In light of the financial hit the world stock markets took today along with the Dow's 416 point plunge on escalating fears of a global (meaning US & China) economic slowdown, I thought I would write a quick review of last night's Heroes episode, Company Man. Up front, I will disclose that I have continued to watch this show (either right after 24 or in place of it) and that the past few episodes have only gotten better since the second half of the season began a few weeks ago.
For once, the show focused on one group of characters and one storyline and applied the Lost-theme of using flashbacks to fill out the story. I thought this approach was good. But enough about that. The show itself is moving along at a steady pace and although I am lost on the timeline as to when things are happening, I do see how the characters are all coming together. Last week's episode, Unexpected, was great. This week's was better. The preview for next week suggests that both Simone and Ando have powers. We'll see if I am right.
So, Parkman the cop and Ted the unibomber break into the Agent's house in a half-brained scheme to kidnap Claire's father and figure out how he turned them into freaks of nature. Unfortunately for them, they ultimately find out that they can only blame their parents and the writers for giving them their so-called superpowers. In the end, Parkman is left in a hospital bed and probably being recruited to work for the other side, Claire and the Haitian are going to disappear, and Claire's father, in an act of redemption, fakes an attack and intentionally has his memory wiped in order to safely let his daughter escape from the clutches of this mutant tracking task force (which promises to be developed a little further next week).
In getting to this point, Company Man proceeds to trace the life of Claire's father from the time he became an "agent" of Linderman's company along with his partner, the Invisible Man, to the present. As I have suspected for some time, Claire's father is not the mastermind, but merely a highly placed cog in the company's wheel. Surprisingly, so is Hiro's father. The show also explained the Invisible Man's role in this group (sort of like Methos from the Highlander tv show) except that the company was aware of his mutant ability.
Now, I have to rewatch last week's episode to be sure, but isn't the girl who was introduced in the end of last night's episode the same girl who orchestrated the copy and the human bomb to go to the agent's house in the first place? I think she is.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Heroes: Company Man quick review
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Law review board elections or "if you want to get something done, give it to a busy person"
So we recently had our law review board elections to select next year's board for our school's law review. Having been on the receiving end of the process (last year), it was interesting to sit on the giving end just to see how different people interview. All in all, it was a long, yet interesting day.
Based on my limited interviews, I can categorize interviewees into three general categories. The first is the ultra-prepared, who obviously have great interviewing skills and likely enjoy moderate success in getting the jobs they want. The opposite end of that spectrum is the unprepared (which you wouldn't expect in someone interviewing for an executive or administrative board position to be and yet surprisingly that was not the case). The middle group, obviously, are the ones who are prepared for what they know and are less prepared for what they don't. Interestingly, I think the only difference between those in these first and third categories is only that the more prepared interviewees can take an unforeseen question, answer it, and then twist it in such a way that steers the interview back into the arena to which they are stronger. Those in the third category, by implication, tend to get tripped up by these questions, and the stumble may be costly if the interview between the two candidates for whatever reason ends up being close.
The best quote I heard all day (and worth writing down): If you want to get something done, give it to a busy person. Never heard that one before, but I like it. It certainly applies to all of the type-A overachievers that tend to be on law review. Fortunate for me, I only have less than a semester to remain in that category.
And yes, this entry has no real substance to it. Sort of like America Ferrera's (or most other actors'/actresses') attempts at making a political statement.
Read more!
Friday, February 23, 2007
Landis vindicated, maybe
I saw that the French lab may have messed up again in its accusation that last year's Tour de France winner Floyd Landis was hopped up on goofballs. While the taint of this allegation and Landis's unquestionably poor handling of the situation in the days that followed may never really go away, I will nevertheless shed my immense disappointment and revert to my Stage 17 excitement.
Although this is old news, I will state that as a former athlete, I found his Stage 17 comeback (one day after his Stage 16 disaster) as totally probable and believable when it happened. I also believed that if something had been ingested, it would have been unintentional (although had this been the case, it would have been nearly impossible to show that he didn't know). Regardless, and I can't state this to a reasonable certainty because I have certainly never competed in anything as grueling as the Tour de France (or an Ironman or marathon for that matter), but I have certainly had multiple days of competition where you can blow up one day and come back like a world beater the next.
