I am constantly surprised by the number of lawyers who don't understand the lighting system the court uses during oral arguments. Green means go, yellow means you are in your reserve time and red means stop. I have no reason to believe this isn't the same everywhere. Yet, for some strange reason, I've noticed many attorneys are under the mistaken belief that there are two yellow lights - one for when they are in the waning minutes of their opening argument and another when they reargue following the appellee's argument.
This, however, is never the case. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand, nor can I understand why the attorney, if confused by this green-yellow-red system (which operates like a traffic signal), would not ask the clerk or whoever to explain it to him.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Lighting system during oral arguments: Red means stop, just like when you're driving
Monday, March 24, 2008
Finally, the Sirius-XM merger is approved
There are plenty more interesting things to write about, such as the ongoing battle against anonymity in the AutoAdmit AK47 case, a similarly related issue with the JuicyCampus.com gossip site, and a tenuously related issue from the 7th Circuit (Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist) where Judge Easterbrook said (in so many words) that the posters can subject themselves to certain liabilities. While this is all well and good for an article about the internet and anonymous posting, I just wanted to make a comment about the Sirius-XM merger that has finally been given the green light.
One of my January 2007 comments (#5) suggested that Sirius and XM should merge. A little more than a month later, my wish came true. Although tangled up in antitrust land for a while, the DOJ finally cleared the way for what Jim Cramer and I both agree is a good thing: The merger has nothing but upside. And low and behold, the powers that be agree. See XM-Sirius Merger Approved and XM-Sirius Shares Surge on Antitrust Clearance. While I'm sure there is more litigation to emerge (and hopefully not), I was glad to see this headline come across the AP wire.
In the meantime, there are other interesting things to write about, and hopefully this week lends itself to that.
Read more!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Supreme Court to hear gun ban case today
I admit that I haven't followed this case too closely other to hear the generalities that it involves the Second Amendment. Nevertheless, the D.C. Gun Ban case is to be argued today and will undoubtedly spark controversy for everybody no matter what the court decides. I'll refrain comment other than to point out that once again, the headline writers show their skills at reading the articles to which they assign headlines. See CNN's Gun Ban Decision: This Time, It's Personal. See also High Noon For the Second Amendment. For reference sake, the text of the Second Amendment states, rather simply, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The case is about whether the anti-Federalist or Federalist position is the one that was adopted (sort of).
The faux movie reference is mildly amusing, but my tiff is with this somewhat misleading sentence: "Today, the Supreme Court will decide whether the city's sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates an individual's constitutional right to 'keep and bear arms.'" I'm not sure they are deciding anything today, but they are certainly going to hear 30 minutes of why the point is right and then 30 minutes on why the counterpoint is. Might be worth catching on the cable rebroadcasts, and it should be almost as exciting as a rerun of Laguna Beach.
Westlaw's green "c" misleading
This is just a quick gripe about Westlaw. Sometime in the past few months (or at least I've started to notice it, maybe it's been around for a while), Westlaw has begun using its green "C" for "C"ite (meaning something has cited to that case or statute) whenever a party has a brief that cites to the case. Now, I've read enough briefs to know that (a) I probably wouldn't use them for anything of value and (b) they certainly don't have any precedential value. And depending on your Westlaw plan, you can't even access them anyway.
My point is that it's silly and misleading. Particularly if the party is the party who is appealing on that particular case. Granted, if a newspaper or something cited to the case, there's something that may be useful. And obviously law review articles and other cases are helpful if cited. But a brief? Give me a break.
And don't get me started on how many times I've come across an incorrect red flag or a misleading yellow flag. I'm still sifting through this Bear Stearns mess in the meantime, so maybe later today I will have more thoughts on that topic.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Spam keeps getting more clever - "final verification of email account" is as real as the african lottery
Most of my spam gets filtered away without a second glance except to see the ridiculousness of the subject lines. In this case, I've seen one that is pretty clever (and relatively new), but obviously fake. As with any other spam emails that ask for your username and password, use your common sense and delete it. This particular spam claims to be from an "educational messaging center" purporting to delete all 'edu' accounts. I can only hope nobody is stupid enough to confirm their "username, password, date of birth, and country or territory." The subject line is "FINAL VERIFICATION OF YOUR EMAIL ACCOUNT."
