, they want people who are well-rounded. When you interview they are going to want someone who did well in law school, isn't a bore, knows what's going on in the world, and is good humored. Law school is not everything that matters.

That's about all that I can think of as far as advice goes. Enjoy it as much as you can and good luck.

I received the following question:

I guess I am looking for advice. So far I have only taken two Playwriting classes. (The first was practically a joke, so I won't count it.) The other was at my College, and the only Playwriting class we offer. It was mainly just a critical forum for our work, which, though incredibly helpful, didn't really offer me much in the way of learning any type of process.

So how important do you think it is for a playwright to have formal training? Does that mean taking classes? Reading books? Or are writing and the ability to understand human nature just natural gifts that come to some people?

I think it's helpful to have a background in drama--knowing how plays are structured, how staging and design is accomplished, what actors can do (and can't do), and a sense of where theater has been and where it might be going. It's also good to have a writer's education, versed in literature and non-theatrical forms of writing such as fiction, poetry, journalism, and essay. The more you know about what's been done, the less you have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have an advanced degree in playwriting unless you want to teach.

That said, the most difficult part of playwrighting, in my opinion, is writing dialogue. That is where most people fail. When I applied to grad schools I sent a one act to a Broadway playwright who teaches at one of the schools I was considering. He wrote me an emailing that tore apart a lot of that one act. Then he ended the email by saying this:

Many people believe that they could be talented at writing. Be it that they think they could write fiction, poetry, screenplay, lyrics, or plays. Very few people will admit that they cannot do it, however, the truth is that very few people can do it. Most of the applications we receive have dialogue that is utterly unbelievable. The fact is that most people simply do not know how people communicate with other people. They are able to do it in their lives because of instinct, but they are unable to turn those conversations into believable dialogue.

I think that his point is true. Dialogue is something that is both difficult to do and difficult to learn. Most writers can get away without a strong talent for dialogue. The writers who have to be gifted in dialogue are playwrights.

I've posted my reasons for not getting an MFA in Playwrighting. The main reason is that I've had enough experience, mainly due to luck, that I've now learned a lot of the things I was criticized for by the playwright in the previous email. Those opportunities won't come to very many people. I honestly think you'll have a difficult time without some formal training.

Yesterday was a good day.

I woke up around 7am to the regular alarm clock of my cat telling me she is hungry. This is usually done with a little lick to my arm or elbow (whatever is convenient for her). Today was no exception. I wasn't ready to rouse myself from sleep, so I shoed her out of my bed and fell back to sleep. Around 9 I got myself from bed to give her the food she so desired. Then I found myself some breakfast and started to get ready for the day.

Yesterday wasn't busy but it was my last day of freedom. Today will begin orientation for both new law students and the new clinic students. I'll be heavily involved in the clinic aspect. At 11 I left to go over to the law school for a meeting with the other chief counsels. We talked about the website I designed and other things. Ate a little pizza. It was good. Then a few of the students hung around to talk about life, sports, school, and other topics. It's always fun to be a part of things.

Despite having a lot of great friends, a very loving family, and respect from a lot of people who meet me it is difficult to not feel loneliness. Mid-20s is such a weird time in life. I'm supposed to become a grown up at any point, but I don't want to. I'm supposed to be secure about my future, but I'm not. I'm supposed to be happy for the good things in my life, but I so often can only remember the hurtful parts.

It is nice to have days like this that remind me that things are pretty damn good.

I went out for drinks with a girl who works near where I live. We ended up at the place for about three hours talking about everything. I'm not sure if she liked me or not, but I gave her a little hug after walking her to her car. She's the only person that I've felt good about for awhile. I'd like to see her another time to make sure. We'll see.

Then I grabbed a quick dinner and called my friend. We went to our favorite dive bar for a pitcher of beer and chips and queso. Scratch that; this time we just had salsa. It wasn't nearly as good as the queso. He told me that I needed to try a white Russian, so I did. It was much better than I would have imagined. I've always been weary of milk and alcohol but it was good. I now have a new drink. I'll try my best to be The Dude.