Landis's Stage 17 victory was a testament to an athlete's ability to come back from hitting the wall at the worst possible time. If he cheated, then obviously he should be stripped of his title. Because it now appears that he did not, and the French (again) have jumped the gun on accusations (and I am strongly tempted to use the word "baseless" here but choose not to), I think the world should simply accept his amazing comeback for what it is and move on.
I can only hope the 2007 Tour de France will not have these types of controversies. Unfortunately, I will be studying for the bar during most of it and will have to rely on the update rather than watching it live on OLN (or whatever that network is called now).
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Lost still on at 10?
While I wasn't overly entertained by last night's episode of Lost, there were parts that were pretty good. I am confused as to what the "three mysteries" that were solved were. It sort of explained Jack's tattoos and what happened to the children, but what was the third? How the others traveled between the two islands? We know they had a boat before. EW will probably have a review that explains it.
In either case, I don't understand why they continue to show the new episodes at ten when they are showing the repeats at 9. If you're going to do that, ABC, you need to put the rerun on at 8 and the new one on at 9. As I have mentioned before when they moved the show to 10 to begin with, it simply is a poor business decision. Again, have some confidence that the show will fare well against both Idol and Criminal Minds (particularly since Idol just announced that it's ratings have begun to slip, also as I had predicted in December). Of course, this is cautioned that the show really needs to get on the ball as far as advancing the plot.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The New $1 coin
I was paying for parking today and the machine usually dispenses Sacajawea dollars as change. To my surprise, when I got home, I had two George Washington $1 coins.
Other than the picture and the back, they are pretty much identical in color and shape to the Sacajawea dollar, meaning it is yellow and slightly bigger than a quarter (not much different than the Susan B. Anthony dollar disaster from a couple decades ago). On the whole, I like the concept of a dollar coin, but I don't like the concept of it being so small. If I had my way, it would be the same oversize as the Ike dollar, which, as one of my friends puts it, "feels like a dollar." If I were to throw the new G.W. dollar at you and it hit you, you would cry battery and think you were hit with a quarter. If I were to throw an Ike dollar at you, you would know you were hit by a dollar. Inconvenience of size aside, I'm sure George (who is already the king of yard sales by virtue of being on the dollar bill and quarter) would appreciate his dollar coin being a little bigger.
Just my hundred cents...
Read more!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Bluebooking R.H. Coase Nature of the Firm
I am amazed that Coase's most famous work is typically cited wrong. I believe the error stems from an old bluebook cite that simply has been overlooked.
Typically, this article gets cited as R.H. Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 4 Economica N.S. 386 (1937) (or (n.s. 1937) or (economica, n.s.). The n.s., however, is NOT the title of the journal, but rather it is stands for the "new series" of Economica that started around 1936 or 1937. As such, T.13 recommends that the n.s. be so designated. According to the third example in the most recent (18th) edition of the Bluebook (p.349), the correct cite for this article should be:
R.H. Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 4 Economica (n.s.) 386 (1937). (obviously with correct italics and small caps). Note that the (n.s.) is NOT in small caps.
So editors, if you drop off the parentheses or lump the n.s. in small caps along with the journal title, you are wrong. Let's try be a little more consistent.
My previous Bluebook entry, on citing Wikipedia entries (which should be used as a last resort by the way since it is just an encyclopedia after all) can be found here. As I continue my edits on this current article, I will see if any other common thing wrong with the bluebook jumps out at me.
Read more!
Monday, February 19, 2007
Sirius and XM announce merger
As I predicted in my new year's predictions posts for 2007, Sirius and XM have announced plans to merge, which will be great for the consumer market for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is now everyone who buys into satellite can hear it all without having to choose one platform over the other. Although this merger may have some monopolistic effects, I find it more similar to cable, and since there really is only one cable company (pay-tv) of any significance and nobody seems to cry monopoly, I don't see how pay-radio can really be any different. Other than the feds, I can only hope that there aren't any shareholder derivative suits that would work to hinder this effort.