The email is fake and the ip address (at least where mine was from) looks like it came from a hijacked student account from Purdue University, and ultimately from Johannesburg in South Africa. I'm 100% sure that this is probably not the clearinghouse for "educational emails." In my limited search for more information, Purdue has already been clued in on how it's system has been manipulated. See Purdue community warned of email scam. Who falls for these things? As pointed out by this blogger, obviously some stupid kids in the midwest. Way to go clowns.
Then again, who would have thought that Gov. Spitzer was leading a double identity as "Client No. 9?"
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Kentucky tries to stop anonymity on the internet: good luck enforcing that one
Notwithstanding the unlikelihood that this sort of bill would ever pass a state legislature and be signed into law, lawmakers in Kentucky attempted to throw a punch at virtual bullies by requiring "anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site." I'll add this to my list of things to address in a future article about blogging, but it suffices to say for now that even if this bill could get past the obvious First Amendment hurdles, which it probably won't, how can it possibly be enforced? One may assume that if a Kentuckian newspaper, for example, creates a forum for online commentary, most of the posters will be within the readership of that paper. It does not follow, however, that all of the posters will be. Seems pretty unusual and disparate to force these newspapers to pony up some dough for these nonresidents. And what happens when someone creates a false identity to post under?
The real solution to this problem isn't this type of law. If anything, the real stick would be to stop shielding internet service providers from liability. That's a federal issue, not a state one. And any change won't come in the context of anonymous internet postings; my guess is that it would come, if at all, in the context of internet piracy. Or maybe some sort of national security reason.
But who am I to say this is right or wrong or what the basis (rational or otherwise) behind this sort of bill would be? If it makes some of his constituents happy that he passed the bill, that's all he needs come reelection time.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Once again a celebrity death emphasizes the need for estate planning
It's no wonder that estate planning/wills/trusts is such a lucrative practice for lawyers interested in it. While I can't speak to Australian law, I would think that its premises regarding "unborn heirs" is consistently the same as in New York or any other state for that matter. See Ledger's Will Leaves Nothing to Daughter. As I have already written about this before in the context of the late Anna Nicole Smith (see here and here), I see no need to comment further on the subject other than to make one point about the whole unborn heirs problem and how legislatures across the country addressed it many moons ago.
Thus, the AP report that "Heath Ledger's will leaves nothing to his former girlfriend and their 2-year-old daughter because it was never updated after they became part of his life" is deceptively misleading. His daughter should be able to get a certain statutory percentage of her father's estate since she was born after the will was made. While the fact that "the family would make sure the actor's former girlfriend, actress Michelle Williams, and that their 2-year-old daughter, Matilda Rose, would be provided for" is all well and good, the law will certainly step in to protect his daughter if need be. The non-married mother of the daughter, however, is probably SOL.
The bottom line? Get/update a will if you're married, buy a house, or have a kid. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who can help you out at a reasonable cost.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Why Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Virginia are, almost atypically, the key to this election - some final thoughts about the 2008 election
Let's talk about numbers. It takes 270 points to win the presidential election. Bigger states have more points, but in the end, it's just a numbers game. So who has the easiest road to get to 270? My research, explained below, suggests that Obama can easily get to 270 against McCain, whereas Clinton can, but it will certainly be a harder battle, in over a dozen states, and if the Dems still want to try and duke out Florida and Michigan, the money is probably going to become a bigger issue in the next couple months. My prediction: Obama 320 – McCain 147 (without even considering Ohio and Michigan, or Florida for that matter). Clinton 255 - McCain 201 (leaving much more uncertainty on who can actually win, or how close November 2008 will be).
The point of this entry is just to show a different breakdown of electoral numbers; I would imagine the mainstream media will start making these projections later in the summer, but I'm positive that all three camps have started to run these numbers in much more detail than I have below.
After this entry, I am going to abstain from further comment about this election save perhaps a couple thoughts that may emerge later in the year. My understanding of the bias of the media and after giving some thought to the state of blogging, I am convinced that any further blogging on this topic (by me anyway) will simply be white noise contributing to a larger problem with this particular form of media (more on that another time).
I have run numbers based on whether Clinton or Obama is the front of the Democratic ticket against McCain. While the media has not keyed in on this yet, I see a different "battle ground" of states depending on who is at the front of the ticket. (And, ironically, I note that more media has picked up on my January 21 suggestion that only if Clinton wins the nomination would she go for Obama as VP; the opposite probably would not be realistic). Enough background.
