I may write a longer article on this at some near point in the future, but the gist of it can be begun here. The AP, today, released a rather disturbing article about the student loan rates and loan problems for graduate students generally. See High Priced Student Loans Spell Trouble. For disclosure purposes, I first saw this on the Yahoo news wire, under the title Explosion in High-Priced Student Loans Sow Seeds of Trouble for U.S. Economic Growth but since Yahoo news links expire after a few days, I am providing two more permanent links instead. Either way, the article focuses primarily on law school debt, but it rings true for both the legal and medical professions (who chose not to participate in the military's Health Profession Scholarship Program). Graduate school debt is steep and the financial value a professional is given for this academic and career pursuit is, for the vast majority, minimal. Since my background is obviously legal, I will focus on that side of it with complete acknowledgment that my medical school counterparts are in the same boat.
As I have constantly written about, most of those who graduate from law school are in a financial nightmare. The top 1-2% in the country, regardless of tier, are the ones securing the jobs at BigFirms. The rest, unfortunately, are scraping for jobs which pay, on average, $40-50k/year. Although I quietly defer to the fact that this clerkship will likely lead me to a much higher paying job, for the time being, I am in the same boat as most everyone else. Like most of my colleagues, I have about $85-90k in debt. With my grace period quickly coming to a halt, my interest payments are figured to be about $600/month (mainly because I consolidated my first two years' government loans with the 4.7% interest rate). So, with the current rates in flux, it is unclear exactly how much my monthly payments will change, but I figure that $600 in interest will be pretty steady. Add in rent, utilities, and food, and that leaves very little at the end of the month to save for much more, such as a house. I can't be the only law clerk who thinks about these things, or blogger, and I know I'm not the only law school graduate.
More disturbingly, however, is how this level of debt is having a major impact on public service. This, I submit, is the bigger problem. The federal Stafford loans cover less than half of tuition, except for perhaps a couple of public schools. So, not only do you have to borrow $18,500 a year from the federal government, most of us are forced to borrow at least an additional $20k from private loans (namely, Citibank). And I'm not even going to touch the private loan scandals that are rocking the nation right now. Tuition is a mess.
Congress, at least, is attempting to try and help the problem, but an extra couple thousand isn't even going to put a dent in the debt percentage (although I certainly appreciate the effort). I think the time has come for the states to step up and create their own Stafford program. The cost is going to be high up front and is going to have to come from somewhere, but its necessity will only become more glaring in the next few years. Maybe states could model it after the military grants where if you agree to work in public service, they will forgive some of your debt. This, too, has problems with equality, but I think these are secondary to the larger issue. Obviously I have more to say about this issue, but I'm going to have to hold off until football season is over. Go Cowboys!
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Student loans spell trouble for those without the high price firm jobs
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Another case bites the dust...
...thanks to settlement that is. This is the second time this has happened in as many weeks. While that is all well and good for the argument promoting efficiency of courts and the legal system, it creates, based on the timing of the assignment, a lot of extra work for a clerk. What can you do? The short answer is: Not too much. Basically, I can only hang onto the research and hope that a similar issue is appealed sometime in the next year (or two years if I decide to take a stab at going to the US Supreme Court, which at this point seems rather unlikely). I can only hope that another clerk reads this and comments with commiserating sympathy (although both unlikely and unnecessary). Read more!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
US Supreme Court takes on the death penalty. Again.
Since this is somewhat related to real life work, I couldn't help but listen when I heard Brian Williams say on the news that the US Supreme Court had accepted a case about the lethal injections. And sure enough, it has. See Lethal Injection Gets Review: Top U.S. Court Overview. Now, lest I be accused of overstepping my bounds of neutrality, allow me to weigh in one consideration that I have with this controversy. I haven't given this much thought beyond the last five minutes, but take it for what it's worth.
Now, 200+ years ago, most executions took the form of public hangings. Plenty of research has been written on this, and I leave the entire scope (e.g., firing squad, guillotine, etc.) for more accomplished authors. Although states can choose whether they allow the death penalty or not, time has morphed this form of capital punishment into its modern marvel, the lethal injection. So how does this fit into the 8th amendment? Well, simply put, "cruel and unusual" has the dubious distinction of being one of the few amendments whose definition and understanding doesn't quite fit with the concept of applying original intent.
