On Strange Case Names

In a copyright case where archive parade footage from a charity fundraiser video was accidentally included in a strip flick, we read the following:

Thus, this most delightful of case names: Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children v. Playboy Enterprises; seriously rivaled, in our judgment, only by United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Article Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F. Supp. 208 (W. D. N.Y. 1941) (condemnation proceeding under Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), and United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W. D. Pa. 1971) (leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over defendants).

815 F.2d 323, 325 n.1 (5th Cir. 1987).

In case you were wondering, the inclusion does appear to have been accidental: Playboy asked, through an intermediary, for some Mardi Gras footage; the intermediary asked a New Orleans TV station for it, and the TV station, rather than go through their archives to try to find a good clip, just pulled it from spools of footage of a staged Mardi Gras parade they had shot as an in-kind donation to the Easter Seals.

So here is my easy request designed to prompt comments:

Which of these do you think the funniest? Do you know of any other good ones?

Testamentary advice

If you are going to shoot yourself, you should make sure you have a will, so that you know what happens to the stuff you have. And you should also make sure that you bequeath the gun you shoot yourself with to a more distant relative, so that they will actually appreciate the gift, and not care so much that it was the same gun that *sob, tear in eye* you shot yourself with.

[Note for the benefit of the bar association: the foregoing is NOT legal advice. It is humor. Sick humor, but humor nonetheless.]

Social Graces

True story, happened today --

Guy in suit (after asking a number of detailed questions about particular classes I am taking): Questions like these are how I learn what's going on around here.
Me: What exactly do you do around here?
Guy in suit: [Surprised Pause] I'm the dean of the law school.
Me: [Startled Pause, and probably "oops" written on my forehead] You look younger than your picture. [Smile, probably a Nervous Smile]

Well, I did have to say something, didn't I?

A rare foray by this blog into politics

The Beeb, in reporting on why U.S. Senators have traditionally made bad presidential candidates (only Warren G. Harding and JFK have gone straight from the Senate to the White House), says

Without the verbal rough and tumble of adversarial debates - the British Parliament is a blood sport by comparison - the Senate issues its members with a licence to bore.

And we wonder why Kerry can't even pull off the punch line of a joke, or why Bob Dole is seen muttering in the 1996 editorial cartoon, accompanied by the Tin Man et al., muttering, "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore..."

So here's to "unanimous consent to revise and expand their comments." Perhaps it will be enough to keep Clinton, Obama, and McCain out of the White House.

Case of the Day - Why Lit majors should go to Law School

With nearly as much trepidation as Frodo must have felt when he embarked on his journey to Morodor, n1 this federal court begins its ascension up a similarly foreboding, albeit "legal," summit arising out of a land dispute between the United States and its Agency, the United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (hereinafter "FSA") and the defendants, Mark A. and Zelene M. Schilling (hereinafter "the Schillings"). Much like the power of the Ring carried by Frodo, which caused all who touched it to desire to possess it, both parties in this land dispute claim an ownership interest in a certain section of farm property. The court cannot retreat from parsing out the interests involved, as did Frodo, who solved the dilemma created by the Ring by throwing it into the fiery depths of the Cracks of Doom from which it was created and destroying it. Accordingly, the court will proceed to determine whether the FSA is entitled to summary judgment in this matter, over the defendants' zealous objections.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 This reference comes from J.R.R Tolkien's three-part epic story, The Lord of the Rings. See generally Tolkien, J.R.R., The Lord of the Rings (HarperCollinsPublishers 2004) (1954). The book is based on the legend of the Rings of Power. Id. According to the story, in ancient times, the Rings of Power were crafted by the Elven-smiths, and Sauron, the Dark Lord, forged the One Ring, filling it with his own power so that he could rule all the others. Id. But the One Ring was taken from him and remained lost for many years. Id. After much time, the One Ring fell, by chance, into the hands of an adventurous hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. Id. When Bilbo reached his eleventy-first birthday, he disappeared, bequeathing to his young cousin, Frodo Baggins, the Ruling Ring and a perilous quest: to journey deep into the shadow of Sauron and destroy the Ring by casting it into the Cracks of Doom. Id. The power of the One Ring was so great, however, that anyone who touched it desired to possess it, although hobbits, such as Frodo and Bilbo, were somewhat more resilient to its awesome power. Id.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

United States v. Schilling, No. C05-3016, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60902 at *2 (N.D. Iowa, August 25, 2006)

At the risk of this blog looking like a Redneck's* front yard...

