Internet outage equals less spam?

Although I rarely post from work, because I know I'm not going to be on the internet for a few days, due in part to the season premiere of Lost and my weekend plans (and the Superbowl, of course), I thought I would chime in with this latest report that came across the CNN wire. See Internet Failure Hits Two Continents. Since one of those continents is North Africa, which seems to be a hotspot for the various lotteries I have one and home of several hundred dead relatives I am somehow related to, maybe this will cut down on spam for a couple days. Just a thought.

Back to work. Hopefully our internet stays up. That would suck if it did not. I don't know anymore how just 15 years ago, we lived without it. Read more!

And after all this hype, now you can download music all you want?

I don't have time to write on this right now, but I saw this article the other day and wonder how in the world this happened. See From Today, Feel Free to Download Another 25 Million Songs - Legally. Interesting. I wonder how artists will make any money from this one. I guess we'll find out. Read more!

Some strategery in light of the pending Super Tuesday

Here are some of my thoughts regarding the upcoming "super" primary event, esp. since Sen. Kennedy put the smackdown on Billary over the weekend. Some of my less humorous remarks are repeats from my entry last week; a little is new.

The way I see things playing out at this point is that McCain is going to win the Republican primary. Assuming that is the case, I think that the only Democrat that will be able to beat him will be Sen. Obama. Here is why.

Both McCain and Clinton (to the extent that the previous exit polls support my theory) are targeting the same 65+ market segment. Neither one has done much to woo the young vote. Obama, by contrast (and for whatever reason that is unimportant to this entry), has seemed to be able to rally the typically apathetic youth vote. If Clinton wins the Democratic primary, I don't see her being able to motivate this same youth demographic to bother to come back out in November.

If Clinton does win, we're left with two Washington-centered old-timers courting the same old tired baby boomer vote. Nobody on television (save certain squirrelly pharmaceutical commercials advertising products with questionable side effects, see, e.g., Aaron D. Twerski, Liability for Direct Advertising of Drugs to Consumers: An Idea of Whose Time has not Come) caters to this demographic; why should the presidential candidates be any different?

How much longer will it last before these "old folks" realize that they are past their prime? Retire already and give our economy a boost by spending your hard earned savings. And think how many jobs will be created when this vacuum gets started? There's a platform to rally behind.

The reason why, I think, Obama has been able to rock the youth vote is the same reason I've been saying all along (and in some respects, I would speculate the same reason President Kennedy was able to pull the same stunt in 1960): The younger generation is tired of so-called "old" Washington. Obama has, for better or for worse, been able to stay above that stigma. Assuming he emerges as the victor, I'm not that surprised that Sen. Kennedy has endorsed him. At this point, the Democratic party has to be thinking, who can beat McCain? Certainly they can't say with a straight face that it will be Hillary. Regardless, I submit that neither McCain nor Clinton (old or new) will have the same pull among youth that Obama has shown, and if Obama isn't in it, I see a string of "I told you so" comments emerging from our liberal press because the youth vote will remain at its traditionally low levels of participation.

But that overstates my position somewhat. The youth (meaning 18-34 demographic) will come out in droves if they think someone will come in and champion the cause for change. I think that Obama is the only viable Democrat who can pull this off. And, if he doesn't, well, then it won't really matter who is the Democratic nominee, does it? The true test of whether my hypothesis is correct will be revealed on Election Day.

What I find more interesting at this point, is who McCain would pick for a vice president. Regardless of whether it's Clinton or Obama that he (or whoever) is running against, the red guys are going to have to find someone who can spark or take away votes from the blue guys. I would think that the best person to do that is Condoleeza Rice. I can't say I'm the first person to posit this, nor will I be the last once McCain has his golden ticket. But mark my words, it's only a matter of time before the press picks up and figures out what is good or bad about this idea.

We'll see what happens next.

Tags: Condoleeza Rice for vice president, kennedy endorses obama, election 2008

Read more!

Law clerks and internet dating

By coincidence and not by New Years resolution, I signed up for a three month long Match.com account earlier this month. I'll save my comments for intra-office clerk dating for another day. Here are my initial and brief thoughts, since I have to go into work to do some stuff and I am delaying that as much as I can today. The bottom line is that after less than a month, I remain unimpressed with Match.com. My reasons follow.

So far, my experience is similar to that of when I tried this once before in law school. Of course, I am in a different city now, and I fully admit that maybe it's just me, but I just don't see a lot of serious daters on this site. There seems to be less fraud though, so that's at least helping those who were probably voted in high school as being the "most likely to be in the bottom rung of a pyramid scheme."

When I first started, I either winked or emailed someone I was interested in, or respond to a wink or email, even if I wasn't interested. Now, if I get a wink or email from someone who I have no interest in, I simply say "no thanks." I'm not sure why the same courtesy can't be extended to me since some girls I've winked/emailed never responded or even looked at my profile, so I'm left to conclude that (as with my screwy email system), they never got it to begin with, that they are inundated with so many winks and emails that mine gets lost in the shuffle, or I have failed in reaching their initial Part I hurdle. With that, I feel it prudent to offer some free advice for those thinking of putting themselves out there on an online profile.