What I mean by this, I think, is that the framers gave the government (and the states through the 14th amendment), an ability to define what "cruel and unusual" is, with its obviously deference through Marbury v. Madison to the courts. So, the Supreme Court says the death penalty is okay (presumably since it has been in existence since 1790), setting the floor for the states and the government to determine what kinds of punishment are appropriate. So is the Roberts court going to try and ratchet this floor up a couple inches? I don't see how they can. I see this as purely an Article I or II problem.
If these prisoners and the greater public believe that there are bigger procedural problems (e.g., blotched executions, two hour slow deaths), and that these problems may have a negative psychological effect on the American population, then the appropriate avenue to fight it is in Congress, or in the pending case, the Kentucky General Assembly, not the courts. (Note: I find it disturbing that in looking for the Kentucky General Assembly website, the top hit in an appropriate online search is for the Catholic Conference of Kentucky's links to the legislature).
Maybe the time has come for the states (e.g., Michigan v. Long) or the feds to deal with this problem head on, and maybe this case will add fuel to the debate's ongoing fire. This opinion has Scalia and Stevens written all over it (perhaps in similar fashion to the Raich case). Only time will tell.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Heroes season 2 premiere: Four Months Later quick review
I'm just going to put a quick note here that I just saw the Heroes season 2 premiere, "Four Months Later". Much better than the season 1 pilot, and it seems to have some interesting potential for the rest of the season. Spoilers and another paragraph or two of review follow the jump.
While the main characters all sort of just pick up "four months later," only a little of plot actually develops in the first episode. Not to be outdone by the far fetched X-Men type abilities from last season, Supercop Matt Parkman survived the four bullets to the chest he got from Sylar in the season finale, which means that in addition to hearing people's thoughts, he can now survive what most doctors would classify in their autopsy as "massive chest trauma." He's now divorced, living with Molly, the spy kid from the last couple episodes, and is part of a massive conspiracy with the doctor and Claire's dad to take down "the company." They also allude to the "bogeyman" that is supposedly worse than Sylar and I guess he will make an appearance at some point. And, as suspected in my review of the anticlimactic season finale, Sylar lives (if only in the preview for next week's episode).
Other pointless storyline: Claire meets some flying outcast at her new California high school; both Peter and his brother survive the weak bomb scare from the finale, although it's not exactly sure what has happened to either of them. Town gown relations with the Senator-Elect must have been abandoned for a more interesting storyline, and left to be explained in a future episode (no doubt to be called "Four months earlier" or something comparable to "Six Months Ago" last season). Anyway, Peter has lost his memory and is found in a box of ipods (without the ipods) at the end of the episode and the preview for next week suggests some sort of Pandora's box thing with another new Irish character. Maybe that guy's power will be to drink without getting drunk. Of course, that would require much more of a suspended disbelief than I am willing to give.
What I really found more interesting with the Heroes season 2 premiere is the current doofy plot with Hiro. As much as I hate time travel plots that inevitably fail for various philosophical reasons, I will let this one go solely because Heroes has resurrected one of my favorite tv good guy-bad guy villains, Sark (of Alias fame, David Anders) as Hiro's Japanese super samurai. Apparently Sark has powers here also (and a name to be determined). I would speculate that he's the guy that kills "the company"'s founders in present day, but that would be too obvious. I'm sure he has some sort of long life attribute, but whatever it is will appear in the weeks to come.
So, Four Months Later, sort of picks up where the last season leaves off, and seems to set up the rest of the season fairly well, or at least one can hope. Since I doubt I will review any more episodes this season unless they are really out there, I will conclude with my written plea that the season finale have a little more substance than last year's.
NBC's Chuck bucks valuable time - don't waste yours
Since Heroes comes on in about a half hour, I thought I would make a quick entry as to why NBC's Chuck sucks. I will continue to watch it tonight but will not watch another episode come 8:59, and even that is asking a lot. As I have already written about the pilot of Journeyman, I will save further comment on that show until another day, and I will write up my Heroes pilot quick review either later tonight or briefly tomorrow morning. So, without further ado, here are at least five reasons why I won't watch the Chuck show again.
Reason 1: As I had initially suspected, it is very similar in substance to the movie Johnny Mnemonic, but even worse, and I didn't think that was possible. Because I figured that my initial assumption may have been incorrect, I thought Chuck may not be the same. I was mistaken. It is worse. Of course, if you liked that movie, you may like this show. I did not, and thus, I do not.