Today is a new day. Today is when the summer all of ends for me. I'm not sure what the new school year has in store for me, but I welcome it. Perhaps I'll go back into a reclusive state or maybe I'll be inviting. Only time will tell.

I'm really pissed off about this trade that the Mavericks made yesterday.



We send off Eddie Najera and Christian Laettner for Erick Dampier, Evan Eschmeyer, Dan Dickau, and two first round draft picks.

Two FIRST round draft picks? What are you thinking Cuban? Are you about to sell the team or what? Obviously you don't care about the future of the team. To bad you've gone and made the team worthless, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're a billionaire.

There is a tradition of respect between Irish and Canadian theater companies. I've noticed recently that the bonds have seemed to grow strong and stronger, so I wasn't surprised by this story in The Stage.

The Dublin Theatre Festival has appointed its first nonIrish director, Canadian Don Shipley.

He takes over later this year when current director Fergus Linehan moves to Australia and a similar post with the Sydney Arts Festival. Shipley has directed at major theatres across Canada and was artistic associate of the Stratford Festival in Ontario, as well as being the founding artistic director of the Belfry Theatre in Victoria, British Columbia. He is currently artistic director of the Du Maurier World Stage Festival in Toronto and a former general manager of Harbourfront Centre's World Stage in the city.

The director has been described by the Dublin Theatre Festival chairman Peter Crowley, as "the ideal candidate for the position".

He added: "He has a wealth of experience in exciting international theatre and we are looking forward very much to working with him." This year's Dublin festival, from September 27 October 9, will mark the final curtain for Linehan after a four-year stint as director.

Meanwhile, in a further strengthening of the artistic links between Ireland and Canada, a production of Brian Friel's Translations is being directed in Toronto by the Abbey's artistic director, Ben Barnes.

All I can say is the American and English theater world better beware.

Just a quick Happy Birthday wish to my KC friend Liz! Have a great day!

The more I think about this part of the Slate review, the more disgusted I am.

Not a single person on-screen is attractive; the closest we come is one juror who looks a little like a puffy Martha Plimpton with bad skin.

I'm watching these first two right now, and the majority of the people aren't bad looking. Perhaps they won't get picked to star in a TV reality show like The Real World, but I can't figure out the point. Why say that nobody is attractive? Why not just say, "you see people who wouldn't otherwise be on TV. This show, while reality, is more true than so called Reality-TV shows"?

Besides, the student named Jennifer appears to be attractive. Unfortunately she has insane (inept?) views about evidence.

Slate.com has a review of the mini-series, In The Jury Room, that is airing for seven weeks on ABC. Each of seven shows follows a real-life capital case from the pretrial preparation stage through the trial, jury deliberations, and final verdict.

Due to a busy week, I wasn't able to watch the first two episodes that aired last week. However, I taped them so that I will be able to watch them when I have some extra-free time. I'm not sure what will motivate the public to want to watch this show. I know that for me it is to see what the jury understands about the burden of proof; how seriously they take their role; and if they truly understand that each and every element of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is a constant struggle, especially in state courts, to define "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is caselaw that gives the definition for civil cases where you use the preponderance of the evidence standard or the higher "clear and convincing" burden. However, criminal law jurisprudence has often been reluctant to give a definition for what you need for beyond a reasonable doubt. What is a "reasonable doubt"? I don't know. I do know that prosecutors fight to lower that burden during their voir dire. Meanwhile, when the defense attorney gets up, he or she wants to raise that burden to the appropriate level. However, in state courts there is not usually a set definition that you can use.

What do we do to get them to understand the burden? We let them define it. "Mrs. Walters, it says here that you have a child? Is that correct?" Yes. "A second ago I was saying that in civil cases the government can come to a mother's house, take her child, and then make her fight for that child in court. How much evidence do you think the government would need to have to take your child"?