Part I. Importance of Photos.
This online dating world has a certain voyeuristic quality to it, so I'm surprised by the people who have contacted me without any pictures. At first I responded, mainly because I'm in the benefit of the doubt business, but it's unrealistic for someone who isn't blind to not look first. Looks aren't everything, this is true, but if I wouldn't go up to someone who I didn't think was remotely cute in a bar or a bookstore, why would I do it on good faith online? So, no pictures = no dialog from me.

Second, I recognize that most people aren't very photogenic. I will say that this holds true for 75% people who aren't models or actors/actresses, myself probably included. Regardless, this is a digital world, and you need to post more than just your best floating head photo. One photo isn't enough. Further, I can't tell you how many profiles I've seen that have photos of their dogs, cats, landscapes, etc. Maybe it's just me, and I admit it may create some conversation, but pictures that speak a thousand words belong in your house, not online in a dating profile.

That being said, I am also surprised by the number of drunken pictures and pictures with guys and babies that girls put online. Unless you have kids or boyfriend issues, I find these photos just odd. If it's a group picture at a party, that's one thing, but when everyone of the photos (save the headshot) has you holding a beer in it, it makes me that less inclined to bother. The photos of what must be an ex-boyfriend cut (or cropped) out of the picture are also a bit tacky. I'm not one to judge, but I think someone who is taking this semi-seriously needs to have five or six pictures (some with friends so I know they have some), including a full body shot, are necessary. This doesn't mean just to have wedding party photos or photos that were obviously taken by you holding a digital camera and pointing it at yourself - it should be easy enough to get your friends to take a good picture of you (that is recent), and if that is a problem, I'm beginning to see that as a yellow flag.

So, if it's a bad picture up front, I'm not going to look further, at least very closely. But, if they seem cute enough after my quick glance, I'll then look at the rest of their profile. There's a way to search with just pictures, but since I'm in the reading business, I tend to search with pictures and description.

Part II. Importance of Description.
Although it's sort of like photographs, in that most people don't appear to be very good writers, I think that description comes across more harsh than I intend. I think most people are handicapping themselves by trying to create a mystique about them, which is good if you're playing a numbers game, but bad (I think) if you're trying to take this seriously. I fully admit that I may be talking out of both sides of my mouth with this part, but I think the underlying aspect is right.

I'm not looking for a novel, but I am looking for something that tells me that you're taking this semi-seriously. I can't tell you how many profiles begin with "well, it's hard to describe myself in 4000 characters." No, it's not. I think if it's going to be done right, it probably takes 3 or 4 paragraphs. Spelling counts, and I look for something more than just "I'm tired of the bar scene." Since this aspect of the profile is pretty unique to the individual, I'll just say that "less is more" works to some degree, but it's a sliding scale.

Basically, the descriptions that prompt me to consider "winking" or even emailing are able to provide, succinctly, some humor, the reasons why you are internet dating (without admitting, as anyone on there is also thinking, that it's still sort of shady), and a couple aspects about your personality. I'm not looking for your life story. I'm not even sure I want to know that you haven't had a date in the last three or four years because you've been in another relationship (although I'm sure that will come out in the course of a couple emails or drinks). Basically, I'm looking for something that we would talk about if we happened to be waiting in a long line and engaged in some sort of short, meaningful conversation. Easier said than done, I admit.

Part III. The General Descriptors.
I think this gets overlooked by a lot of people. For me, this is probably just as important as the text, mainly because this is the sort of thing that people would love to know before going up to someone at a bar and either hitting or missing. For me, I look for the age, the age range they are looking at, education, whether they want kids, to some degree religion, and their occupation. While these are probably the most judgmental things one can box someone into, they also provide the "things in common" that warrant further follow up. In reality, they give you something to talk about.

Part IV: Email courtesy.
I generally try and follow what I thought was a good rule of thumb: If someone took the time to email you, you should take the time to email them. After a couple of strange experiences with this, I have decided to agree that the social mores of online dating are less than in real life, and it's okay to just stop emailing. I still think the courtesy of saying "no thanks," while harsh, is better to provide closure for initial contact cases.

Conclusion.
Although I tried to follow each of these parts in creating my profile, I must be honest and say that I may be putting too much effort into this, and maybe I should instead approach this as a numbers game. Because I have tried to be more selective so far though, I think this strategy is not right, or at least isn't going to work on Match.com.

Since I'm a paying member, I can see who clicked on me (even after I clicked on them), so that provides an in sometimes, but again, I'm not trying to play a numbers game, so I may be handicapping myself from the start. While it's flattering that over a hundred girls have glanced my way, I've only emailed with a handful, and unlike last time, have yet to meet up with any. I was supposed to meet up with someone a couple of times, but it wound up falling through, mainly because of me and my unusually hectic work schedule. A couple girls who had sent cool emails a couple of times all of a sudden stopped being members, so I'm not sure what happened there. I've only had one bad experience so far, which has prompted me to be more vigilant in my emailing process.

None of these are good excuses though, and as one of my friends pointed out, I'm just meeting up for coffee or dinner, and I shouldn't go into these things with over-hyped expectations. Further, if I'm that busy now as a clerk, how's this going to work once I'm billing time at a big firm in a new city? I'll have to address this latter question later this year. In the meantime, we'll see what happens next month.

P.S. There was an amazing girl who on paper seems to have several things in common with me. I emailed and never got a response. She did look at my profile. Is it a safe assumption that she probably said "thanks but no thanks" and it's not worth following up to? I think the answer to this question is yes.