Reason 2: It's a show about a Stanford grad who works on the "Nerd Herd" in the computer repair shop of a fictional store like Best Buy's Geek Squad. If you saw 40 Year Old Virgin, it's the same workplace but with less funny jokes. I will refrain comment on whether Stanford grads would become computer repairmen at retail stores. I'm sure there are a few.
Reason 3: As far as having a spy type comedy show, this one appears to take what Chevy Chase, Dan Akroyd, and the rest of the original SNL crew perfected in the eighties down two notches. In part, it's sort of like Alias, but not as intricate.
Reason 4: Somehow he downloads an entire computer file to his mind (like Johnny Mnemonic). Then, the CIA and NSA fight over him, which results in the super girl spy stabbing a bunch of people as she dances. Again, I find this very Alias-esque, and again, not done quite as well.
Reason 5: If it's a comedy, make it a comedy. If it's a drama, make it a drama. This combination comedy-drama just doesn't work for this type of show. A movie maybe, but X weeks of this crappy spy v. spy routine? Diffusing a bomb with porn is sort of funny, but not ha ha funny. Nor is it mildly amusing. In short, it's a crappy comedy, and a crappier drama. I have better things to spend with my time, and these are 4 more reasons than I need to not watch this show again. I can only hope this review saves other people with a less comfortable sofa couch the time and trouble.
Although I concede that his hot blond CIA sidekick (Yvonne Strzechowski) certainly looks good in lingerie, it is hardly enough to save this show. At least from my television schedule.
Bottom line: Pass. It's not even worth watching another five episodes.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Kid Nation - eh, it was okay, but nothing to write home about
So I was able to catch the first episode of CBS's Kid Nation to see what all the hype was about. The show is sort of interesting, and has some funny parts, but I don't think it's really targeted toward the 18-49 audience. If I had to speculate, it probably hits high on the under 18 market, and 50+ market (basically, the older parents and grandparents of kids). For me, sitting well in the 18-49 range, I see it more as something I would have watched it on that Nickelodeon camp show when I was younger. I will not be watching it again.
Basically, the show is about 40 kids who have four preselected "council members" who range in age from 10-14. I would guess that 20 or 30 states are represented, and the kids' ages range from 8-15. Now, while it's certainly different in the adult world, I found it amusing that the 14 and 15 year olds wanted nothing to do with the little kid bosses who were obviously younger. As well they wouldn't; it would be like a high school student listening to a 5th grader.
The rest of the show just couldn't hold my attention. As much as I like to watch interactions between kid groups, there's a reason I didn't want to become an elementary teacher. But if you like that sort of thing, this show is probably for you. You'll like watching how the natural leaders evolve and how the appointed leaders quickly learn that you have to lead by example. And you'll see the typical assertions of male and female dominance. And the gold star thing? It's motivational, but kind of hokey. And you give it to the girl who decides to shirk her duties by dancing in the street for money to earn $3 for a bike? But hey, this is kids we're dealing with. I'm glad one of them knew himself well enough to get the heck out of there after three or four days. Good for him.
What parents would send their kids to this "extreme" camp, just to get on tv? That's what I want to know.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
No extra time for the "disability" of having to feed your kid
I heard on the news this morning on the way to work that a Harvard student was suing about something. Since that's about all I heard about it, naturally I went to look up the story when I got home (as if I don't have enough to keep me busy as it is). Apparently, a Harvard med student sought extra time to take her medical boards because she has to breast feed her young child. Accusing the board of being discriminatory against her gender, she obviously decided to sue rather than bottle up some milk and let her husband take care of it while she took the test. See Court Rules Lactating Student Won't Get Extra Break During Licensing Exam.
While most of the constitutional law surrounding gender law has escaped me since July, I sort of remember this being an intermediately scrutinized, which basically screws this mother over except in certain situations. More relevant to my current work though, I see her argument as potentially becoming moot since the exam apparently is going to happen Monday and Tuesday and if she passes, what would she be seeking as her remedy? So that I don't get into too much trouble in this topic, I will keep my remaining comments brief. I certainly feel empathy for young mothers and women in general who face barriers such as this one that make juggling professional life and family difficult enough without the worry of a board exam. At the same time, I'm not sure that the need to breast-feed a child really rises to the level of warranting extra time for a standardized test. Dr. Currier's blog can be found here, and you can decide for yourself.
I'm also not sure that I agree with Dr. Currier's contention that this ruling will deter future women from pursuing medical careers. That's a bit of a leap, isn't it? According to the AAMC, enrollment is pretty close to a 50/50 ratio now. While I concede the ease to manipulate statistics to support your point, I think I've read more than one report that more women are entering the medical profession as M.D.s and D.O.s then men.
