This helpful bit of advice comes from the Dane County Emergency Procedure Manual:
Suspicious packages: Handle with caution.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
This Just In
Battlestar Galactica rocks major ass. I've just finished the season 3 finale, and I'm happy to say that, just like the previous two, the finale is fucking mindblowing.
Watch this show. Seriously.
Watch this show. Seriously.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Huffing and Puffing
Elections are coming up soon, and with them the opportunity to vote for the next Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. The major candidates are Annette Ziegler, former judge and prosecutor, and Linda Clifford, current werewolf.
Hold on, werewolf? Apparently, if you have seen the latest round of political ads on tv. Clifford's ad depicts Ziegler as having a severe conflicts of interest issue, having decided a slew of cases where she had a financial stake, and almost all of them decided in her own favor. Ziegler's response ad states that these allegations are completely false, and that Clifford is actually a lycanthrope who howls at the moon. Seriously, anytime the ad shows Clifford, the screen darkens, and a haggard looking Clifford appears standing in front of the moon. At the end we are treated to a howling noise, which is obviously meant to imply that Clifford is a werewolf.
This raises many questions. Do we want werewolves on the supreme court? Personally, I think we do. I think Clifford's ability to shapeshift shows that she is not some entrenched partisan unable to change her views to comport with the facts of the case. Although some may see a judge turning into a wolf and attacking attorneys or fellow justices as radical judicial activism, I think that type of fresh blood should be welcomed on an aging court. Plus, for those of us concerned with diversity, adding a member of a growing minority group would demonstrate that Wisconsinites respect our werewolf brethren, and would prefer that they not rise up and eat us all.
Remember, come election day, a vote for Clifford is a vote for justice and progress. And by "justice and progress," I mean "a bloodthirsty werewolf."
Hold on, werewolf? Apparently, if you have seen the latest round of political ads on tv. Clifford's ad depicts Ziegler as having a severe conflicts of interest issue, having decided a slew of cases where she had a financial stake, and almost all of them decided in her own favor. Ziegler's response ad states that these allegations are completely false, and that Clifford is actually a lycanthrope who howls at the moon. Seriously, anytime the ad shows Clifford, the screen darkens, and a haggard looking Clifford appears standing in front of the moon. At the end we are treated to a howling noise, which is obviously meant to imply that Clifford is a werewolf.
This raises many questions. Do we want werewolves on the supreme court? Personally, I think we do. I think Clifford's ability to shapeshift shows that she is not some entrenched partisan unable to change her views to comport with the facts of the case. Although some may see a judge turning into a wolf and attacking attorneys or fellow justices as radical judicial activism, I think that type of fresh blood should be welcomed on an aging court. Plus, for those of us concerned with diversity, adding a member of a growing minority group would demonstrate that Wisconsinites respect our werewolf brethren, and would prefer that they not rise up and eat us all.
Remember, come election day, a vote for Clifford is a vote for justice and progress. And by "justice and progress," I mean "a bloodthirsty werewolf."
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Come and Get Me
Someone is clearly trying to kill me. Assassination attempts are nothing new, of course, but nonetheless irritating. Imagine having to remove the head of a new assassin each week and placing it on a pike to ward off all comers, only to realize that the decapitated-head-on-a-pike routine just ain't striking terror like it used to.
This time, they started attacking through my dreams. Over the course of one particular dream this morning, my enemies bombed, in succession, three of my most frequented dwellings. The dream began with the knowledge that someone had blown up my apartment and destroyed all of my belongings. I drove my vehicle (a red minivan) to an overly elaborate Law Review meeting, then sat in the audience and chilled. (At least I think it was overly elaborate, unless the Senior Board regularly books full conference halls with auditorium seating for spectators to watch them discuss WLR-related business while seated at a long table on a raised platform.) After the meeting, I went to find my minivan, but it had disappeared. After an ill-fated attempt to chase down a similar looking vehicle, I called in a search party, which discovered my minivan's whereabouts - scattered in pieces all around the parking lot. Someone had bombed my frickin' minivan.
Now, normally I'm not too rattled by the occasional bombing, but two successful bombings in a row made me worry. I called my parents' house to see if they were alright. My older brother answered the phone. He laughed at my concern, but then noted that he was holding some "thing" that was beeping. Then the phone cut out. I literally started screaming. Someone had bombed my parents house and killed my family. Thankfully, the dream ended without any more attempts. I can only assume my adversaries chose not to attack KH's apartment for fear of her inevitable reprisal, referred to in police circles as "firebombing the shit out of everything that moves."