Inevitably that answer is always, "A whole hell of a lot" or some variation on that. Then the defense attorney will nod in agreement and point out, "And in criminal cases the government has to bring more to the table. This isn't just clear and convincing which Mrs. Walters points out should require a whole hell of a lot. This is beyond ALL reasonable doubt. That means it'll be more than just a whole hell of a lot."

Through out an entire trial there is struggling over the standard. Has the government really proved their case. Does the jury care about the beyond all reasonable doubt standard? That's the reason I want to watch this series. It appears that this reviewer notes something else that I haven't thought much about.

More than any legal show I've seen, this one gets at the physical unpleasantness of the whole trial experience: the fluorescent-lit rooms, the hastily consumed bad food and warm soft drinks, the unremitting ugliness of both the surroundings and what happens in them. Not a single person on-screen is attractive; the closest we come is one juror who looks a little like a puffy Martha Plimpton with bad skin.

Trial is unpleasant. There is no other way to put it. It is unpleasant for the jury pool at the beginning, it is unpleasant for those who are picked to serve, it is unpleasant for the attorneys. However, there is a rush that comes with going to trial that is unlike any I've felt. I've been lucky enough to be in a clinic where we can try misdemeanor cases and sit second chair on state felony cases. We have an attorney by our side when we try the cases, but it's ours to try. The theory, the witnesses, the voir dire, the opening and closing are all up to us. Being in a courtroom as an attorney is one of the best feelings I've experienced.

Also, just as a sidenote, many of the female DAs and many of the female judges appear to be quite attractive. It is odd that not a single person on the In the Jury Room series was attractive.

I decided that I was going to make a mix cd for one of my friends filled with nothing but beautiful songs. The problem, of course, is getting them to flow well together, but I think I've got it.

Sebadoh - Willing to Wait
DJ Shadow - Midnight in a Perfect World
Mazzy Star - Fade Into You
Flaming Lips - Do You Realize?
Badly Drawn Boy - The Shining
Dexter Gordon - Don't Explain
Beck - We Live Again
Jeff Buckley - Grace
Tom Waits - Hold On
Velvet Underground - Pale Blue Eyes
The Beatles - In My Life

I've noticed three of the Google Olympic Logos, are there more?



It appears that Google might not get the Gmail trademark? Instead it could go to the Gospel Music Association? Of course, those porn loving computer engineers told the GMA to go to hell. Ahem, all things considered, I'm pretty certain that Google will gain the trademark for the Gmail name.



Perhaps that is because I wish I could work for Google. To bad the beer ran out early. Yahoo understands that is party foul. I'd also add that it's a party foul to force people to have that new "navbar" instead of the advertisments. It would be nice to be able to choose one or the other.

• The trial got pushed back a day, so I will go tomorrow morning for awhile. Basically I'm going to be the assistant to a couple of defense attorneys.


• If you're at the movies don't do these things: shake your ice (it doesn't make the drink colder), get a huge bucket of soda and sit in the center of the theater (you know you're going to have to get up during the movie), or buy the nachos (the jalapenos smell for a 100 foot radius around you.


• I saw a fat pigeon. In fact, this pigeon was so fat that he reminded me of Jabba the Hutt with feathers


• Speaking of trilogies, if you want to watch the best film trilogy you should see Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, Barcelona, and The Last Days of Disco. They are sharp, sharp movies. He's one of my favorite screenwriters


• I'm glad that students are starting to get back for school.


• Watching the Olympics is more fun than I remember. I can't wait for the track and field.


• Seriously, who really believe that America's basketball team would do well? Lebron James (sorry Cleveland) has no business being on the team, nor does Carmello Anthony. Stephon Marbury is nothing but a ball hog. Duncan and Iverson are the only true all stars. Dwayne Wade is a little young still. Richard Jefferson is actually pretty good, I guess. All in all there was no way this team could do much.

Today you can find me sitting on the defense side of the courtroom in a murder trial! Felony courts, here I come.

Dahlia Lithwick, who I have criticized, and is often criticized by conservative bloggers is praised at Legal Fiction today. The article entitled Activist, Schmactivist (registration req'd), is on the fiction that is "liberal judges "make" law, while conservative judges "interpret" it.