All of this aside, I see this as more of a legislative problem than a legal one. As the article points out, "[a] federal Breastfeeding Promotion Act now pending in Congress would protect breast-feeding women from being fired or discriminated against, and provide tax incentives for employers who set aside areas for women to nurse or pump milk." I'm sure Dr. Currier could better serve her cause by petitioning her respective board of bar examiners, perhaps with the assistance of other groups mentioned in the article, to change the rule rather than have to litigate the basis for not having it. Then again, sometimes this type of suit is relevant and could push them in the direction a little sooner. In either case, I wish Dr. Currier luck in her boards and hope that she takes them, passes them, and continues to fight the battle after the fact. As I have previously written, nothing is gained but embarrassment if she makes a stand beforehand and winds up stumbling out of the gate.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Joker sues Jeff Gordon for $22 billion
I must have had twenty clerks from at least as many states forward this to me today, so I'm sure it's already spread across the clerkship universe like wildfire. Nevertheless, this is got to be among the top ten funniest pro se lawsuits to be filed in a long while. I can only hope Letterman picks this up (or Leno) and can get this guy on the air. I actually heard it first on the radio on the way to work, but the complaint speaks for itself. See the precursor to something lesser than a 12(b)(6) motion in Riches v. Gordon suit for "recklessly driving my life crazy."
I did find a couple other bloggers who have written about it and are much more informed as to the other (ahem) frivolous suits this guy has brought. See Riches v. Gordon and also Inmate Sues Jeff Gordon.
The relief sought is $22 billion and the #24 car. I don't want to spoil all the laughter, but you can read it for yourself. Unfortunately, this one is destined for somewhere other than the appellate courts, but it still is pretty funny. I can only hope that the clerk in North Carolina (or more likely, a staff attorney) posts something funny about it once it is kicked. Until that point, we're just stuck with my armchair observation about it.
In the meantime, I wait to see how today's half-point rate cut affects my student loans. All signs point to less interest payments. Fantastic.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Heard around the clerkship circuit
I'm heading out but two things real quick. One, and this is more of a teaching point more than anything - don't spell things wrong in your briefs. Second, the previous clerk left this piece of humor for me (that was written in a past brief): "A bus owned (plaintiff)." Bearing in mind that this dealt with some sort of personal injury insurance case, I thought the choice of language, although a bit colloquial, was pretty funny.
And, some news about $50k clerkship bonus... Skadden will pay theirs the day you are finished your clerkship. I know I read that a few places will tack it onto your first paycheck, which I think is a bit late considering that most of us want to take at least a month off before diving into BigFirm life. According to my source, the amount after taxes is somewhere in between the meaty part of $32 and $34k. The latest comment on this particular area from Above the Law can be found here: Law Clerk Salaries Benefits.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Journeyman Pilot Review – 7/10 stars, give it the six episode run
Thanks to NBC’s partnership with Amazon (and I’m not sure why NBC would want to abandon their partnership with iTunes, given that it’s the market leader and all), I was able to watch, for free, the pilot episode of NBC’s Journeyman, A Love of a Lifetime, which will premiere on NBC September 24. You can watch the pilot also, by visiting the Amazon site for the show. Keep in mind that the installation of Amazon’s Unbox Video program (Net Framework 2.0) takes a considerable amount of time (almost 15 minutes, and I have a fast computer), so, as the program states, you will need to "please be patient" as the program installs. More on the merits of Amazon's jump into the digital tv market shortly.
Quick review: Journeyman starts off a little bit slow, but after 30 minutes, definitely gets more interesting. Setting aside the handful of inherent problems I'll get to in a minute, it's worth watching the pilot, and I'll continue to watch the next five episodes to see if it gets better.
My four sentence summary of the show itself (borrowing a theme from a tv show with an obviously similar plot): Tired of his job as a beat reporter in San Francisco, Mr. Dan Vassar (Kevin McKidd (Rome)) heads home one night to return to his wife and kid, and vanished. He awoke to find himself trapped in the past, forced to use antiquated technology like pay phones, and driven by an unknown force to change history for the better. His only guide on this journey is his wife, who comes to believe his time traveling tales, and his brother, a cop who hates the fact that Dan married his ex-girlfriend. And so, Mr. Vassar finds himself traveling back and forth through the past and present, watching old sporting events he knows he has seen before but for unknown reasons is unable to gamble on, and hoping that each time that his adventures are good enough that NBC will renew the show.