P.P.S. There are some amazing girls on this site. I find it hard to believe that a) they are single, and b) they are serious. If they are serious, I believe there is an untapped market for single professionals looking to date, and I'm not sure Match.com adequately fulfills this demand. I'm not sure that Millionaire Matchmaker gets it exactly right either, but there's an in between system waiting to be created. I base this conclusion on the story that was aired a few months back. See New York Rich Speed Dating.

Follow-up Conclusion:
I suspect (without any foundation) that if you're a girl, you can pretty much have your pick of the litter when it comes to online dating. If my one friend's experience was representative, she said that she often got three or four emails a day and twice as many winks. She said that her screening process was much more strict as a result. If that's the case, it makes it that much more important for the guy's profile to stand out and hope that the girl finds you attractive enough to respond.

Tags: writing a good online dating profile, online dating for young professionals

Read more!

An interesting juxtaposition of headlines and a couple funny law blogs (or blawgs as it is)

While I certainly have interesting work-related things to write about to a limited degree, I will point out an interesting couple of headlines that appeared on Drudge the other day. In this order:

What killed Heath?
Jack Nicholson: 'I warned him'...

What made that funny (to me) was it didn't seem too long ago that the headline was that Jack Nicholson was 'furious' about the late actor playing the role of the Joker. So, in my twisted sense of humor, I thought the side-by-side headlines were sort of funny. And no, it's not too soon.

Speaking of funny, I've come across two blogs that do a much better job of summarizing daily life as a recent law school grad. Because of the nature of my clerkship circle, I have made a conscious effort not to summarize the daily comedy that sometimes emerges as these two blogs do. I anticipate this will not be the case once I enter big firm life in a few months. In many respects, my current level of clerkship humor is largely based on inside jokes, which are absolutely hilarious, if I took the time to explain them. Which sort of defeats the point and wastes everybody's time. I could decide to do something different, but we'll see.

In the meantime, the one blog is by a midwestern associate and another is by another east coast law clerk. The clerk one had a great entry about law clerk life a couple of days ago which is pretty representative of the real thing. Check out Chicks Dig Law Clerks and Law With Grace. [Edit 3/11/08: Chicks Dig Law Clerks no longer exists, sorry].

I have added them to my list of funny blogs to check out. Read more!

Bought a diamond ring from 1994-2006? Get some money back

This was an interesting piece of news that seems to have flown under the radar. DeBeers is settling a lawsuit regarding their monopoly on the market. For all diamonds bought between January 1, 1994 and March 31, 2006, you are automatically eligible for a refund. Whether or not you get anything (and how much you get) is dependent on several factors, but you can get your piece of the action here: De Beers Diamond Class Action Settlement. More on other fun news another time.

Tags: diamond lawsuit settlement

Read more!

The media's hate for the economy and how Tom Brady has decided to attack it

Just a quick note on how I am continually amazed at the level of negative press that is given about anything remotely related to the economy. It's borderline of a test to see how influential the current media market is, with the theory being that if by scaring people into thinking that a depression or recession is inevitable, it will actually happen. Are they that desperate to sell newspapers? And who is this "they" that hates the economy so much?

Anyway, since bad news sells news nowadays, I saw that some astute paparazzi photographed Patriots quarterback Tom Brady wearing a walking cast. See Video Reveals Secret Brady Injury. Now, I know that when I was an athlete, I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly wouldn't rule out doing something like that merely to psych out my opponents and get them to underestimate me a bit. And, knowing that this sort of gag would get gobbled up by the press, it wouldn't be too hard to make sure that someone would catch it and exploit it. It certainly appears that that is the case.

Now, maybe it's real, and I'm sure he'll make his way through it. But in the same way that the media believes that this subprime mess will usher in the age of the euro, they sure appear to be pushing the negative idea that the Patriots shouldn't win. Am I the only one who is getting sick of this fear campaign (across the board, not just in sports or regarding the economy)? Who is orchestrating it?

Of course, I clicked on the article, which undoubtedly garnered revenue for someone somewhere, but what can you do. Further, I can't complain too much about this most recent rate cut since it will undoubtedly have a positive effect on my student interest rate. Nevertheless, I still find the overwhelmingly negative press coverage (for just about everything nowadays) a little disturbing.

Tags: why is the press so liberal

Read more!

A united democratic ticket?

Just a short thought I was discussing with some other clerks the other day. Given the near even split Senators Clinton and Obama are pulling from the Democratic caucuses, wouldn't it make sense for them to run on a joint ticket? I would think that if Clinton wins the nomination, she would give some thought to appointing Obama as VP (rather than say, her husband). Given the ability for the vice president to stay out of harms way (for the most part) politically, it would allow Obama to continue staying relatively neutral on hot-button issues. Of course, the counter to that is that he implicitly adopts whatever the president would stand for.

On the other hand, I don't think Sen. Clinton would be a vice president if Obama won the ticket for a number of reasons, least of which I am going to say is her age. She's in this to win it, not be second best. Given Senator Obama's positions, however, I think he's in more of a win-win position, and he may be more receptive toward a joint ticket if those circumstances present themselves. I would be shocked if either appointed Edwards to the position, but stranger things have happened.