Once I had woken up, I thought the threat had passed. However, after about a half hour at work, I discovered someone had left a thumbtack lying on the floor of my office, with the sharp end sticking up, ready to attack. If not for my impeccable bat-like vision, I would be dead right now.
Normally at this point I would ask that if you see me, do not make any suspicious movements, 'cause I'm a bit on edge at this point. Rest assured, however, you won't see me. For the next five days, it's all ninjatude and stealth mode. Come and get me, haters.
This time, they started attacking through my dreams. Over the course of one particular dream this morning, my enemies bombed, in succession, three of my most frequented dwellings. The dream began with the knowledge that someone had blown up my apartment and destroyed all of my belongings. I drove my vehicle (a red minivan) to an overly elaborate Law Review meeting, then sat in the audience and chilled. (At least I think it was overly elaborate, unless the Senior Board regularly books full conference halls with auditorium seating for spectators to watch them discuss WLR-related business while seated at a long table on a raised platform.) After the meeting, I went to find my minivan, but it had disappeared. After an ill-fated attempt to chase down a similar looking vehicle, I called in a search party, which discovered my minivan's whereabouts - scattered in pieces all around the parking lot. Someone had bombed my frickin' minivan.
Now, normally I'm not too rattled by the occasional bombing, but two successful bombings in a row made me worry. I called my parents' house to see if they were alright. My older brother answered the phone. He laughed at my concern, but then noted that he was holding some "thing" that was beeping. Then the phone cut out. I literally started screaming. Someone had bombed my parents house and killed my family. Thankfully, the dream ended without any more attempts. I can only assume my adversaries chose not to attack KH's apartment for fear of her inevitable reprisal, referred to in police circles as "firebombing the shit out of everything that moves."
Once I had woken up, I thought the threat had passed. However, after about a half hour at work, I discovered someone had left a thumbtack lying on the floor of my office, with the sharp end sticking up, ready to attack. If not for my impeccable bat-like vision, I would be dead right now.
Normally at this point I would ask that if you see me, do not make any suspicious movements, 'cause I'm a bit on edge at this point. Rest assured, however, you won't see me. For the next five days, it's all ninjatude and stealth mode. Come and get me, haters.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Sentencing Sing-Along
Everybody now:
Oh I wish I could go outside today
And I didn't have this stupid brief to write
For this Sentencing class, which fucking sucks,
And my creepy looking teacher with his giant head.
All his asinine readings are no help,
Bunch of pscyhobabble bullshit, it makes me hurl
Stupid criminalogical studies, and blah blah blah.
What a fucking disappointment this class has been --
Oh I wish I could go outside today
And I didn't have this stupid brief to write
For this Sentencing class, which fucking sucks,
And my creepy looking teacher with his giant head.
All his asinine readings are no help,
Bunch of pscyhobabble bullshit, it makes me hurl
Stupid criminalogical studies, and blah blah blah.
What a fucking disappointment this class has been --
Makes me wanna kick Gollum squah in the nuts.
Then he'll scream "My precious!" and fall to the floor,
"It burns us! It burns us!" His sad laments,
Then we throw him in the fire, and read no more!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Day the Laughter Died
Law Revue is officially over. I've refrained from commenting thus far because, well, it's kinda made me sad. No more script writing, no more rehearsing, no more outrageous performances. No more live tigers. No more ninja fights. No more alleged vaginas. No more nonsensical Kaplan jokes. No more carrying a machete down State Street. No more Commandos. No more bringing down the Hamburglar.
I've been involved on and off in sketch comedy since freshman year of high school. Over the past decade, there have only been 2 years where I wasn't knee deep in putting together either a Saturday Night Live tape or a Law Revue production. It's something that I absolutely love, and am going to miss dearly. I need a good creative release to stay marginally hinged, especially while in law school, and this show provided it. I dont know that I'll ever have an opportunity like that again. There's always little comedy troupes and plays and things going on, but I don't know that I'd have time for them.
This year's show came and went a little bittersweet. I didn't start writing until late; for some reason, I just didn't have the writing bug. Of course, just like last year, by the final weeks of the show, I was kept up at night with new ideas, including one sketch written entirely between the hours of 4:30 and 6:30 a.m. I was happy that Ismael got to participate a lot more this year, not having Law Review elections on game day, which ensured that all members of MZRM were well-represented this year.