Assuming the "typical Democratic states" stay as much, I see the following four states, and only these four states, being essential to the election this time around (with electoral votes in parentheses): Georgia (15), Louisiana (9), South Carolina (8), Virginia (13). While I acknowledge that these are quite typically Republican states, I see an unusually large amount of Republican resources being used to secure these states if Obama is the Democratic nominee. The point to all of this, as should become obvious if you examine the numbers the same way I do, is to say that Obama probably should be the Democratic nominee, and the media (and Clinton's) continued dragging out of this process is only giving McCain's candidacy more strength. This also assumes that the prototypically apathetic youth vote (captivated by Obama) comes out in droves come November. Here's how I reach this conclusion.
Based on the past four election cycles, the following states are more than likely going to go to McCain in November: Alaska (3); Arizona (10); North Carolina (15); South Dakota (3); Utah (5); Wyoming (3). These additional states are typically Republican and based on the primary turnout, I don't see any indication that they will switch "blue": Idaho (4); Indiana (11); Nebraska (5); Nevada (5); Texas (34). I do acknowledge that Texas is going to be closer than normal, but will assume that it stays Republican for my purposes because Pennsylvania (also close, will likely stay Democratic).
The following states are typically Democratic states: California (55); Connecticut (7); Delaware (3); D.C. (3); Hawaii (4); Illinois (21); Maine (4); Maryland (10); Massachusetts (12); Minnesota (10); New Jersey (15); New York (31); Oregon (7); Pennsylvania (21); Rhode Island (4); Vermont (3); Wisconsin (10). As I mentioned, Pennsylvania is the most vulnerable on this list, but I think it winds up staying Democratic.
This would put McCain at 94 to Obama/Clinton’s 220 without even getting into the close states. Granted, Texas and Pennsylvania provide big swing for either party, but I'll keep them at Republican and Democrat, respectively, for my purposes.
Based on the primary turnout, the following states are going to be close races: Alabama (9), Colorado (9); Florida (27); Georgia (15); Louisiana (9); Michigan (17); Mississippi (6); Missouri (11); Montana (3); Ohio (20); Oklahoma (7); Tennessee (11); Virginia (13); Washington (11); and West Virginia (5). This would leave about 173 "points" up for grabs, which would make the election close once again.
Assuming that all of the republicans who did not vote for McCain stick to the party ticket, the race shapes up to be pretty interesting, but ultimately a Democratic blowout depending on the candidate. I am sure that these similar number scenarios have been run at the RNC, and they have to be scrambling right now if my assumptions are correct.
I see Alabama and Colorado as both being close, with Alabama likely going to McCain and Colorado going to the Democrat (although it would be a less close if Clinton was the Democratic nominee). Florida, in all likelihood, will go to McCain. Republican turnout on that primary day was 1.9 million to almost 1.7 million, so I’m calling it red.
Georgia presents an interesting case. The average numbers of democrat and republican voters over the past four election cycles is 1.134 million and 1.353 million respectively. In the primary, those numbers were 1.046 million to .954 million. Obama won handily over Clinton in this state, drawing almost 700k to 328k (with 18k going to "other"). McCain pulled a little more than 300k, and if you assume the other 650k does not have a high attrition rate, that gives you the 954,000 republican voters. If Obama is the ticket, I think he pulls off a few hundred thousand from Clinton and edges out McCain for the 15 points. If Clinton is the ticket, I think McCain edges her out and the state stays republican. So, there is a 15 point swing depending on who is the nominee.
Iowa, Kansas, and Kentucky are usually close and usually Republican, and for my purposes, will not make a difference in the outcome.
Louisiana, like Georgia, is another interesting case. The state has been convincingly republican the last two elections after being much closer in 1992 and 1996. Democrats and Republicans both had to come out to decide on February 9, and Huckabee edged out McCain 69k to 67k and Obama throttled Clinton 220k to 136k. I see Louisiana having a similar outcome as Georgia depending on who the Democratic nominee is. While it would be less close with Obama as the nominee, I think the nearly 2:1 democrat to republican turnout indicates that this state could go blue. That’s 9 more points.
Michigan, Mississippi, and Montana will be close either way, and I am not counting them here.