For the Republicans, I can't imagine any of the current quartet who could theoretically win this (although I suppose it's really down to Huckabee or Romney at this point) against either Clinton or Obama. The real question is how fast the Republicans will unite behind the victor and try and reposition the part against the winds of change that are starting to blow (and will continue to blow harder as November approaches).

So, a couple predictions in advance of Super Tuesday:
Patriots 19-0 (but don't bet the line).
If Clinton emerges as the Democratic nomination, Obama will not decline an offer to be VP. Cries of "Obama 2016" will emerge.
The public will become aware and subsequently leary of having this country run by two families since 1992.
If Obama wins, Clinton will disappear into senatorial obscurity. Bill Clinton will entertain the notion of being vice president.
A young republican will emerge in the next 6 years who will rejuvenate the party in a similar fashion as Senator Obama.

Tags: obama as vice president, bill clinton as vice president, hillary clinton will not be vice president

Read more!

Letters from beyond the grave and Crawford issues that are created

As much of the legal world and evidence students are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 redefined the understanding of the confrontation clause of the Constitution. Since that decision, there have been probably thousands of cases dealing with the aftermath and even a blog that appears dedicated to it. And, everytime you think you've got it figured out, another twist comes up. Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is in the midst of tackling the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" aspect of the doctrine, and I'm sure that case will undoubtedly provide further explanation of some nuance. Regardless of how it plays out, Crawford keeps lawyers busy trying to figure it out, and that's fine by me.

Anyway, I saw and interesting headline that jumped out and it will sure enough create some issues on appeal. See Letter from Dead Sister Still Haunts Brothers. The article is pretty self-explanatory, but basically, wife dies and husband is implicated some time later. Husband argues suicide, the prosecution argues murder. What gives this case a Crawford-twist, however, is a sealed letter that wife gave to a neighbor twelve days before she turned up dead. According to the article, the letter "says that her relationship with her husband is deteriorating and that 'if anything happens to me, he would be my first suspect.'" And with that, we have a suspect.

I'm not going to speculate on this elaborate set-up that wife could have done here and obviously the defense will play up her alleged depression as much as they can in order to create reasonable doubt. The question I find interesting is whether this letter, which I can only imagine was let in as an exception to hearsay, implicates Crawford. Given the contents, how is it not "testimonial?" I leave the answer for the courts to decide and the lawyers to argue.

My question, and the facts would obviously have to play out in an opinion to read sometime in the future, deals with the content. If it wasn't a letter, but instead she told it to her friends, "Hey, if were to hypothetically die soon, you should know that it probably is my husband." I see this bordering on a testimonial statement despite the context of who she is telling it to. Given the short nature of the article and the few facts it describes, however, I will simply leave this as an open question and hope that a similar issue appears before me sometime in the next few months.

Tags: wisconsin jensen murder trial, dead wife letter used against husband, crawford issues in using letters

Read more!

Regardless of this writers strike, Hollywood loses: Or, Why I am going to stop watching Heroes when it comes back on

Notwithstanding my efforts to contribute productively to the global discourse on more relevant topics, this entry is another jab at the goofy television industry. I saw an interesting article the other day that basically predicts that the result of this writers strike will have the same effect on Hollywood that the 1994 baseball strike had on baseball (or the lockout on hockey or the strike in basketball a couple years ago). See Julian Myers fears Hollywood's end is near. Julian Myers is some sort of Hollywood legend who doesn't have any webpages written about him, but I'll take the google search word for it. I agree that this strike is probably going to leave many people (myself included) watching far less television. This is a good thing.

After all, most of the television shows are pretty crappy anyway. Further, I see no problem in hiring so-called "scabs" to give network television another go. But if you're going to do that, why not call them for what they are: non-unionized college students. Granted, some of the shows on TV are pretty well done (mainly, Lost and some shows on pay stations), but they are the exception rather than the norm. I am positive there are some creative minds at various colleges and universities who would love to take ABC or another network up on their offer to come up with a new tv show. Why isn't that on the news anymore? If it works for Fox on American Idol for music, why not convert the television pilot premise into some reality show and then run the "winner" as a scripted sponsored series (for six episodes anyway)? My thoughts on what could make for a good television series are already written and could easily be applied. I digress, however.

My most recent example of just plain bad tv is the Sarah Connor Chronicles. My review of why that show sucked and should have stayed on the big screen is here. According to one source, the ratings for "day 2" of the Sarah Connor Chronicles series premier were decidedly poorer. Well, it shouldn't have taken a robotic time traveler to figure that one out.

Heroes, however, had a much better premise and has gone off the deep end and consequently, off my television list. I will not be watching it again. Essentially, I see two premises that the show will be unable to recover from. First, the whole time traveling thing. I don't need to explain why this was a stupid idea to begin with. I'll simply point to the latest problem that was created by everybody being able to regenerate and time travel: now you've got a storyline where some girl from the past is taken to an alternate future. How can you possibly and with a straight face get her back? And truthfully, why would you want to? For these same reasons, I will no longer watch Journeyman either. Talk about a show that started off slow (with some potential) but literally went slower. And backwards. Literally, not figuratively. Result of the six-episode run for Journeyman: Stop watching it.

Although unnecessary for explaining why I am no longer watching Heroes, I will support my reasoning for why Heroes will ultimately fail when and if it comes back on also because of the whole regeneration storyline. I can't even support going back to the original Sylar storyline because I have no more faith in the writers because (a) the finale promised resolution of that storyline (which it failed at miserably), (b) the finale predicted a far worse "boogie man" for season 2 (which it also failed at doing miserably, and brought back Sylar instead), and (c) the show epitomizes everything that is wrong with tv today. That alone should be enough.