As for the show itself, I thought it was better than last year, if nothing else. Regardless of the audience reaction to some of it, I thought the quality of the individual sketches this year was definitely better. Some of it got lost in translation on stage (notably Kaplan's lines, the Gameboy music, and 1L Cop, which was flippin hilarious), but most turned out well. RPM and I toiled for weeks on Harry Potter, and although I still wish it had been performed as one unit rather than split into pieces, I thought that went over pretty well. The Hall of Fame movie was pretty sweet, and expertly edited. I was disappointed with how the Commandos sequel turned out, obviously, but I was still pretty proud of that sketch. Plus, seeing Chuck Norris decapitate the Douche Lord will forever live on as a high point of life.
Of course, one sketch was not at all well-received. I'm not going to say much about it, except this: I admit the sketch was in poor taste, but I stand by it. I did not mean to offend anyone, and I can see how some could be offended, but you really have to take it in context. Not just the context of the sketch, which is significant in itself, but the context of this being a comedy show. The day we can't even mention negative stereotypes (banning the "n word," anyone?) is the day I give up on comedy and freedom of expression completely.
Overall, it was an incredible experience, one that will be sorely missed. Maybe, if we ever get dvd copies, we can get together once a year for viewing parties once we enter the real world. I say bring on the dvds, and let us live on in infamy!
I've been involved on and off in sketch comedy since freshman year of high school. Over the past decade, there have only been 2 years where I wasn't knee deep in putting together either a Saturday Night Live tape or a Law Revue production. It's something that I absolutely love, and am going to miss dearly. I need a good creative release to stay marginally hinged, especially while in law school, and this show provided it. I dont know that I'll ever have an opportunity like that again. There's always little comedy troupes and plays and things going on, but I don't know that I'd have time for them.
This year's show came and went a little bittersweet. I didn't start writing until late; for some reason, I just didn't have the writing bug. Of course, just like last year, by the final weeks of the show, I was kept up at night with new ideas, including one sketch written entirely between the hours of 4:30 and 6:30 a.m. I was happy that Ismael got to participate a lot more this year, not having Law Review elections on game day, which ensured that all members of MZRM were well-represented this year.
As for the show itself, I thought it was better than last year, if nothing else. Regardless of the audience reaction to some of it, I thought the quality of the individual sketches this year was definitely better. Some of it got lost in translation on stage (notably Kaplan's lines, the Gameboy music, and 1L Cop, which was flippin hilarious), but most turned out well. RPM and I toiled for weeks on Harry Potter, and although I still wish it had been performed as one unit rather than split into pieces, I thought that went over pretty well. The Hall of Fame movie was pretty sweet, and expertly edited. I was disappointed with how the Commandos sequel turned out, obviously, but I was still pretty proud of that sketch. Plus, seeing Chuck Norris decapitate the Douche Lord will forever live on as a high point of life.
Of course, one sketch was not at all well-received. I'm not going to say much about it, except this: I admit the sketch was in poor taste, but I stand by it. I did not mean to offend anyone, and I can see how some could be offended, but you really have to take it in context. Not just the context of the sketch, which is significant in itself, but the context of this being a comedy show. The day we can't even mention negative stereotypes (banning the "n word," anyone?) is the day I give up on comedy and freedom of expression completely.
Overall, it was an incredible experience, one that will be sorely missed. Maybe, if we ever get dvd copies, we can get together once a year for viewing parties once we enter the real world. I say bring on the dvds, and let us live on in infamy!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Amateur Hour
For all the talk about China as the next country rising to the level of international superpower, I have to balk a little after what I've seen recently. Despite the collapse of the Soviet empire in the late 1980's and early 90's, China has stood strong as the only real communist power in the world for the past two decades. (Cuba - if you're listening, nobody gives a shit!) Of course, China's economy has changed drastically over this period, giving them somewhat of a hybrid system that could not be accurately referred to as "communist." Then again, neither Soviet Russia nor Maoist China could ever really be characterized as "communist" judging by the manifesto, since neither money nor political elites ever went away like Marx envisioned. China's major claim was (and still is, I suppose) the Communist one-party rule. However, in the 1980's Beijing decided to allow peasants to vote directly for its village leaders, as one of many small but surprising steps by China toward democratic reform. While tangible progress has been rather sluggish, more changes may be inevitable due to the emerging grassroots movement. So you may start to wonder, with its economy already rolling toward future market dominance (their GDP grew by nearly 10% in a 9 month period in 2005), and now with its government moving gradually toward liberal reforms, will China be surpassing the US as the world's superpower?