Between this and Britney Spears having a Sinead O'Connor or G.I. Jane-esque moment, reporters across the world must be having a field week.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
So Anna Nicole did have a will - or why it should have been updated
I see now that the Anna Nicole Smith will has surfaced, and to muck things up even further, it leaves everything to her dead son (and failed to account for the situation that in fact occurred - i.e., what happens if her son predeceases her). Unfortunately for her, it was not updated after her daughter was born, and because she still has yet to be buried, it obviously doesn't account for where she wants to be buried and how, what happens if she is incapacited (a Terry Schiavo situation), etc. Further, the way Article I is worded inherently contradicts the fact that she has two children. Can you really disinherit a child you haven't had yet? Seems sort of against public policy, but maybe California has weird laws. I may only be a third year law student, but if I see problems with how this will is worded, I'm sure the court and the scores of attorneys that will become involved in this case will see them even more clearly.
So, while it's good that she has a will to adjust for some things, it is not as good since it was not updated in order to account for others. Moral of this ongoing story (and likely the last time I will comment on this tale): Have a will, prepared by an attorney, and update it whenever you have major lifestyle changes (e.g., kids, marriage, purchase a house, etc.). The costs of having an attorney do the will right far outweigh the costs of the litigation that could result if someone were to be "forgotten" or if you tried to do it yourself (The Anna Nicole Smith situation exemplifies the former problem).
Read more!
Friday, February 16, 2007
Stuck on a plane for 10/12 hours...yikes
Unlike the flight that may have been almost as long, I see that the snowstorm up in the mid-atlantic trapped Delta flyers on a plane for 11 hours. Although a Delta official told the reporter that the passengers on that flight were free to leave and the plane never left the gate, I suppose the video that the two teenagers took may prove otherwise. Because I can be biased here, I would tend to side with the plane and could believe that these teens were told they could go, but if they left, they wouldn't be on that flight if and when it finally did leave. So I question whether they were actually forced to stay on the plane, which would preclude any false imprisonment allegation they may think about bringing. I picture these two as loyal watchers of shows like the Hills or Laguna Beach. (This last statement is a joke by the way.)
On the other hand, another flight got iced in while the plane was in the queue getting ready to take off. See JFK JetBlue Passengers Face Turmoil on the Tarmac and 10 Hours on JetGlue. While this doesn't qualify as false imprisonment either, I can only imagine the PR problems that now face this airline (and perhaps Delta as well). Obviously they will get a ticket for another flight, but is that really enough of a remedy? Not sure what the passengers (as a whole) could do, but I'm sure if they pooled their collective complaints together, they could get something out of it.
Luckily for the airline nobody had a medical condition and died as a result of being stuck on the plane without swift help. Hopefully they started the in-flight movies at least.
Read more!
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Lost: Flashes Before Your Eyes review
I normally try and keep my comments about Lost minimal since this is a show I simply enjoy to watch (as I have noticed my tv habits have digressed into). Last night's Lost episode, Flashes Before Your Eyes, however, went full force into the free will versus determinism debate. Because this is one of the things I enjoyed about my various undergraduate philosophy classes, I will briefly respond to EW's review about the episode.
The question of whether free will or determinism triumphs is multifold and intricate, and I have neither the time nor the background to explore it fully here. For some interesting movies that explore the concept, see the original Bedazzled (with Peter Cook and Dudley Moore), Oh God! (with George Burns and John Denver), Minority Report, the Matrix (but you'd have to sit through the two sequels) and on a certain level, Lady in the Water (although the last two are a bit of a stretch). Obviously there are plenty of books as well. Hume's are probably a good start.
Essentially (and I draw this from what I remember from my undergraduate courses), one school of thought has everyone making free choices and the other (Hume's particularly) suggests that the choices will result in the same consequence (leading to the conclusion that everything is pre-determined). Last night's Lost episode played on this theory a bit by positing the idea of whether someone would make a different choice if he were given a "do over," so to speak. Despite this opportunity, however, a mysterious Oracle (who, as pointed out by Hannah Tucker is the same woman from The Others) guilts this character (Desmond) into making the same choice "to save the world." If anything, the pressure to make the same choice has to skew the result. Why does everyone in the show except for Jack assume everything exists on that island at face value when nothing has given them any indication of such?