Missouri is really the battleground for both parties. Obama edged out Clinton here 405k to 395k, but if you assume Edwards draws more toward Obama than Clinton, his lead increases by another four or five thousand. McCain won this one by the skin of his teeth (194k to Huckabee and Romney’s 185k and 172k, respectively). Dems outvoted Republicans 820k to 584k, and the average over the past four election cycles is nearly even, at 1.112 million democrats to 1.086 million republicans. Given the turnout, I'm inclined to give Missouri to the Democrats, and more inclined to do so if Obama is able to pull in similar numbers. Thus, there is another 11 points up in the air, with the edge going to the Democrats.
I would guess New Hampshire is going to go democratic. Primary voting for the democrats exceeded that of that state’s 4-term national average (284k compared to the average of 265k), and the Republican turnout was nearly as high (233k turnout nearly the 250k average). Presuming similar numbers, I would say this one goes to the Democrat candidate regardless of the nominee. On primary day, Clinton edged out Obama. 4 points isn’t a lot, but it’s something.
New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and West Virginia are hard to say. No matter.
I am inclined to think that North Dakota could flip, despite it typically being a Republican state. I only base that off of the 2:1 primary turnout for the Democrats. Romney won this state over McCain, and Obama had a 3:2 advantage over Clinton (12k to 7k) but compared to ND’s national average, primary day there had a relatively low turnout. Nevertheless, even if it stays Republican, its too little points too late in the process.
South Carolina is typically republican, but I think Obama could pull this one in for the democrats (presuming Edwards support helps). Turnout for Democrats, as in New Hampshire was nearly the national November average (530k voted compared to 552k four-cycle average). On the republican side (on a different day), 442k came out to vote (compared to 718k average). McCain won with 33% of the vote, and Obama nearly 55% to Clinton’s 27%. If Obama can pull Edwards supporters, he nearly doubles that of McCain, and still edges him out if you put together McCain and Huckabee’s combined vote. Clinton, by comparison, came up a bit short against McCain (141k against 147k). I would count this state as +8 for the Democrats if Obama is the nominee, and +8 for the Republicans if Hillary is.
Tennessee is another close one. On both sides, primary turnout was about half of that state's 4-year voting average. Clinton won this state pretty handily over Obama (332k to 250k), and Huckabee took McCain on it. This is going to be another battleground state for 11 crucial points, regardless of who the nominee is. I'm inclined to give it to the Dems, however based on the primary turnout (which, may have been in part due to Obama).
Washington and Virginia are typically close. Washington has gone democratic by a slim margin each of the past four election cycles, and I would imagine it would stay the same this time around. Washington went 70:30 for Obama over Clinton on February 9, and Clinton would have beat McCain, but counting Huckabee and Paul, it would be close like normal. I think if Obama has the nominee, Washington is won handily by the Democrats, but if Clinton is, she still wins, but it makes for a much tighter race. +11 for Democrats.
Virginia tends to go Republican, but given the turnout, I’m inclined to think that Obama can pull in huge numbers and possibly a huge upset. Voter turnout for the Democrats was 75% of the 4-year average (970k compared to the 1.2 million average). Republican turnout was far less than the average, almost 500k compared to 1.3 million. This was another state where Obama had a nearly 3:2 advantage over Clinton. Obama’s 623k would have beaten both of McCain (244k) and Huckabee’s (200k) votes combined; Clinton as nominee (347k) would make the race much closer, and probably once you factor in the regular average, would go to McCain. So, this is another 13 point swing depending on whether Obama or Clinton is the candidate.
If my 220-94 initial number is correct, then the Democrats would need only 50 more points to win. Assuming Washington stays blue, that puts the Democrats only 39 points away from locking in a victory without even worrying about Ohio, Florida, or Michigan. This assumes that the Democrats hang onto Pennsylvania.
Thus, I see this election most easily coming from just four states: Georgia (15), Louisiana (9), South Carolina (8), Virginia (13). The 45 points give the Democrats the victory without even worrying about the typical "swing" states (Florida, Ohio, Michigan). New Hampshire is unnecessary, but certainly provides another four point cushion.
If those states that typically vote Democratic stick with their party, the race really could come down to winning these four states. The rest, while important for the winning party to take in order to try and unify the country, are "battles" as usual, but only if the campaigns are as they have been for the past two cycles.