In short, I can't waste any more time on Heroes (or Journeyman), either in watching it or in writing about it. I suppose I will entertain responding to comments on why my points are right or wrong, but I will not be devoting any additional time in writing an entry about it short of one of the show producers or a popular Hollywood magazine or newspaper asking for my comments.

I should have listened to my original prediction in finding that the show was too out of control from the beginning and that I should have given up on it much much sooner. I certainly will not be making that same mistake with Journeyman.

Perhaps a more practical entry on options to spend your valuable free time with will come tomorrow. In the meantime, I suggest reading a book.

Tags: heroes sucks, journeyman sucks, future of heroes, future of journeyman, future of television, writers strike, writers strike a blessing in disguise

Read more!

Law school debt

I saw a thread on Above the law today about debt consolidation and thought I would talk about this a little since I'm in the thralls of paying back at least part of my massive debt. As far as where I stand personally on the debt spectrum, I'm probably less than most but more than some. Figure that if you go to a three year law school program, you'll be taking about $120,000 out, and four year programs will tack on another 40k or so.

As I have written several times, law school (and other professional schools for that matter) is not cheap. And, to give Loyola2L some credit, unless you're in one of the top schools, you've got your work cut out for you. But even if you are, that doesn't guarantee a sweet six-figure job after graduation either. So, for 96-99% of law school graduates, you're graduating with a highly practical degree that gets you in as much debt as buying a house. Granted, things will work out over time, but unless you've got some sugar source, most of us will be in debt for a pretty long time.

The thread on Above the Law regarding this simply echoes my point. Consolidation is great, but it's a case by case basis. Citibank sucks, as do many private lenders. In the end, I find it more disturbing how shielded the whole process is, even from those who are borrowing more money than they can realistically be expected to make. So, is the problem the schools, the students, or something else all together? That is something I don't have an answer to at the present time.

Tags: law school debt, cost of going to law school, private loans for law school

Read more!

American Psycho recut trailer

I wrote about recut movie trailers a few months ago. I happened across one for American Psycho the other day that was pretty funny. See American Psycho: Romantic Comedy. If you haven't seen it, American Psycho is, shall we say, not quite a romantic comedy. The original trailer can be found here. Now, back to work.

Tags: american psycho romantic comedy trailer, american psycho recut trailer, recut trailers

Read more!

Finally, some fun travel plans

After four plus months of working as a clerk, my checkbook is finally starting to balance out again (despite gobs of money going toward student loans every month, but that's another entry for another time). And, as a result or merely by coincidence, I have a trip planned for every month over the next few months. From the Bahamas to upstate New York and from LA to Europe (and two or three cities in between), I'm going to be all of the place. It's fun actually. I've also heard rumor of international flight prices going down and seem to recall hearing about it on the news a few months ago, but I am unable to find anything about it now.

And with S&C knocking on the door now, I have to at least entertain the idea of seeing what exactly they have to offer. Time will tell. Now, if only the stock market will stabilize a bit and the Cowboys can beat the Giants this weekend.

Tags: international travel

Read more!

Dr. Phil is no doctor and other misconceptions

While I have no personal interest in the personal lives of the celebrities (other than one or two I may potentially date one day), it's hard to avoid the Britney Spears saga that permeates pop culture nowadays. I'll only comment on one segment of it, the fact that Mr. Spears called "Dr. Phil" to come and talk to his daughter and try and talk some sense into her. The news reports are conflicting as to exactly the order of events, but it is undisputed that he was there for some time. Cf. Dr. Phil: Britney Spears is 'in dire need' of help with Britney Spears Rejects Visit from Dr. Phil.

I only bring all of this up because Dr. Phil isn't a medical doctor (or a D.O. or a dentist or any other legitimate medical professional). He has a Ph.D., so he's entitled to the title, but isn't his act a little misleading to the general public? I know if someone hung a shingle and called themselves a "J.D.," you can rest assured that someone from that state's bar would be raising an eyebrow if that person all of a sudden started representing clients.

According to his Wikipedia page, Phil McGraw got his psychology degree from Midwestern State University in Texas and got his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from University of North Texas. What I learned (at least according to Wikipedia) is that even his own profession has sanctioned him: "The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists imposed disciplinary sanctions on McGraw on January 27, 1989 for an inappropriate "dual relationship" reported in 1988 by a therapy client/employee from 1984." And, the real kicker: "As of 2008, McGraw has not completed the conditions imposed by the Board of Examiners of Psychologists, and he is not licensed to practice psychology." So, at least the profession considers this guy as a sort of rogue psychologist. Like Mumford.

My point to this isn't to knock Dr. Phil; obviously he provides a service to many people's daily afternoon routines. My problem is with the media's coverage of this and how many people will be mistaken in thinking that Dr. Phil is some sort of miracle worker doctor that can help Spears (or anyone for that matter) out. At least he didn't try and prescribe her medicine and in the end, simply advised the family to that she needs to seek professional help. Well Dr. Phil, it doesn't take a Ph.D. (or a J.D.) (or any other degree) to figure that one out. But hey, it's all about ratings anyway in the television world, right? And any press is better than no press.