Probably not, after seeing this story. It turns out, Chinese politicians are amateurs. For a while, they employed a crude yet undeniably effective method for getting out the vote: bribery. The logic is infallible; pay enough voters, they elect you to office, you repay them for their support, they reelect you to continue the cycle. That's democracy at its purest. Of course, in America, we've elevated the craft to a level where not only do we achieve the seamless give-and-take dynamic of money for votes, but we can also justify it on principle -- here we call it "pork," and its perfectly legitimate due to its indirect character. Naturally, the Chinese have emulated this practice, and had created a pretty solid system.
But then they went and made a pact not to bribe voters anymore. Are they crazy? Are they seriously just going to let the voters make up their minds without any sort of monetary incentive? Quite frankly, that's just un-American. No wonder the voters are pissed. And the consequences are frightening. Just think - voter turnout in the US is already pretty lethargic; just imagine what it would be if none of us were getting any sort of kickback, financially or otherwise. You send the president of Amoco to the voter booth with nothing but a bowl of rice, and see if he votes you back for another term. Fat chance.
A word to the wise: if you want democracy to thrive, make sure a small portion of your population benefits to an obscene degree. I'm talking Publisher's Clearing House-style checks, 700% milk subsidies, and land grants to study rock flatulence in your benefactors' home districts. Maybe then we'll get some parity in the political scene.
Probably not, after seeing this story. It turns out, Chinese politicians are amateurs. For a while, they employed a crude yet undeniably effective method for getting out the vote: bribery. The logic is infallible; pay enough voters, they elect you to office, you repay them for their support, they reelect you to continue the cycle. That's democracy at its purest. Of course, in America, we've elevated the craft to a level where not only do we achieve the seamless give-and-take dynamic of money for votes, but we can also justify it on principle -- here we call it "pork," and its perfectly legitimate due to its indirect character. Naturally, the Chinese have emulated this practice, and had created a pretty solid system.
But then they went and made a pact not to bribe voters anymore. Are they crazy? Are they seriously just going to let the voters make up their minds without any sort of monetary incentive? Quite frankly, that's just un-American. No wonder the voters are pissed. And the consequences are frightening. Just think - voter turnout in the US is already pretty lethargic; just imagine what it would be if none of us were getting any sort of kickback, financially or otherwise. You send the president of Amoco to the voter booth with nothing but a bowl of rice, and see if he votes you back for another term. Fat chance.
A word to the wise: if you want democracy to thrive, make sure a small portion of your population benefits to an obscene degree. I'm talking Publisher's Clearing House-style checks, 700% milk subsidies, and land grants to study rock flatulence in your benefactors' home districts. Maybe then we'll get some parity in the political scene.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
There Are Those That Call Me.... "Tim"
At the recent request of a fellow blogger, I have completely removed all references to the names behind the blogs I link to. From this point on, I will only use vaguely inappropriate nicknames, which I will change at my whim. If you have a problem with your label, or would like it changed, or wonder what the hell I'm referring to, speak now.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Sentence This
I thought about attempting a simul-blog about Sentencing class today; however, I think anyone who happened upon reading it would have gotten tired of seeing the phrase "I don't care" approximately twenty-seven thousand times. This is the most disappointing class I've ever taken. I heard great things about it, that Dickey and Smith would impart their wisdom about sentencing, and that it would be an incredible learning experience. Instead, Dickey is always off somewhere (crime-fighting, one presumes) and we get Smithy. That would be fine, if he taught us anything whatsoever about sentencing law. He teaches us a great deal about behavioral psychology instead. Granted, this stuff can come in handy when making a sentencing argument, but so would KNOWING THE ACTUAL LAW. I came into this class knowing very little about sentencing law, and I will leave knowing exactly the same. Plus, there are other issues regarding sentencing beyond just determining what the appropriate sentence should be, such as the applicability of sentencing guidelines, knowing what evidence is permissible at a sentencing hearing, whether judges have too much or too little power in sentencing, and probably hundreds more, except I'll never know anything about them, because we won't even blink at anything like that.
So at what point can I stop the class and ask why we’re not learning anything practical? At what point can I raise my hand and say “This is not what I signed up for.” If I get called on today, what do I do? I can’t drop; I need the credits. Maybe from now on I’ll just forget this reading, and read the case law and the statutes -- you know, the ones I'll have to apply if and when I get a job.