As I have explained, each of these four states (Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Virginia) was won convincingly by Obama in the primaries, and given the increased voter turnout in each of them, the Republicans would be foolish to think these are a lock if Obama is the candidate. If Clinton wins the nomination, however, these states are as up in the air as Florida, Michigan and Ohio. Just looking at the numbers, McCain fares a much better chance against Clinton than Obama. While both races may be ultimately be close, it’s no wonder that McCain and the Republicans would rather have Clinton at the top of their ticket. My question is why the Democrats haven't thought this one out in this fashion yet. Maybe they just want to lose.
I'm sure both parties have better access to voting information than I do since mine is based simply on data in the public domain, and have superior mathematicians and statisticians who can analyze it and make more educated projections. Nevertheless, if Obama wins the nomination, it seems that he pulls from a broader spectrum of voters, which only diminishes McCain’s chances. Clinton seems to pull from the same pocket, which lends itself to a similar 50/50 split.
Without counting Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia, my prediction scores of the electoral college are as follows: Obama 320 – McCain 147. Now, Ohio and Michigan (and Florida) and the other states are all important for the good of the country, but even if it's close, these other states won't make up the difference if the Democrats focus on and win these four states.
If Clinton is the ticket, I see a lot more states up in the air (including these four), although realistically, Clinton probably has the edge out all things considered. Relevant to my point, the closeness of Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia may keep them Republican, and leave Tennessee even more susceptible (hence I don’t count it either way). These four or five states swinging the other way puts her at 255-201, and in a similar battle to that of 2000 and 2004.
I think my bottom line is clear. Republicans have a much easier road to election victory with Clinton as the front of the Democratic ticket; it becomes much less certain and vulnerable if Obama is. That being said, I fail to see why Clinton is so adamant about being on top of the ticket and the media continues to tout this whole process as being Clinton against the world. I thought the point of either party is to put up the candidate they think has the best chances of unifying the country. Perhaps I am being naive. Hasn’t this country been divided for long enough though?
My conclusions are based on my research on this subject (based in part on CNN's primary data, the national archives, and Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections (compiling historic election data)).
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Finally this election nonsense will be over (hopefully)
I was joking with one of the other clerks that maybe tomorrow the news will have something other to talk about besides who will win the primaries. The response? Perhaps, but then the next few months will be speculation about who will be the VP and who should win between the R's and the D's. November can't get here soon enough so we can move onto more pressing matters. Like who will win in 2012.
In the meantime, I'm going to try and see if I can convince Skittles to modify their sugar coated candy and remarket it as a cold remedy to compete with the market vacuum created by Airborne's placebo. Thought you could drink away the common cold with a swig of some canned air? Join the Airborne Settlement and get some money back.
Read more!
Some facts you need to know about NY and a top 10 list of interviewing tips
Apparently, some of the questions asked during the interview prior to the NY bar swearing in ceremony are quite unceremonious. The best one I heard about started off with the interviewer asking whether they understood that the NY court system is opposite that of nearly everywhere else, mainly because the trial court is the "supreme court" and has "justices" whereas the highest court is the "court of appeals" and has "judges." I am pretty sure this is taught on the first day of every civil procedure class and would not even be the $100 question on lawyer Jeopardy. I also enjoyed the question, "So, do you have any questions about life?" Hmm.
The whole thing reminds me of another, more humorous take on the interview process generally. Here is one person's recollection of "what I said v. what I should have said." Credit to Top 10 Law Firm Interview Questions.
"One of the worst experiences in law school has been the ritual of submitting applications for summer employment and then going through a series of 20-minute screening interviews that would put a marine drill sergeant to shame when it comes to humiliating and dehumanizing you. Here are my top-ten (least) favorite questions, and how I actually answered them as opposed to how I would have liked to answer them.
1. Why are you interested in this firm?
What I said: Your firm handled (insert name of case I read on their website) which I found to be exciting because it was just like another case I was reading in this class I got an A in. I've also asked some (read: none) upper class-men about your office and they said it's a great work environment.
What I thought: I looked through your attorney roster and saw that you hire people who do not appear to have any honors and come from bad law schools. That made me think that I have a chance to work here.
2. Why did you go to law school?
What I said: I went to law school because I want to be able to make a difference. Legal work allows me to be competitive and to work for justice, both of which are important things in my life.
What I thought: That's a good question, and I ask myself it daily. I'd have to say the answer is, stupidity.