At least those in the medical profession have criticized this blatant publicity stunt. See Oh Dr. Phil, Leave Britney Alone and Get Real. Leave that type of work to the real celebrity doctors, like Dr. Drew. At least Dr. Drew has his M.D.

Tags: dr phil credentials, britney spears and dr phil

Read more!

Yale strikes back and evens up the score and other news

To be fair to my somewhat one-sided entry the other day, I will note that the New Hampshire independents took Senators Clinton and McCain to heart yesterday in their primary polls. So, the score, at least on the Democrat side, is tied at 1-1 between Harvard and Yale, with UNC still way behind the 8-ball. We'll see how South Carolina (and to some degree, Michigan) shakes things up in a couple weeks. Super Tuesday looms only a few weeks away.

Second, I see that some headway into the MySpace murder trial has begun. See L.A. Grand Jury Issues Subpoenas in Web Suicide case. I wrote about this briefly a few weeks ago; whether this is the same case or another one I don't know. I think it is though. Interesting stuff that I'll have to follow more once more discovery and reporting takes place.

Third and finally, a thread on Above the Law today caught my attention, and for once, the posts aren't so snarky and are actually worth reading for the humor value alone. See Judge of the Day: William Sosnay (discussing his recent reprimand for wearing an ascot in court in violation of a courtroom dress code). The ABA write-up is here. Particularly, I found the frat-esque comments pretty funny, but most of the ones that came around 4 pm (the 4:12 comment, the Lex Luthor comment at 4:05, 4:13, the 4:25, and the 4:35 comments are among the funnier ones). Finally, a thread that simply makes fun at the mundane. If I was to write a comedy called "Clerks" or "Supreme Courtships" (about law clerks, that wasn't a stupid drama), it would definitely have this type of frat character as a protagonist.

Enough for now, I can only hope tomorrow is as entertaining.

Tags: judge ascot, clinton law school, obama law school, myspace murder trial, above the law comments, wearing an ascot

Read more!

So much to write about, but for now I'll focus on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent sperm donor opinion

One of my friends pointed this article out to me and I thought it was an interesting piece. See Sperm Donor Wins Child Support Battle. Pennsylvania apparently splits their decisions up very oddly, but eventually I was able to find the case online. The majority opinion for Ferguson v. McKiernan is here. Dissent 1. Dissent 2. I haven't read anything about the case other than what MSNBC reported (although I just now did a quick read of the opinion for background).

The case basically deals with the question whether parties can privately contract, through an oral agreement, the ability to avoid parental responsibilities. Here, "Sperm Donor" and "Mother" used to be in a relationship and eventually Mother wanted Sperm Donor's kids. He wanted nothing more do with her, but eventually let her talk him into donating his sperm for an in vitro fertilization. The catch? He would have no responsibilities for the child whatsoever. In essence, as characterized by the court, he would have no rights as a father and would be treated as if he was an anonymous donor at a sperm bank. Mother agreed and eventually conceived twins with his sperm.

As time and anyone who has watched Lifetime or Fox over the past ten years would guess, Mother eventually wanted Father's financial support. As the majority characterized the question, "We must determine whether a would-be mother and a willing sperm donor can enter into an enforceable agreement under which the donor provides sperm in a clinical setting for IVF and relinquishes his right to visitation with the resultant child(ren) in return for the mother’s agreement not to seek child support from the donor." My (irrelevant) thoughts follow.

The rest of the majority opinion explains the Pennsylvania public policy and why it upheld the contract. One dissent argues that it is a legislative issue and his interpretation of the relevant statute cuts the other way. The other dissent articulates why the majority's position seems contradictory in light of Pennsylvania's "best interests of the child" standard.

I'll keep my comments general in case something I deal with over the next few months covers related family law issues. My gut reaction (had these facts been presented to me at first instance) is that it would probably be a legislative issue. Because most states focus on the best interests of the child, I would tend to think there is a distinction between Sperm Donor's and Mother's contract and if Mother tried to go after an anonymous sperm donor's child support had she went to a sperm bank. Of course, if I was fighting for father, I would ring the contract bell as loud as I could.

Although I certainly agree that oral contracts can be binding and indeed have the same effect as a written contract, I would be more inclined to side with Mother had they actually come to a written agreement. Of course, the oral representations are reserved for the trial courts and it seems they believed Sperm Donor. Nevertheless, I sort of remember reading a New Jersey case that dealt with bargaining away surrogate rights, but I can't remember the facts or even if they would be applicable. I disagree that the facts of this particular case are the same as anonymous sperm donation, and am a little surprised that this type of bargain (and the opinion) equated the two. I wonder if William Penn is rolling over in his grave.

As pure speculation, I also wonder if family law attorneys in Pennsylvania now have good faith argument for deadbeat fathers who submit that mother "fooled" them into thinking she wouldn't have kids, with a pillow talk such as "don't worry, even if I have a kid, you won't be responsible." Under the majority opinion, it seems to me, if a father can show some sort of consideration for this pillow promise, then he may not be financially responsible regardless of the best interests of the child. Somehow I figure that this interpretation of the opinion would be a losing one, esp. since I sort of remember reading that this case didn't change the laws of illegitimate children. Yeah.