[*Webb-Allen disclaimer: there is no readily used culturally sensitive term for redneck. Hick is just as derogatory and more strongly implies rural upbringing, Appalachian is inaccurate, hillbilly too restrictive, cracker is frequently used broadly of a whole race, trailer trash takes too long to say, cowboy is more of a political term than cutural, and bumpkin merely implies a disinterest in culture and world events (e.g., a redneck, but not a bumpkin, would still know that NASCAR driver Juan Pablo Montoya isn't from the United States).]

Here's the newest thing this blog's namesake required:



The state vehicle inspector wasn't thrilled with "play in the front end." So I went to a tire shop that also claims some expertise in front ends. Three hours later, they had looked it over, and I still knew more than they did. (Their solution, they explained, would be to replace all twelve parts in the steering linkage. Heh heh, don't think so.) So I took the linkage apart myself, found the problem, and replaced the part pictured above. When I took it back to the inspector, he renewed my faith in the laziness of mankind by asking what the problem had been, and when I told him, filling out the paperwork and giving me the sticker without actually looking at whether the problem was fixed.

So, for the title of "Parts-Meister of the Month," who can identify the front end part shown above?

Out-of-date Billy

Those who grew up around or in the navy-and-white tradition probably remember the "Ten Unchangeables," in both its list and song forms (I assume they changed the order between those two so that the hand motions to the song would work better, but the incontinuity always seemed a bit odd to me).

The list is important to the Institute teachings for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that those things that are on the list you have to come to peace with under the Principle of Design (be content, thank God that you are that way, etc.)

I got to wondering, however, just how unchangeable each of them really is. The following are what I have come up with so far:

1. I am one of a kind - there is a problem here in defining the scope of "one"ness. For instance, if someone clones me, the resultant person is still unique, even if their DNA is not. So in the sense that tautologically, because I am an entity, I am one and unique, this point is valid. Even a mass produced product, say a Pocket PC, were it sentient, would still be able to point to its uniqueness despite being built and programmed identically to every other member of its model. However, as to whether the things about me that are unique are unchangeable, that is trickier. For instance, height? While Sir G, at 5'2", may have his reasons for including this, there are hormonal, dietary, lifestyle, and surgical means of changing height, depending on one's age. So while the concept, I suppose, is useful in acknowledging that I can't change everything about myself, to posit this one-of-a-kind-ness as a concrete, rigid "unchangeable" is not readily done or explained.


2. Mom and Dad - two words: "Family Law." Perhaps unchangeable in the sense that it is the court, not yourself, who enforces their role in your life, but divorce, adoption, and state intervention can radically change who are actually in this role. If the Instute is concerned about actual biological relationship, the point should be disregarded altogether, since adoption is an important remedy for the many problems that may arise between the mere two humans who contributed your genes. Otherwise, while the idea can be helpful in the sense that you aren't responsible for many of the choices that formed some of who you are now, and in the sense that, for a child, those that are in loco parentis are probably there for your own good whether you like it or not, this isn't to say that you shouldn't be aware that change is possible under the right circumstances.


3. Brothers and Sisters - same objection as above. While you may not have a say as a child in who lives in the same house as you, it is hard to argue that blood forms some sort of normative bond which cannot be altered by other normative principles. Is there a reason you have to be on speaking terms with a sibling above and beyond the Pauline command to "if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men"? And if for some reason it is not possible and it does not depend on you, do you really have a higher duty because the person is a sibling? And just how then are you supposed to do the impossible which does not depend on you?


4. Nationality - again, it is the normative aspects that are most troubling here. The United States was largely formed by those that just didn't fit in in the old world and who gave up on their ties to form new ones. If you, for any reason, feel like changing countries, you pretty much can. And if you have information the United States wants, they will probably help you do it ;-)


5. Mental Capacity - I have yet to hear of anyone stretching their mind to its capacity. Training is always possible to increase abilities in this area. Scared during a lunar eclipse because "the moon is being eaten"? Take some astronomy. Can't figure out your taxes? A little math goes a long way. Dictionaries, logic treatises, pills from Carini, and Mozart are all considered ways to improve. Don't give up on yourself. You're smarter than you think. And conversely, injury may take away what you have (see Regarding Henry, so don't think high mental capacity is unchangeable, either.