What I find more interesting than the way this theory has been presented on the show is how subtle they have done it. If, as the Oracle on the show points out, "the universe has a way of course correcting," it would appear that the show wholehearted embraces the deterministic viewpoint where everything happens for a pre-ordained reason and free will, even when exercised, is a theoretical construct that will not alter the end result. For several reasons which I need not get into here, I disagree, and it will be interesting to see if this determinism theory the writers have put on the table is merely a red herring. (Besides, if Desmond did wake up in the past, he couldn't have changed anything because it had already happened). As such, I stand by my original assumption that Lost carries the same theme as The Bridge of San Luis Rey.
Think of driving to work. Whether you turn on street A or street B doesn't matter if either street eventually takes you to your destination. Determinism would have you believe that you choose one because it is fated that you do so, but even granting you have the free will to take the other path doesn't matter since your destination is the same. I would argue that the choice lies not in deciding which road to choose, but whether you decide to choose to get in your car in the first place. To me, this is the free will, not the choice resulting from that first choice.
The determinism comeback to this point may include an argument that societal mores push you into making the choice to go to work, and any deviation from this choice (e.g, being sick or lazy) doesn't change the fact that you'll eventually go. Or if you choose to do something else, this was predetermined. I submit that this argument begs the free will question. Further, nobody said free will was easy - anyone can choose, at any point, to do something else. The repercussions of choice (for most people) are not world-changing, although sometimes I do wonder about the snowball effect one choice has on someone else's and so forth. That theory, of course, is for another entry on another day.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Talking potty cakes? What will New Mexico come up with next?
I see that New Mexico has come up with the novel idea of a talking urinal cake that deliver a simple message to those weary and wasted: "You drink, you drive, you lose." Will this message sound more like "Drink, drive, booze" as you are going?
The article is unclear whether this message comes on only when it detects alcohol or simply when it is used. I'm not a doctor so I don't know whether this type of detection is even possible or cost-effective (these things cost $21/cake so maybe it is). Because they are going for it, I wonder if the voice is a woman's sexy voice or if this whole thing acts like an Elmo's Potty Time toy. This could be a funny Superbowl commercial for next year.
I can appreciate the public policy driving this idea and maybe it will be more effective than annoying, which would be good. I also wonder whether New Mexico has some sort of dram shop act, and if not, does the agreement to put in these talking potty cakes unintentionally expose the bar to third-party liability? Or, if it does have a dram shop act, does this potty cake absolve them? In either case, the bar serves the alcohol and now they are actively trying to prevent drunk driving by having the urinal warn them instead of the bartender or bouncer. I don't see how that would hold up. If New Mexico is going to go this far, why not just require all cars to have breathalizers installed? Wouldn't this prevent more drunk driving than a talking toilet?
Taken even one step beyond this, doesn't this act ignore the fact that women (presumably) drive cars in New Mexico? I doubt this really raises any equal protection issues, but regardless, I can see more benefits in spending the money on something else.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Anna Nicole's kid and the unborn heirs problem
Drudgereport linked an article yesterday that the late Anna Nicole Smith's child may be the child of her late-billionaire husband. Setting aside the will contest between Anna Nicole and that family for the purposes of this entry, Drudge's nugget creates a different facet to the inheritance problem that I discussed yesterday.
Generally, there is a presumption that a child is yours if it's born roughly nine months after you die. Modern medicine, of course, allows children to be born beyond this time period. The problem that has been created by this technology and beginning to be addressed through the court system is how long do the inheritance rights of this particular child run, since normally one's assets are divided evenly among children if there is no will and no living spouse. California has one casebook case about this (Hecht v. Superior Court, 1993) and Massachusetts recently weighed in on a similar issue (Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2002). (and yes, I know these aren't bluebooked properly).