Either way, Father wins this one 3-2, and his children are treated as if he was an anonymous sperm donor (even though I believe that really isn't the same situation). If Mother doesn't like the result, however, she can always win some cold comfort through the legislature. Or motion for reargument since two justices apparently didn't sit on this case. Anyone familiar with Pennsylvania family law, chime right in. Better yet, if you're one of the clerks on this case, how about a little insider trading?

Tags: pennsylvania sperm donor case, ferguson v mckiernan, pennslyvania rules for anonymous sperm donor

Read more!

Best online airline flight search services

This is more of an entry for myself since I can never find these online flight things when I need them. Now to just get frequent flyer miles on my credit card for free.

I have used most of the major airline search services and have never had problems with any of them. Like car insurance, I usually just search them all until I find the best deal.

Expedia.
Bargain Travel (for international flights).
Southwest. Where else can you fly for under $100. Why the other airlines didn't bet on rising fuel costs and hedge their positions is beyond me.
Orbitz
Cheap Flights (consolidation service)

More to be added. If anyone has any others or thoughts about any of them, feel free to post. Obviously there are more, but these are the ones I use the most.

Tags: best online flight booking service, searching for flights

Read more!

Another example of poor writing

Just a quick note that I saw on the AP wire that Tom Brady won the NFL's MVP for this year. And, typical of Yahoo's crappy news service headline writers, the headline on Yahoo reads "Brady Not a Unanimous MVP." And from reading the article, you can't even tell what actually happened. As better reported on Sport's Illustrated's site, Brady had all the votes except for one. See Brady One Vote Shy of Unanimous MVP Award. That would be a far better headline. Not sure how Yahoo didn't understand that concept. Nothing more to say about this one except that Yahoo news sucks.

Tags: brady mvp

Read more!

Late night gives up on doing reruns

I see from CNN that the striking writers are mad that the late night talk show hosts have decided to roll the dice and go back on the air. See Strikers hit Leno with criticism for punchlines. Apparently these late night hosts (probably with some prodding from their bosses and sponsors) have remembered the simple maxim "you don't get paid if you don't work."

This article struck me as funny and I am tempted to invoke the "I told you so" argument based on my prediction of this very event a few weeks back. As this strike has basically ended most of my television watching for the spring (which probably has added benefits anyway), for now I will simply rest on my original point that these strikers may be striking themselves out of a job.

As one of my non-law school/lawyer friends pointed out rather astutely, what is to stop the networks from getting some poor college student (or students) to work on writing a pilot for a few thousand bucks. Granted, I know how this wrecks the economics of the real world to some degree, but greedy college students will gobble this up, and probably not realize what they are actually giving up and who they are hurting until it is too late. But regardless if their show becomes the next best thing or tanks in the test market, it's a feather on the cap that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Personally, I can't wait to see what new crap gets spewed out in the next great drama series on any of the major networks thanks to new writers who decide not to join the union. It certainly can't be any worse than some of the ideas these union writers come up with over the past couple years.

I just wonder how long it is before some college drama professor decides to take his (or her) class into a new direction and with the aid of a site like YouTube, create something actually worth watching on tv. The better question I have is whether the effects of this strike will make people realize how much time they waste watching tv (myself included). Only time will tell how much of an effect this strike will have on the general television watching population. At least there's still reality tv....

Tags: leno writes own monologues, late night tv says to hell with the strikers, we can write this crap ourselves

Read more!

Harvard Law 1, Yale Law 0 (UNC Law 0.5)

As evidenced by every major news organization, Sen. Obama led the charge out of the primary gates. See, e.g., CNN's recap of the 2008 Iowa caucus results. So, score one for the Crimson. And, as I predicted almost a year ago, Sen. Clinton's steam has started to run out before the race has even started.

The next question is whether she will be able to overcome her perception of being a) an old woman, and b) a Washington insider. Considering that photos speak louder than words sometimes, my suspicion is that maybe the Democratic party better start uniting behind one person instead of three sooner than later. My anti-Yale sentiments haven't quite reached Thomas proportions, but I'm going to take a shot from the bow and say that Obama is going to have an even more decisive win in New Hampshire on Monday. As I said yesterday though, it's going to be a lawyer representing half the country, and we'll see how much more or less that figure is come November.

And since I'm in the fair and impartial side of the business right now, Huckabee has continued his march toward the Republican nomination. Since this race isn't nearly as interesting as the Democrats', I'll side with my friends from Massachusetts and wonder outloud which party will unite behind their candidate (e.g., Huckabee) the fastest. I'll speculate on who I think has a better shot when it's down to two.

After it's all said and done, I'll revisit my prediction from the midterm elections in 2006 regarding the anti-incumbency movement. If Sen. Obama's success last night in Iowa is any indication, television's coveted 18-49 generation finally has a candidate they can relate to, and another percentage of the incumbents in the House and Senate should start thinking (or more likely, worrying) about their marketing strategy and other young and charismatic up-and-comers. As I said in November '06, "Carry the youth vote over the 72-is-the-new-69 demographic and any election is yours." It certainly seems my uninformed opinion may not have been so uninformed after all, at least for now.

In any case, I have two interesting stories my friends forwarded to me, which I am going to try and write something about this weekend. Until then, I'm out to party with some clerks who remain stuck on a west coast happy hour schedule.

And, so that no bulldog comes after me, I agree that the "we suck" prank was pretty good. The evolution of that prank (as well as the original and the latest) can be found here.