Spoilers and my review of the pilot continue.... In the pilot, Vassar, a (insert boring adjective here) reporter, finds himself traveling back and forth in time through 1980s and 1990s San Francisco. On one of his first "trips," he happens to see someone standing in front of a trolley and saves his life. Flash forward to the future and a simple blackberry search through Google: the person was real and alive. Maybe it wasn't a dream but just some bad sushi.
While Dan is gone though, his wife freaks out that he has disappeared for two days and all of his friends and family think he's on drugs when he tries to explain where he had been. Surprisingly he doesn't get fired from his job, and they even try and have an intervention. As he fruitlessly tries to explain, these trips seem to last only as long as commercial breaks, but by the way, he has also seen his dead ex-girlfriend. This revelation only makes his brother madder that Dan broke the cardinal "bros before hos" rule (and committed it against his brother on top of it). Dan's travels back in time come at rather inopportune moments (e.g., when he is driving a car, which subsequently crashes into a pole as he vanishes). Likewise, he wakes up back in time in even more perilous situations (e.g., on trolley tracks with a train coming). These antics quickly become annoying.
While he's back in time, you learn that he used to be engaged to a smokin' hot lawyer (Livia Beale, played by Moon Bloodgood) who he thought died on a plane crash, but apparently is a time traveler also. (This part of the storyline made a brief appearance, but looks more like a potential future storyline setup than anything else). In another leap, you learn that while he was engaged to this hottie, his current (and future) wife is dating his brother, but obviously has the hots for him. In the future you learn that his cop brother resents him for the fact that after the lawyer allegedly died, Vassar married his brother's girlfriend, and shortly thereafter had a kid. And I thought Heroes had come up with some doofy storylines. His kid also plays the piano, and is essentially meaningless to the storyline except to show that he does feel guilty when he goes back in time and his ex-girlfriend strips down in front of him. To which he says, in the most politically correct way he can, "I have work to do." Literally, unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it, and he gets up and leaves.
The gist of his first time traveling episode is that he saves some guy's life, then on trip two, he convinces the guy's girlfriend to keep her baby and marry him. When he goes back to the future and finds out that the wife and baby are killed, he returns in time to stop the guy from killing them by, and I'm not making this up, yelling his name so that he turns around just long enough that a bus hits and kills him. I would say, how ironic, but it really is just an example of lazy writing. When he goes back to the future, he discovers that the son grows up to be a doctor and saves some kids on a bus. Oh, he also buries a box in his backyard, which he digs up in the end of the episode so that his wife believes him since all this time traveling nonsense has led her to want to divorce our wayward reporter. Cue cheesy music and curtains until next week.
Things that were funny, however, include what I am pretty sure is an iPhone that he keeps carrying around that (correctly) gets no service when he goes back in time. There are also a few references to old technology, like those giant cell/cordless phones you would see on old episodes of Saved by the Bell, and old events, like T.O.'s gamewinning catch when he played for the 49ers. There is a Y2K joke which would have been funny, but I don't think it was really integrated into the culture in 1997. Maybe that was just on the east coast though. Nevertheless, the show has potential, and I'll watch a few more episodes to be sure that it is good and not some piece of junk. The acting and storylines aren't that endearing or spectacular, so I'm not going to be surprised if this show winds up sucking.
Like in Heroes, the problem with time traveling generally is that if you change one thing, it theoretically would change a lot more than one thing. The Star Trek Next Generation episode Tapestry exemplifies my point. Nonetheless, our time traveling reporter doesn't do too much changing of his own life though (yet) or uses his knowledge of the future for his own financial gain (yet), and I suppose that as long as they try and avoid making the show all about that or trying to trade his wife for his ex-time traveling girlfriend, I can suspend disbelief long enough to say that the show is pretty alright, and worth watching at least once, if not more than once. I'll even keep my mouth shut about the fact that they are "borrowing" ideas and general themes from other old shows like Quantum Leap or Early Edition. So, the bottom line is, I'm going to give it the six-episode run. It's too bad I can't go back in time like this reporter guy in case this show turns out to suck.