3. Do you think your grades are an accurate reflection of the kind of work you will do as an attorney?
What I said: Law school has been a challenge, and I think my grades reflect that. More important than my grades, which by the way have steadily improved over my academic career, is my dedication to the work I do. My performance during my summer jobs is the best indicator of how I will work, and you will find that my previous employers were all pleased with me (or at least forgot who I am and so will not remember the fuck ups).
What I thought: My grades are absolutely a good reflection of how I will work. I will put in the minimum amount of effort needed to not get fired, and I will approach my job with contempt and disinterest.
4. What would you say is your greatest weakness?
What I said: My greatest weakness is that I get too personally involved with my work. For instance, when I am working on trial prep, and then the case settles favorably, I feel as though it should have gone to trial anyway, despite knowing that the settlement is what's best for our firm and our client.
What I thought: Pussy. If there are any females in your office, you can be certain I will work twice as hard to get into their pants as I will to make my billables. And yes, since you require us to bill 1,900 hours, that means I will be sexually harassing my co-workers 3,800 hours a year.
5. Tell us about a recent mistake that you have made.
What I said: I accidentally misfiled a case at work that was set to go to trial the next week. As soon as I realized this, I alerted my supervisor and disaster was averted.
What I thought: An even bigger mistake I've made has been wasting 20 minutes of my life in this interview instead of taking a dump, that would have been much more satisfying and productive.
6. What do you do for fun?
What I said: I enjoy jogging, skydiving, and traveling to exotic countries.
What I thought: When I really want to have fun, I grab my "Big Butt Sluts # 24" DVD, a bottle of Bourbon, and a bottle of lube. By the end of the night, both bottles are empty, and my room smells like jizz and puke.
7. Tell us about your style of leadership.
What I said: I lead by taking the initiative and working proactively with my peers to come up with solutions.
What I thought: I lead by playing "The Eye of the Tiger" on a boombox while pounding my fist on the table and shouting insults. (It works, I've done it)
8. If you don't get hired by this firm, what will you do?
What I said: I will analyze what I could have done better during the interview and take that knowledge with me into my next interview with [rival firm name].
What I thought: I will breath a sigh of relief that I won't be working for an asshole like you. Or I will stalk you and slit your throat. I haven't decided yet.
9. Do you have any questions for us?
What I said: Will I have a key so that I can come in and work on the weekends?
What I thought: Will I have a key so that I can come in and have sex with my girl friend on my desk on the weekends?
10. We value creativity among our associates. With that in mind, what kind of plant would you be, and why?
What I said: I would be a tree, because they are tall, strong, and live a long life.
What I thought: I would be a tree, so that I could fall on you and kill you."
Monday, March 03, 2008
Chinese takeout at the airport: A safe bet except at DFW
After a brief hiatus to the middle part of the country, I have returned reinvigorated to the east coast for the remainder of the six months I have left in my clerkship (entry about that to come later this week). There is much to write about, however, I will need to gather my thoughts for dramatic effect and more cohesive commentary. In the meantime, I'll make a less cohesive commentary about a chinese takeout place I ordered at over the weekend.
In my experience, chinese at an airport is normally a relatively safe bet although I agree you have to be in the mood for it. If you like chinese and you're in a hurry, chinese takeout is usually the way to go in terms of speed and cost (and you can scarf it down before you have to run to catch your flight). If you're in DFW though, take a pass and save yourself a bad meal by avoiding the Manchu WOK. It's the worst chinese I've ever had (in my opinion).
I recognize, rhetorically, that if you're going to Texas, there are far better eating establishments than an airport chinese takeout place, even in the DFW tarmac. And maybe I just had a bad batch of orange chicken, rice and beef and vegetables and I'm sure others have different experiences which they are welcome to post. Nevertheless, one bad experience is enough to say that I would never go there again and it's probably going to be awhile before I eat chinese again. While I've eaten at some bad places and rarely devote time to write about them, Manchu WOK at the DFW airport bears the distinct distinction of being among the worst.
And so I balance this bad food experience with a superior one, I also got a chance over the weekend to eat at Campisis in Dallas and it was among the best pizza places I've ever been to. I was told there is other good stuff on the menu as well, but I can only talk about the sausage and mushroom pizza, which was fantastic.
Speaking of food, time for me to eat.