But no. Let’s talk about how best to study crime, or talk about how best to make an offender comply with the law. Wait, no, let’s not. That’s not my job. Whether lawyer or judge, that’s not my job. I’m not a social worker. I’m not a shrink. I can’t fix people’s behavioral problems. That's that job of the Good Chuck.
So at what point can I stop the class and ask why we’re not learning anything practical? At what point can I raise my hand and say “This is not what I signed up for.” If I get called on today, what do I do? I can’t drop; I need the credits. Maybe from now on I’ll just forget this reading, and read the case law and the statutes -- you know, the ones I'll have to apply if and when I get a job.
But no. Let’s talk about how best to study crime, or talk about how best to make an offender comply with the law. Wait, no, let’s not. That’s not my job. Whether lawyer or judge, that’s not my job. I’m not a social worker. I’m not a shrink. I can’t fix people’s behavioral problems. That's that job of the Good Chuck.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Low Tide
An avid movie and television viewer for many years, reviewing tv and movies on my blog seemed only natural. I've never been much of a book reader, however. I used to read books in high school; not constantly, one after another, but maybe one or two a month, in addition to class stuff. But then it just tapered off when I didn't have a library so readily at my disposal. It's not that I didn't like books, I just love seeing things on screen. Lately, however, one could say I've experienced a renaissance with books (if one was a tool), and have actively been looking for more and more books to read.
Which brings me to today's topic: Eragon, by Christopher Paolini. Cited by many as the next big thing in fantasy books, and written by a 15 year old (at least when he started), I decided to jump on this one early instead of waiting and reading it after the fact (like Harry Potter). And, I have to say, this one was.....
Decent.
There are definitely some things to like about the book. First, the dragon(s). I've read and seen very little where dragons were on the side of good, so this was a welcome change. Also, it presented a huge potential for adventure, which the first book exploited pretty well. This will only grow as Eragon's capability and expertise as a dragon rider grows, so the sequels should have plenty of excitement there. Also, the city of Troncheim (sp?) sounded spectacular. The plot was pretty good, overall. It possessed many of the elements I enjoy in fiction, issues of power and responsibility, good and evil, etc. It set up some potentially interesting interplay between the dwarves, men, and elves, and what will almost certainly be the need to unite in order to defeat Galbatorix. Also, the possibilities of dark riders - that is intriguing. And I also really enjoyed Murtagh, as he presents a nice contrast to Eragon - someone worried more about survival than honor, someone who kills without remorse. He is a friend to Eragon now, but may end up being an adversary.
Now the bad. First, some things that annoyed me, but may not be problems for others. Again, the fantasy naming thing I complained about in my Lord of the Rings post. Only, here it's worse. Not only does every place have a silly name, but every horse, and even his stupid sword. I don't care what each character calls their horses. I mean, if it's a special horse, like the greatest horse in the history of infinity, fine, give it a name. But random horse #3 can remain nameless, for all I care. But then, at least horses are living creatures, unlike the fucking sword. As far as I can remember, "Zar'roc" isn't even like a descriptive term in another language. Maybe it is, I don't know. At this point, I'd take "Sword of Elendil" or "Sword of the Flaming Donkey Balls" over just a name. That's like giving your penis a name, and only referring to it by that name. Might as well do that too. That way, after Eragon stabs Galbatorix with Zar'roc, he can whip out the Sword of the Flaming Donkey Balls and piss on his enemy's corpse. And while I'm on the subject of names, how about "Galbatorix," the vicious tyrant king? It's like a 15 year old tried to create this big evil character, then give him the evilest name he could fathom. ...Oh, wait, that's exactly what happened. Sorry, "Galbatorix" is uber-silly. Then, your main couple - "Eragon" and "Arya." Sounds a bit like "Aragorn" and "Arwen," no?
The naming issue is not a big deal, in the grand scheme of things, I guess. More of a problem for me was the structure. As far as I'm concerned, Paolini completely lacks the ability to build any dramatic tension. Which is a shame, because there are plenty of big, exciting events that happen. But they all happen suddenly, unexpectedly. There is no anticipation, no buildup, no sense of dread or anxiety over the conflict ahead. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there shouldn't be plenty of surprises and unexpected twists. But moments which, in retrospect, should have been big and momentous, come and go with little fanfare. One moment, in particular, should have been huge and devastating, and was even prophesized well in advance. Then it happens, with little or no drama, and it's like "Oh...huh. That's too bad." Even the big, climactic battle seems to catch everyone by surprise. I got to about page 400, with roughly 100 to go, and expected some buildup to a climax. Instead, he started setting up the political intrigue that I assume unfolds in the next books. Then 425 came and went, then 450, then 475, and I'm thinking "Okay, there's not much left...when is this big ending supposed to happen?" Then it did, and it was over in about 10 pages. Huh.