Legal Fiction is correct: this is a good column. It is insightful, witty, and entertaining which is all of the things Lithwick has become admired for in writing.

Jim Holt argues that the American prison system will be grouped with such socially unjustifiable things as "slavery, child labor and torture" in the future. In The NY Times Magazine, Holt writes Decarcerate? in this week's Idea Lab.

The modern prison system was designed in the United States in the early 19th Century. It was meant as a way to reform the trouble makers. These were modeled after the debtor prisons that could be found across Europe. America, of course, has never believed in the idea of a debtor prison. Likewise it wasn't long before we didn't believe in those convicted of crimes being whipped, branded, or publicly humiliated. Rather, the legislators thought that reform could happen in prison.

In modern criminal law there are three ideas for the purpose of prisons: deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. All of these purposes have their flaws, but I believe the first two are most flawed, while rehabilitation is a worthy goal in most circumstances.

As Holt points out there are many people who believe that incarceration in America is out of hand. Most of it has been caused by state and federal lawmakers who want to make the general public happy by appearing "tough on crime."

In the late 70's, as more and more Americans were being crowded into lockup, states went on a prison-building spree. The inmate census doubled, then doubled again and again. Today, this nation keeps more than two million people behind bars -- compared with only 200,000 three decades ago.

Not only are the prisons filling up but the amount of money it takes to house this many inmates is staggering. Many of these people are in prison for minor offenses such as drug use or prostitution.

The problem has become the mandatory minimum sentences. There are many people who argue that the prison system should be scaled back.

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy warned of "moral blindness" in the criminal justice system, and the American Bar Association has just issued a report calling for an end to mandatory minimum sentences and a renewed emphasis on rehabilitation (which recent studies have shown to be effective, despite the scoffing of many conservatives)

Studies or not, it is doubtful that legislatures will voluntarily push back mandatory sentences. This is the problem with deterrence. It seems to be working.

Deterrence is only an illusion that does not actually happen. It is true that "for a century and half after the creation of prisons, crime dropped steadily across Western nations." However, crime rose again in the 60s across most of the world. In the past decade there has been a falling crime rate again. Deterrence doesn't explain this, nor does it explain the fact that countries and states that didn't expand prisons still experienced the same drops in crime.

Another rationale for prisons (and the death penalty) has long been retribution. This is the most troubling of the reasons for me. Retribution literally means "paying back." It is unclear to me how "the suffering inflicted on an offender compensates for his crime." Is vindictive satisfaction really justice? I don't think so for a couple reasons. First, it isn't clear that there is really any psychological relief for the victims when someone is incarcerated or put on death row. More importantly, as Holt states:

There is increasing evidence that the most violent criminals are often driven by forces beyond their control...Clearly, society needs to protect itself from these people. But does it need to punish them?

While I wouldn't compare the idea of incarceration with child labor or torture, I do think it needs fixed. Too much of our money is spent on over-crowded prisons. Mandatory minimums are overstepping legislation that has caused far more harm than good.

The idea of prisons needs to change to that of rehabilitation. This has worked in other countries like Finland. The prisons in Finland were modeled after the harsh Soviet Union prison system. Then they changed the entire philosophy of prisons and made them much more lenient. They understand that the punishment is a loss of freedom not being treated like shit by guards, not being herded into concrete rooms with threadbare mattresses, and certainly not being locked away for years because you were smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Today, Finland imprisons the smallest fraction of its population of any European country (52 prisoners per 100,000 people, compared with 702 in the United States). Yet its crime rate, far from exploding, has remained at a low level.

My hope is that one day the US Prison system will receive a much needed makeover. While it seems that this will require a brave politician to start the change, one only needs reminded that such a politician has lived. Winston Churchill observed, "Treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country."

It's time for the American penal institution to act a little more civilized. The change needs to start with public demands. Civility requires it.

Once school starts up again I will have zero free time.

When I'm swamped it's difficult to find the time to get things started like: writing plays, learning new languages, reading novels, cooking, or (gasp) the beginning stages of relationships.