A final word on Amazon's Unbox video program: It's no iTunes video. While you can watch video before it is completed downloading, which is good, there are a few kinks that Amazon still needs to work out. Namely, the video, because it is some sort of streaming video, which has the tendency to be quite choppy. This choppiness, more than anything else, is highly distracting, and I never noticed this when viewing similar shows online through NBCs or other network websites, or even through itunes last year.
I thought the choppiness may have been that I had other programs running, but that was not the case. So, my advice to NBC is to not shoot the iTunes distributing chain in the foot just yet; regarding Amazon, they need to jump this version out of beta if they want to have any success in this particular market segment. Part of Amazon's problem may be because the program itself requires a whopping 200 MB of disk space, and the downloaded videos approach or exceed 5 GB in size. On the other hand, I take full credit and announce that it is with great pleasure that Amazon took me up on my October 2006 suggestion to jump into this market and made this particular episode available. I am still waiting for my check though.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Canada chimes in on Google's street shots
I haven't read too much about all of Google's street maps, although I have used Google Earth and have seen some of the pictures (good or bad) that Google's satellite have picked up. And yes, I know it's not actually Google's satellite.
This Drudge report, however, caught my eye: Canada warns Google that 'Street View' likely illegal. Now, granted, Drudge took some liberties with the link-title of the article, but the gist of it is the same. Canada (and not California or any other more probable person) has made this claim: "But the program, which relies on pictures taken without the knowledge or consent of people in them, seems to violate many basic rights of citizens and poses a serious threat to personal privacy." Maybe, but what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Now, one of my good friends is Canadian, so my only interaction with Canadians is along the lines of "we're the best at hockey," "we have the best system of government" and "we have the best beer." There are a couple other things he claims they are the best at, but at those points I usually have stopped paying attention to his rant, since it usually delves into World War II and other US history, which, frankly, he knows nothing about except from whatever he learned from his Canadian elementary teachers.
While I appreciate Canada's concern with our privacy laws, I respectfully submit that it's not their concern. Although this is a bit overstated, I'm a little taken back that, to quote Homer Simpson, "America junior" is even chiming in on this. I see this as maybe a problem for the cities it zooms in on. But you're out in public. You have as much right to privacy on a public street as you do for your garbage. I think there are concerns with it, but they are more policy based ones that I will save for another day.
Now, eventually (maybe) this camera nonsense will work its way through the California court system and perhaps even up to the east coast appellate courts (meaning THE east coast appellate court). But if California or its citizens really had a problem with it, the democratic process certainly would be faster. I have not read anything to indicate that anyone seems to have any concerns with this at the litigation level, and with its stock trading at $522.25, Google's shareholders seem to support what Canada apparently has major problems with.
No legal point to this one, more of just a shot at our friendly neighbors to the north. If only some criminal would cite Canadian privacy policy reason in support of his American reasons for reversal; that would make for an interesting roll of the eye before sitting down to give it its due course and thought.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Sen. Craig wants to withdraw his guilty plea? Well...
I saw that Senator Craig from Idaho has filed to withdraw his guilty plea. See Craig Files to Withdraw Plea, Blames Stress from Paper's Investigation. Having not really paid too much attention to all of this nonsense, all I really know is that he pled guilty to some sort of shady bathroom business a while back, and the papers didn't catch wind of it until a few weeks later. Then all hell broke loose, he wanted to resign, he didn't want to resign, he is guilty, he only said he was guilty, he didn't mean it, etc., etc. For all of this waffling about, I thought the news was reporting about John Kerry again. It must be getting close to an election year.
Anyway, when I read this article, I pictured this scene in the courtroom where he learned the harsh truth to the phrase "anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law." Or in his case, the court of public opinion.
Scene: After waiting for about 20 other people to plead guilty or no contest, Senator Craig approaches the Court. Nervous, but confident that his job and reputation will be spared by this innocuous incident, Senator Craig approaches the center podium. The law clerks from Idaho perk up, having heard that a Senator was going to be there this morning pleading guilty to some sex crime.
JUDGE: Mr. Craig, you understand that by pleading guilty to this crime you ...
DEFENDANT: Yes.
JUDGE: (More routine, constitutionally unambiguous questions).
DEFENDANT: Yes, yes, yes, no, yes, no, yes.
JUDGE: Do you admit to (whatever sexual deviance that made him guilty of this crime).
DEFENDANT: Yes.
JUDGE: (More script). GUILTY.