That's kind of the feeling I was left with. The book had so much going for it, so much going on, and I was completely underwhelmed at the end. Maybe this will come as he matures as a writer, but Paolini has to learn how to make the big moments count. When I first started reading, I was struck by the staggering number of really short chapters. It all made sense once you read them, because each chapter has a seemingly important event or issue occurring in just a few pages.
Let me put it this way. You're a surfer (Bodie, from Point Break, if that helps). You take your board and head out to the ocean. The ocean's there - its just as vast and lively as you had hoped, with plenty of waves. But once you paddle out there, you realize the waves are all really small. But you're a good sport - you diligently spend your afternoon riding them, one after another, until the sun goes down. At the end of the day, you end up looking back out at the ocean and wondering, what happened to all the massive waves, the ones that give you a real rush? That's what surfing's about, right?
Well, to me, that's what an epic fantasy story is about, the big moments. Maybe the hype created this problem for me, maybe I shouldn't have expected so much. Except that Eragon was clearly intended to be one of those fantasy epics, and despite its best efforts and potential, it fell far short. Again, the story was pretty strong, and plenty of good things happened, but it could have been presented in a far more effective manner.
Surprisingly, the movie version was pretty much the diametric opposite - it gave a few big moments, with little in between. I'd say the movie covered only about 30% of the story contained in the book. Which is sad, because the movie had the opportunity to tell the story in a much more streamlined, exciting way, and the producers straight-up skimped on it. As soon as I saw the movie was only 1 hour and 40 minutes, I knew that was probably going to happen. A really strong action movie ought to fill up a full 2 hours, and the best (Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, Star Wars Episode III, the Matrix, Pirates of the Carribean, etc.) cover 2 hours and 20 minutes. If restructured effectively, this story could easily fill that much time.
So there you go. Both versions of Eragon had incredible potential; one to tell the next great fantasy epic, and one to streamline it into an exciting movie. Each succeeded in telling a good story, but each struggled to present it in an effective manner.
Still, I'd recommend each, particularly the book. I assume the story will only get better, and the writing with it.
Which brings me to today's topic: Eragon, by Christopher Paolini. Cited by many as the next big thing in fantasy books, and written by a 15 year old (at least when he started), I decided to jump on this one early instead of waiting and reading it after the fact (like Harry Potter). And, I have to say, this one was.....
Decent.
There are definitely some things to like about the book. First, the dragon(s). I've read and seen very little where dragons were on the side of good, so this was a welcome change. Also, it presented a huge potential for adventure, which the first book exploited pretty well. This will only grow as Eragon's capability and expertise as a dragon rider grows, so the sequels should have plenty of excitement there. Also, the city of Troncheim (sp?) sounded spectacular. The plot was pretty good, overall. It possessed many of the elements I enjoy in fiction, issues of power and responsibility, good and evil, etc. It set up some potentially interesting interplay between the dwarves, men, and elves, and what will almost certainly be the need to unite in order to defeat Galbatorix. Also, the possibilities of dark riders - that is intriguing. And I also really enjoyed Murtagh, as he presents a nice contrast to Eragon - someone worried more about survival than honor, someone who kills without remorse. He is a friend to Eragon now, but may end up being an adversary.
Now the bad. First, some things that annoyed me, but may not be problems for others. Again, the fantasy naming thing I complained about in my Lord of the Rings post. Only, here it's worse. Not only does every place have a silly name, but every horse, and even his stupid sword. I don't care what each character calls their horses. I mean, if it's a special horse, like the greatest horse in the history of infinity, fine, give it a name. But random horse #3 can remain nameless, for all I care. But then, at least horses are living creatures, unlike the fucking sword. As far as I can remember, "Zar'roc" isn't even like a descriptive term in another language. Maybe it is, I don't know. At this point, I'd take "Sword of Elendil" or "Sword of the Flaming Donkey Balls" over just a name. That's like giving your penis a name, and only referring to it by that name. Might as well do that too. That way, after Eragon stabs Galbatorix with Zar'roc, he can whip out the Sword of the Flaming Donkey Balls and piss on his enemy's corpse. And while I'm on the subject of names, how about "Galbatorix," the vicious tyrant king? It's like a 15 year old tried to create this big evil character, then give him the evilest name he could fathom. ...Oh, wait, that's exactly what happened. Sorry, "Galbatorix" is uber-silly. Then, your main couple - "Eragon" and "Arya." Sounds a bit like "Aragorn" and "Arwen," no?