Looking over this limited list I think that most of these things are enjoyable. Ok, maybe the cooking part isn't so enjoyable. Don't argue: you haven't tried the results when it comes from my kitchen. Don't argue.

With the Grim Reaper emerging from the shadows, I decided that I should start a few of these things. In the past month I've read a few books, written the bulk of a new play (still weeks of editing remain), scratched the cooking idea from the liste, tried to learn Hungarian for a minute, and found four dates for this past week.

This past week ended up being a sort of marathon elimidate episode. I'm not sure how it worked out this way but I found four girls interested in going on dates, so I foolishly set up dates for Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. Just meeting a restaurant, going on a walk, and saying goodbye. Nothing major. How could I believe that anything "date" related isn't major? Each night was a different date. Not so much fun.

My vision was that one or two of these dates would produce a second date. Then I'd be able to find the perfect person to spend my little free time with once school is back in session. Wrong. Wrong. Oh how wrong I was.

This has nothing to do with any of the dates; I'm just not feeling it. I was reminded that I really don't like dating and I'm going to follow Nancy Reagan's advice and just say no. The parts of dating I like aren't enough to persuade me to use this dangerous drug any longer.

In my experience dating is nothing if not a rehearsed mess. It is also expensive. Finally, the hit or miss nature of dating makes it both ineffective and frustrating. Whereas relationships can develop in more haphazard ways, which I prefer to this.

Maybe it's just me, but I have "date" stories that I tell when I'm out on initial dates. They are like little monologues that I've perfected over the past seven years. Funny family story? You betcha! Self-deprecating story from college? Oh, yeah. A boss that drove me crazy and what I did to get back at them? Bingo! All of them are formed in such a way that the date will laugh and learn a lot more about me, what I find important, and know that I'm a sweet guy. They aren't fake stories but they are crafted. As I was telling them I remembered how disgusting this whole thing is. I'm not an actor trying out for a part. I'm Curtis and that's it.

Going out to eat and getting a couple drinks is expensive. Not just with the actual money but with the time. Part of me is selfish in that I realize that I'd be having more fun reading by myself or talking with friends than I have on dates. There are a lot of other things I could be doing. Another part of me feels like these dates are about how much money I'm willing to spend. The best relationships I have had don't come from that. It isn't about how I can impress someone with the restaurant I choose or the bottle of wine I will purchase.

This week just made me remember how much I can't do the dating thing. I really can't. I really do think a couple of the girls were fabulous. Hopefully I will get the opportunity to know them more, but I doubt I'll press for a second date. Maybe I just haven't hit that stage of my life yet, but I don't enjoy it. Which is a shame because I do like the discussions, I like the hanging out in parks, and I really can't argue with how fun kissing is. Those negative, unproductive parts of dating outweigh all of this for me.

Dating just seems to hit or miss for me. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but the reasons are often unclear. Why isn't there a second date with this girl but there is with the other. It makes sense that it is hit or miss because you are just meeting these people. You don't really know them before this date except a few brief exchanges. This is not an easy way to start something.

What works for me has always been getting to know someone as a friend. Falling for them because of who they are and seeing that the feelings are reciprocal. That is exciting to me. Then it isn't about impressing this date. Rather, it is about knowing that this person loves me for who I am and won't mind coming to my apartment to laugh at the Dave Chapelle Show. She won't mind when I make dumb puns, because she knows that's just a part of who I am.

Even though I'll go into this school year without the groundwork of a relationship started, I'll be happy. I'm fine with this approach to relationships because I know that at some point there will be someone who connects with me perfectly. Also, when they haven't worked there have been clear reasons why a relationship isn't going to be a good option. While it is disappointing it is understandable. All of my real relationships have ended for reasons that I respect.

That's just something I can't say the same for with dating. With the new school year coming I'll be busy. Hopefully I won't be too busy to keep an eye open for someone who is starting to notice something she likes in me.

Sunday, August 15, Erin will turn 30.

Happy Birthday!