Tags: obama wins iowa caucus, out with incumbents

Read more!

The Hawkeye State: One of these lawyers are going to win

Well, considering that Senators Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Biden are all lawyers, the only thing for sure that we'll know tomorrow is that the Democratic frontrunner, at least as claimed by a few Iowans, will be a lawyer. Yay law! (I don't think Gov. Richardson is a lawyer, however, but I think he's got as good a shot as Sen. Biden, so I'll take that action).

I tried to do a quick google search to figure out why Iowa is so important to the democratic process. I did find one older article about how they conduct their "caucuses," which I guess is fairly unique to the Hawkeye State, but nothing that really explains why I should care about what a bunch of midwestern Democrats think. Isn't this whole primary process a little archaic in itself? For that matter, isn't the idea of campaigning for president two to four years in advance even tackier?

Like the President, I'm not going to lose sleep over this thing. I'm sure it will be all over the news tomorrow anyway with all but three or four (both Ds & Rs) calling it an election. After all, there's absolutely nothing I can do about how this one plays out, and again, why everyone is so keyed in on what the state of Iowa thinks remains a mystery to me.

If you know however, please feel free to post relevant links and commentary. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is befuddled about the importance of Iowa.

Tags: reasons iowa is so important to the primary process

Read more!

Something to think about in 2008: Farmer economics

Happy new year. For the first time since 1999, I decided to take the new year off. Ever since the Y2K new year, I've been coming to the belief (on the morning of January 1) that New Years Eve is like amateur hour anyway, particularly since the bars are packed with a lot of people out who rarely, if ever normally go out. I did go on a New Years Cruise once, and that was a lot of fun, but maybe I'm becoming more reserved now that I'm a lawyer. Or that all of my friends were all doing their own thing and I'm far away from them. Anyway, it was actually nice to just spend new years with my family, which I don't get a chance to do too often.

Since I stayed home, I was filling my folks in on life and what not, and my pop and I began speaking about the economy and our predictions on where it was heading, esp. since I'm probably going to be diving into this housing market sometime in the next eight months. Two observations as a result of this conversation and whatever we were watching on the tv: First, Law & Order (based on my parents' understanding of law and as evidenced by my own appeals dealing with aspects of the CSI-effect) has made prosecutor's jobs much tougher, but I think it also makes close-call cases with guilty verdicts that much tougher to appeal.

Second, I think that the farmers may be the most protected class in America. By virtue, the migrant workers are the least protected class. What I mean by this, is that Congress spends an incredible amount of resources protecting land and farmers through the various tariffs placed on imports of related goods. So, while most of our sugar tariffs come from arcane policies implemented during the Great Depression, the effect is that the poor countries, where sugar would cost us next to nothing, pay enormous taxes in order to sell domestically. Obviously this protects domestic interests, but at what cost? I don't know how much truth lies beyond the growing reporting on the problems of corn syrup, but maybe there is something that the media should start investigating a little more.

The rest of this entry is pretty much a rant against this particular segment of our economy.

Through blind eyes, Congressional oversight (or undersight) and unprotected interest groups, these huge farms are able to employ migrant farm workers to keep our agricultural food costs low. And while I'm all for that on one hand, it seems sort of hypocritical on another. There's not much I can do other than accept it as a part of life. It seems sort of wrong though if you start to digest it, but again, I'm just going to give it a taste.

I'm not sure how much these workers are paid, but I'm sure it winds up being less than minimum wage (and I'll leave that rant for another day). And for what? If our economic theory presently is to export all labor to third world countries in the hope that our domestic labor force will increase (e.g., more white collar jobs, like computers) over a twenty year period, why wouldn't farmers follow the same trend? If we can stimulate another Caribbean country's economy and it mutually benefits both countries, why wouldn't we do it? Half of these farmers can't keep their farms afloat anymore without government subsidies anyway, and if anything, it's in their economic interest to develop their farms and effectively "sell out."

It seems to me that our economy can't have it both ways. Interestingly, economic theorists appear to agree, to a certain degree on this point. See Sara F. Ellison & Wallace P. Mullin, Economics and Politics: The Case of Sugar Tariff Reform, 38 J. Law & Econ. 335 (1995); USITC: Certain Sugar Goods: Probable Economic Effect of Tariff Elimination Under NAFTA for Goods of Mexico; Testimony of Professor David Orden: US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. If you Google "the economic effect of sugar tariffs" or a similar search, you'll find more.

So, is there anything we can do? I'm not sure. On one hand, these farms that work employ a lot of people, and theoretically, they are compensated the same as any other person. On the other, would lowering these tariffs or opening up the agricultural borders to more imports have a more negative effect than I'm currently speculating? After all, the domestic car manufacturing industry seems to have taken a hit by this same sort of thing. And with rising fuel costs, people want fuel efficient cars, which aren't being delivered by domestic manufacturers. Here's an idea. If you want to get people to buy your stuff (be it cars, farm products, or whatever), target your market and make a better product that people will want to buy. Then make it cheaper so that the average person will choose it over the junkier, gas guzzling and otherwise, probably less healthy alternative.

Of course, I'm in the law end of this, so I'll support my client's position and do whatever my boss tells me until I have reason to do otherwise. Since I'm not an economic theorist, however, maybe someone will explain what I am overlooking.

Tags: sugar tariffs, farms cars and economic theory

Read more!