In the end, as the Woodward case points out, it's all about money. Social security, insurance claims, etc. all may be brought by the living parent or her estate on behalf of the child, but at what point can you really say enough time has passed? The legislature could make a distinct cut off, but then are you faced with the problem of forcing children to be conceived? On the other hand, a cut off point could make it much easier for the parent making this choice to realize the economic and familial consequences. Either way, the inheritance rights of these children, if any, becomes a very fact intensive issue. Particularly, the court must resolve whether the dead parent actually wanted the child and further, how the dead parent planned to address the problem of the decreased share owed to his or her other living children. As you can imagine, this can be just as messy as, if not messier than, a will contest.
If Anna Nicole's child is the child of her deceased husband, this obviously keeps the half billion dollars away from any of the other half a dozen or so men who are coming out of the woodwork to argue that the child was theirs (which leads one to wonder where these men were while Anna Nicole was living, but that's beside the point and irrelevant for these purposes). Whether this child now has a claim on the inheritance (in addition to Anna Nicole's estate and the other children) becomes yet another question to be determined by the courts, and probably a much more difficult one to resolve in the child's favor. Although the Daily News reporters argue that the child can receive up to half of the $1.6 billion estate, that is a misleading and conclusory statement for the above mentioned reasons. Given the acrimony between the parties, it is unlikely she would receive any of that money, and even if she did, it would not be anytime soon. To reiterate my point from yesterday, all of this could have been resolved through a will, even the case of frozen eggs/sperm, because the will could be drafted to account for such a contingency. Oh well.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Why Anna Nicole shows that you need a will
I'm taking an estate planning course this semester that covers a significant portion of trusts and wills. Apparently, Anna Nicole (who already had a pretty most famous will contest) died without a will, making this the juicist intestate battle since Howard Hughes' intestate fortune was challenged.
Assuming Anna Nicole's estate eventually gets the significant chunk of change left by her dead millionaire husband, her lack of a will means her estate will pass to her husband and natural children. Because the child is a minor, all of it would go to her husband, assuming they were legally married. If not, all of it goes to the child and the father can fight to try and manage it. Assuming that she was legally married to her husband Howard K. Stern (no relation to the king of all media Howard Stern), then he would get all of her estate, but only if the child is his. If she is not his child, and they were not legally married, he gets squat. So, whoever is the father gets to basically manage the child's money, and probably would get custody over the child (another independent battle). Hence, the fight to establish parenthood. "Not the parent" and "not married" equals "no piece of the estate." It's a little more complex than this, and because I'm not a lawyer, I am not attempting to explain it legally anyway. This is just the big picture summary based off of something I saw on something like E! True Hollywood Story.
Given that Howard K. Stern is a lawyer, however, I'm surprised he didn't anticipate any of these problems and simply create a will for her (or more likely, get an independent lawyer to do so), which would avoid most, if not all of this whole issue. Guess this turns into an expensive lesson for him. Way to represent UCLA and the West Coast, Bahama Man. This whole thing reminds me of a Jerry Springer show.
Wikipedia gives its rundown of this tale of woe and wills if you were interested:
Anna Nicole Smith
Howard K. Stern.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Cingular cell phone
I am reserving comment on my personal feelings about Cingular's cell phone service (other than they are merely ok at best), but the phone I have (Nokia 6102i flip phone) has recently gone on the fritz. When I flip it open, I see nothing but a white screen. After a few flips, I can get it to work, or I'll see some inverted red screen and then it will work after the subsequent flip. In either case, it's quite the defect and I will be returning it tomorrow since I'm sure the six or eight months I've had it means that it is still under warranty. If I hear why or what the defect is, I'll post it.
UPDATE 2/16/06:
Apparently this is some sort of flip phone defect (common in this model). My phone was still under warranty so they shipped me a new one. It works fine now, but I think I'll try and get something other than a flip phone next time because I have no confidence that the same problem won't surface in a few months. One of my friends has some sort of Razr phone and said she had the same problem but she wants to switch services so she just is going to bear with the problem until her contract runs out.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Lost returns
I will be watching Lost tonight, and likely will stick with the show until the bitter end. My only hope is that it closes more doors since I can't imagine any more being opened. We'll see though. The Lost pre-game show at 9 promises to explain what we (the viewers) need to be watching for. After all, it's just a television show, and they have said all along, they have stuck to their script (for the most part).