After much debating with myself over the best birthday poem for you, I decided on this one. With your passion for life and for teaching and for learning you will, for sure, teach many students (if not the English language than certainly the beauty of literature and writing) one word at a time.

Teaching English for an Old Composition Book by Gary Soto

My chalk is no longer than a chip of fingernail,
Chip by which I must explain this Monday
Night the verbs "to get," "to wear," "to cut."
I'm not given much, these tired students,
Knuckle-wrapped from work as roofers,
Sour from scrubbing toilets and pedestal sinks.
I'm given this room with five windows,
A coffee machine, a piano with busted strings,
The music of how we feel as the sun fallas,
Exhausted from keeping up.

I stand at
The blackboard. The chalk is worn to a hangnail,
Nearly gone, the dust of some educational bone.
By and by I'm Cantiflas, the comic
Busybody in front. I say, "I get the coffee."
I pick up a coffee cup and sip.
I click my heels and say, "I wear my shoes."
I bring an invisible fork to my mouth
And say, "I eat the chicken."
Suddenly the class is alive --
Each one putting on hats and shoes,
Drinking sodas and beers, cutting flowers
And steaks -- a pantomine of sumptuous living.

At break I pass out cookies.
Augustine, the Guatemalan, asks in Spanish,
"Teacher, what is 'tally-ho'?"
I look at the word in the composition book.
I raise my face to the bare bulb fore a blind answer.
I stutter, then say, "Es como adelante."
Augustine smiles, then nudges a friend
In the next desk, now smarter by one word.

After the cookies are eaten,
We move ahead to prepositions --
"Under," "over," and "between,"
Useful words when la migra opens the doors
Of their idling vans.
At ten to nine, I'm tired of acting,
And they're tired of their roles.
When class ends, I clap my hands of chalk dust,
And two students applaud, thinking it's a new verb.
I tell them adelante,
And they pick up their old books.
They smile and, in return, cry, "Tally-ho."
As they head for the door.


Thanks for the chocolate chip cookies Erin.

Via ...The Clown's Afraid Too, I see that Czeslaw Milosz has passed away.

He has been one of my favorite writers for quite some time. I really encourage you to get to know his writing more. You can see his genius, love, and good nature come through in his writing.

He was 93 years old and lived an amazing life. Exactly what I wish for all of my friends and all of you. He was able capture the hearts of those around him and encourage others to be a better person. Everybody can do that in their own way.

And a poem from Road-side Dog...

If Only

If only we could believe that everything ends with death. Then
there would be no fear that our past deeds may be shown to
us, to the accompaniment of enormous laughter. Nor would we
be faced with our own province of the world, to which we had
been attached, and forced to watch with clear awareness the
stupidity and evil of the living. We would have to remember
the worry of Mickiewicz, who used to say it is hard for a spirit
to act without a body.

Many thanks to Czeslaw Milosz.

UPDATE: The New York Times has a poignant obituary posted (Registration Req'd).

Cate Edwards with her family and the Kerry family.

Vote for Kerry/Edwards and you'll occassionally get to see Cate Edwards in the news for at least four years. Hooray!

Good luck Olympians.

(Thanks to Google for the image).

Sometimes I have a difficult time communicating around certain people.

Last night I went out with the second girl. She was friendly but not really what I expected. I noticed that it was more difficult for me to converse this night compared to the other date the previous night. I did adjust that once I took note of the fact that I wasn't saying much, but it took a more work to be talkative than it should have taken. We had dinner and walked around a little park where I told her some stories. I doubt we'll go out a second time but who knows.

Because we wrapped things up around 8:45 that evening, I called one of my friends and invited him over to my apartment. He reminded me that a college friend was driving into town, so we gave directions to her and invited a couple other people over as well. After a couple hours we headed out to a bar. I knew all of those people really well, so I had absolutely no problem engaging in good conversation. Then we went over to a girl's house where I met her friend. We were all on the patio drinking beer and talking. I noticed that I had no problem adding a lot to the conversation despite not knowing this girl.