6. Time in history - ok, here I have to grant this one. Say what we may about time vortexes, relativity, and temporal instability, we don't have a reliable means of controlling this, and are not likely to develop it in the near future (not that the "nearness" of the future would matter if we did...). I'll take this time to just interject that the Puritan concept of "Providence" may be a better way to look all of these (insofar as they are "set" this way) than as an "unchangeable", since Providence not only reminds us of the personal care with which God crafted them, but that they are part of our service to Him. And insofar as they can be overcome, Providence placed them there, not as an "unchangeable" means of locking us into a particular state, but to then give us the grace and strength to overcome that.


7. Gender - I'm not going to use the song's term for this one and I won't waste much space wondering why this has to be separate from being one of a kind or what logical reason there is for it being this far down the list. However, while for the most part gender is definite, and very useful for such questions as constitutional definitions of marriage, it can be (and with some frequently is) changed. For a discussion of one aspect of this, see Washington Post, "New York to Ease Rules So Transgender Residents Can Update Birth Certificates" (link good until 11/21/06 or so). While there are a few religious arguments against transgendering (some less persuasive than others), it can be changed, and when it is, requires legal resolution of the resultant status.


8. Order of my Family - got nothing on this one. See "Time in history", however, since this is a subset of that one. As a side note, however, insofar as this point is seen as some sort of mandate for the way one will behave based on birth order, or how "counseling" should take account of the "needs" of a person based on the same, it may be "folk wisdom," but I wouldn't give it much more credence than the necessity of throwing salt over one's shoulder. You may be right some number of times, but it isn't wise, and it doesn't account for grace, and you run a strong risk of hurting the person you are trying to fix help, to make assumptions as to what their motivations and actions are. If it helps you understand what someone might do, fine, but if you are trying to use this as a charlatan's trick to demonstrate your sophistication and ability to solve things, you would do better to just befriend the person and work through it the hard way.


9. Aging - sure it happens, but this is a remarkably fluid concept. Scientific and medical research frequently comes up with things that look a lot like "reversing aging," like bone growth stimulation, skin elasticity treatments, and so on. As to whether aging happens to some extent, yes, it is unchangeable, but as to whether there is anything you can and should do about it, I don't think that is as straightforward. If a spot of foundation and blush can cover it over, or an injection can fix it, why not?


10. Death - I can't come up with anything on this one other than noting that just becuase death will occur doesn't specify when it will occur. You have to make preparations for death, but needn't feel compelled to die at any particular time just because the outlook is bleak.

So there you have the list, some of it more rant and less orderly treatment. Like many teachings from Big G and his gang, it suffers from trying to create a biblical mandate from extrabiblical reasoning. Does the Bible teach contentment, the importance of authority, etc? Yes. But the importance to them is that they are seen through the filter of grace. The thing is not that way because it is important of its own right, but because it is a means of bringing glory to God. For instance, any of the demon-possessed persons in the Gospels were only possessed for the express purpose of bringing glory to God and authentication to Christ's ministry by Jesus' casting them out. The item is not that way because unchangeability is a necessary atribute (more or less), but because changing the thing OR persevering despite dislike will glorify God. (And in support of that last generalization, I am now going to begin trying to figure out how a transgendered person's having made that change is glorifying to God. Look for a discussion on that point soon.)

That would be my class

(from The Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2006, Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts "The Reliable Source", p. C-03

THIS JUST IN . . .

* Alberto Gonzales dropped by GWU Law School yesterday, surprising 40 students in the criminal procedure class. The attorney general talked about military commissions, terrorist surveillance and the Patriot Act and took questions for 40 minutes -- before vanishing as mysteriously as he arrived. Turns out this was all his idea: Gonzales just got a hankering for legal chat with some students, and his staff tracked down a willing prof, former DOJ lawyer Renee Lerner. "I guess he really likes teaching," she said. "The students, of course, were delighted to have him." Is the AG mulling a move to academia? "He is not ruling any options out in terms of future careers," said Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos. Any more stealth visits to law schools planned? "I wouldn't rule it out."

It was quite an enjoyable chat, he had even managed to get materials assigned beforehand. He certainly didn't cut himself any slack - he went straight into the legalities behind the Guantanamo detentions, trials, and interrogation methodologies, took questions on how the policies were formulated. Reminded me a bit of the "Master Class" methodology from back when I was taking piano lessons.

(Note: I may follow this up with a more substantive look at the issues covered)