On appeal, I think the honorable gentleman from Idaho is paddling against the current. Of course, one would hope that his lawyers now must have a good faith basis for making this appeal. And I would guess that the trial transcript of the colloquy will resolve all issues. Of course, this is a lot of hyperbole and speculation, and I have no idea how they operate over in Idaho. Nevertheless, I will only be surprised and call Monday morning quarterbacking shenanigans if they give him a second bite at this... apple. Just my two cents.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Thoughts after the first week: Ready for retirement
Well, four days down now. Really six if you count the fact I had to do work yesterday and today. It's certainly interesting stuff. The trade-off is that I've already read almost a thousand pages of briefs and appendices. One of these days I may try and count up all the manpower and hours that go into any one case (criminal or civil) from start to finish. I'm sure it's staggering.
Once I got back to sit in front of my television for a few hours to watch football though, the fact that I don't have to worry about any long term tests (setting aside the bar bear for the time being), I must say that clerking/working is much better than law school and a good transition into firm work. If I don't feel like doing any more work for the day, I can stop. Of course it is still there tomorrow, but that's beside the point. Plus I feel like I'm actually making an impact on the legal world, so it's very rewarding in that sense, and I can work on something as long as I want without worrying about billing hours or using up precious Westlaw minutes. And for a bonus, I am guaranteed to piss one side with each and every one of my efforts.
And speaking of (not) being pissed off, my fantasy team did phenomenal this week. Plus I still have Carson Palmer to throw tomorrow, so my undefeated record should remain intact. Of course, if Dallas fumbles another return, I am going to flip out.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Humor around the clerkship circle
Just a paraphrase of a random comment heard from one of the other clerks: "After going to Big Ten Undergrad, I went to medical school for a couple years. After I realized that I didn’t like helping people, I decided to go to law school instead."
And I must have heard or been a part of at least five separate conversations about the $50k clerkship bonus offered by most of the New York firms. If any firm (New York or otherwise) isn't at least attempting to hit the $20k-$35k mark because they don't think this bonus has an impact on the final decision, you are fooling yourself. Even Above the law reports that yet another firm has bumped its clerkship bonus to $50k. More on the greedy bonus stuff another day.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Academy seeks injunction to stop Oscar statuette sale
I see that the Academy is filing suit to stop the sale of a late actress Mary Pickford's Oscar statuette. See Film Academy Sues to Stop Sale of Oscars. Apparently, when they give these trophies out, part of the actor's guild contract that makes them eligible to win an Academy Award contains a clause that has something to the effect of "giv[ing] the academy the first chance to buy Oscars for $10 each if they ever go on the market."
Now, I'm no contract or property law expert by any means, and I could only hope for something as interesting as this to expedite itself through one of our trial courts and make it to us. Of course, I would imagine that some west coast clerk will get this one since the article is out of Los Angeles. And then I would have to hope to come across some ambiguous blog entry about a pending entertainment case that has been reported on the news. It could happen. And I could win an Oscar also.
Based solely on the newspaper article, there probably is some merit to the Academy's argument, but without reading it, there's no way to gauge how strong it really is. I would imagine the counterargument is something to the effect of "winners keepers, losers weepers" and not "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." But then again, maybe in this case, they have to.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
First couple days of clerkship
Not a lot of time to write a lot, and after a full week, I'll probably have more to say. In the interim though, I will say that "so far so good" and I'm glad I only have to wear a suit on days I have to go to court. And the first recruiting event is already planned.
So how much work is there in an appellate court? A ridiculous amount. Looking at the calendar of cases due over the next month, I will have a hand in at least thirty of them. Looks like my weekend plans for watching football sunday will have to be postponed a bit. At least until halftime. Thankfully, my fantasy football draft was last week before all this craziness began.
Monday, September 03, 2007
First day as a clerk starts tomorrow
Well, it's time for my days of being an unemployed, unlicensed person with a J.D. to come to an end. At least the unemployed part, since my clerkship starts tomorrow. Hopefully by Thanksgiving, I can drop the "unlicensed" part from that sentence also.
In the words of Michael J. Fox in The Secret to My Success, "it's time for all these years of college to pay off." I'll be pretty busy with paperwork and work for the next couple of days, but rest assured, a rundown of the office is coming soon. And speaking of the Office...
NBC has released two videos on Youtube in anticipation of the upcoming Office season. The most recent is titled "The Office Summer Vacation," which reveals that Jim and Karen broke up. The other, from last month, is a recap of last season's finale.
Also, I did see that NBC is releasing all of its pilots online on September 10th or thereabouts. I'll review Journeyman then.