I'm just glad the television still works though since the power down here has been spotty as of late - in the last week, we've gotten like 10 inches of snow, it's pretty crazy. With such bitter winds and temperatures, I'm surprised they haven't cancelled classes.
Read more!
Friday, February 02, 2007
Finally, the Office legal ties
In my various online research for one of my current projects, I came across this link to a law firm that blogs about NBC's The Office from the perspective of a lawyer who gives the rough estimate of how much the hilarity would actually cost in real life.
The Office HR/Legal Blog article can be found here.
The Blog "That's What She Said" can be found here. It includes an analysis of last night's more funny episodes, "Ben Franklin."
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Advertising Genius
I was driving to work this morning and was listening to the Opie and Anthony show for a few minutes and they were doing a bit on Boston Mayor Tom Menino's 2007 State of the City Address (video of which can be found here). Criticizing the grammar used throughout the speech and mispronunciation of Boston (as something like Bofsden, at a little past 20:40 on the video), they concluded that with a guy like this at the helm, it's no wonder the whole city flipped out when a few "blinking electronic signs displaying a profane, boxy-looking cartoon character" appeared along several roads and bridges. Now, had this event not been a hoax, the reaction would certainly be quite different; however, I am left to wonder what kind of weapon would look like a milkshake, a box of fries, and a meatball?
While meant to be a silly advertising bit that eight other cities didn't even notice, Boston, as has been widely reported, may have overreacted. In all seriousness, this overeaction in today's post-Sept. 11 society is probably a good thing. On the other hand, one may also conclude that the drivers who saw these blinking food products must have never seen a Lite-Brite or lit-up billboards for that matter. In any event, the hoopla surrounding this "hoax" has probably given the Aqua Teen Hunger Force more advertising then they would have gotten from say, paying the $2.6 million to put an ad on during this year's superbowl.
Collegehumor has posted the press conference of the two alleged suspects, and as they astutely note, this is probably one of the greatest press conferences ever.
And to make a simple observation - if Boston's hoax device law requires intent to cause a panic, I can't imagine how the intent to advertise could possibly cross over into some sort of constructive intent to cause the ensuing panic that resulted. This isn't a case of eggshell skull; rather, it seems to be a case of misdirected advertising consequences. Now, if Mike Nifong was on the case, this may become quite colorful; however, I would imagine this will result in either a fine (which, even if they had to pay back all of the emergency personnel costs would still pale to the amount of advertising they got out of this stunt) or a dismissal. On the other hand, they may be better off just pleading guilty to avoid a harsher sentence in case the state decides to get them under some sort of federal terrorist provision.
Westlaw's new questions
I've spoken to a few of my friends who actually bother with this semester's westlaw trivia gimmick, and the general consensus is that Westlaw's new trivia questions are unnecessarily tougher. Whereas before, the answer could be figured out fairly easily and points awarded as a result, the trivia now requires extra effort (and in many cases extraordinary efforts) to figure out what the right question is. And since there are less points to win and less ways to win them, it makes me wonder whether it's even worth this effort at all. Certainly if I was a first year student, I would think not.
First, I can understand the need to copy Lexis's idea of forcing you to have to do some sort of research to figure out the answer, but Westlaw's trivia comes at a point in the work session where the user has to log back in. Second, their point values are worth a little more than the penny, so why require more than a penny's amount of effort? Third, why be so stingy with how your key demographic can get points? Even the television networks cater to the online market by offering multiple methods to watch their popular television shows. This is more of a rant than anything else, but whatever reasoning lies behind the amount of work for so little westlaw reward is simply illogical.
Agree? Disagree? Feel free to post a comment and maybe Westlaw will key in on it and come up with some sort of "Valentine's" gimmick as a way to save face.