I wish that I could figure out why sometimes it's difficult for me to talk to people and other times it isn't. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with shyness. If anything it seems that it's easier for me to talk to someone when I find them really attractive, which is a little strange.

I decided to catalog my year of conversations over the phone and email.

• From my phone time log it seems that I spoke about 423 hours this past year. This averages out to about 1 hour and 15 minutes a day.


• As far as emails it looks like I've received an average of 15 emails per day.


• One of my gmail accounts has over 3mb of pure text. That is around 500 conversations. About 350 of those conversations come from one particular person


• My Outlook email has messages dating back to 1995 and a total of 9476 messages


• I rarely delete email messages, but I did delete a lot of my harddrive a few weeks ago, because they came from one particular person who hasn't been in my life for a few years. I realized I didn't need to be a packrat with those. There were close to 60 emails from her


• On Blogger I've posted 425 posts since May 2003. That averages out to about 6 posts per week. From May until March I really didn't post anything, so that figure is quite deflated. During the school year the posting is less frequent, but I would imagine the true average is 15 posts per week.


• And I've posted 9192 times at a message board I've belonged to since July 2000

What does this all mean? I'm not sure if it actually means anything, besides it's easy for me to talk over email, phone, telegraph, and even relayed messages. However, in person it is often hit or miss. And damnit, I kissed the Blarney Stone which was supposed to give me the gift of gab.

Thanks to Spencer (who has a great post in reply to Joel at SA), I was directed to this post tripe at Southern Appeal that argues for req'd literacy tests:

I fail to see what is wrong with requiring all voters, regardless of race, to demonstrate a certain degree of literacy before practicing the franchise. In fact, I think it would be a good idea if potential voters were first required to take, and pass, a basic civics test.

Tisk, tisk, tisk.

It is true that the Supreme Court did uphold literacy tests in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959). Of course, this was also no longer good law, so even a cursory look at constitutional law would suggest that this idea is not only appalling, it is unconstitutional. In Lassiter, the state of North Carolina (oh, the South) prescribed a literacy test as a prerequisite to voter registration. The interesting thing about this law was that it originally had a grandfather clause (obviously used to disenfranchise black voters), but an amendment removed the grandfather clause. Because the Court found that the ability to read and write had some relation to standards designed to promote intelligent voting the Court affirmed holding that the literacy requirements were constitutional on their face where the literacy requirements were neutral on race, creed, color and sex

In strange dicta, Justice Douglas, in his majority opinion, writes:

Literacy and intelligence are obviously not synonymous. Illiterate people may be intelligent voters. Yet in our society where newspapers, periodicals, books, and other printed matter canvass and debate campaign issues, a state might conclude that only those who are literate should exercise the franchise.

This seemingly points out what Joel at Southern Appeal is overlooking. Just because a person is illiterate, it does not mean that one is going to be an illiterate person. In 1959, it might have been appropriate for Justice Douglas to ignore the influence of radio and TV as political commentators were not a dime a dozen. Today it seems ridiculous to assume that an inability to read means that a person is unable to make an educated vote.

While states to have considerable power to set voting requirements the federal government has its say. For example, the Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress' parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). Chief Justice Warren wrote the opinion that upheld remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court found that the temporary suspension of voter qualifications, such as literacy tests, were not unconstitutional because the record indicated that such tests were traditionally used to disenfranchise minorities and their suspension was a legitimate response to the problem.

What does this all mean?

The Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress' parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966), despite the facial constitutionality of the tests under Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959). We have also concluded that other measures protecting voting rights are within Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, despite the burdens those measures placed on the States. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra (upholding several provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (upholding ban on literacy tests that prohibited certain people schooled in Puerto Rico from voting); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (upholding 5-year nationwide ban on literacy tests and similar voting requirements for registering to vote); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980) (upholding 7-year extension of the Voting Rights Act's requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear any change to a '"standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting"').

It means that for all intent and purposes literacy tests are neither necessary nor constitutional. Beyond that, the public outcry that would be created if any politican attempted to legislate for mandatory literacy tests would be quite loud.