The naming issue is not a big deal, in the grand scheme of things, I guess. More of a problem for me was the structure. As far as I'm concerned, Paolini completely lacks the ability to build any dramatic tension. Which is a shame, because there are plenty of big, exciting events that happen. But they all happen suddenly, unexpectedly. There is no anticipation, no buildup, no sense of dread or anxiety over the conflict ahead. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there shouldn't be plenty of surprises and unexpected twists. But moments which, in retrospect, should have been big and momentous, come and go with little fanfare. One moment, in particular, should have been huge and devastating, and was even prophesized well in advance. Then it happens, with little or no drama, and it's like "Oh...huh. That's too bad." Even the big, climactic battle seems to catch everyone by surprise. I got to about page 400, with roughly 100 to go, and expected some buildup to a climax. Instead, he started setting up the political intrigue that I assume unfolds in the next books. Then 425 came and went, then 450, then 475, and I'm thinking "Okay, there's not much left...when is this big ending supposed to happen?" Then it did, and it was over in about 10 pages. Huh.
That's kind of the feeling I was left with. The book had so much going for it, so much going on, and I was completely underwhelmed at the end. Maybe this will come as he matures as a writer, but Paolini has to learn how to make the big moments count. When I first started reading, I was struck by the staggering number of really short chapters. It all made sense once you read them, because each chapter has a seemingly important event or issue occurring in just a few pages.
Let me put it this way. You're a surfer (Bodie, from Point Break, if that helps). You take your board and head out to the ocean. The ocean's there - its just as vast and lively as you had hoped, with plenty of waves. But once you paddle out there, you realize the waves are all really small. But you're a good sport - you diligently spend your afternoon riding them, one after another, until the sun goes down. At the end of the day, you end up looking back out at the ocean and wondering, what happened to all the massive waves, the ones that give you a real rush? That's what surfing's about, right?
Well, to me, that's what an epic fantasy story is about, the big moments. Maybe the hype created this problem for me, maybe I shouldn't have expected so much. Except that Eragon was clearly intended to be one of those fantasy epics, and despite its best efforts and potential, it fell far short. Again, the story was pretty strong, and plenty of good things happened, but it could have been presented in a far more effective manner.
Surprisingly, the movie version was pretty much the diametric opposite - it gave a few big moments, with little in between. I'd say the movie covered only about 30% of the story contained in the book. Which is sad, because the movie had the opportunity to tell the story in a much more streamlined, exciting way, and the producers straight-up skimped on it. As soon as I saw the movie was only 1 hour and 40 minutes, I knew that was probably going to happen. A really strong action movie ought to fill up a full 2 hours, and the best (Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, Star Wars Episode III, the Matrix, Pirates of the Carribean, etc.) cover 2 hours and 20 minutes. If restructured effectively, this story could easily fill that much time.
So there you go. Both versions of Eragon had incredible potential; one to tell the next great fantasy epic, and one to streamline it into an exciting movie. Each succeeded in telling a good story, but each struggled to present it in an effective manner.
Still, I'd recommend each, particularly the book. I assume the story will only get better, and the writing with it.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Poo Flingers
I've been conducting a search of the average sentences for a certain crime handed out in Dane County recently, and have been looking through all of the felony cases charged for a certain year to do so. (Note: There may very well be a much easier way to do this, but this is how I roll - slowly, tediously, and inefficiently.) I've run across several strange charges, such as "Mayhem," "Theft From a Corpse," and "Go Armed With Firearm While Intoxicated," but my favorite by far would have to be:
Prisoner Throw/Expel Bodily Substances
Seriously, that crime was charged probably 6 times in 2005. Seeing it again this morning reminded me of a quote from last night. Kristin and I had squared off in a game of Sequence, and our cards had become increasingly useless during one game. Having become particularly frustrated, at one point Kristin looked up and said "If I were a monkey, I'd be flinging poo right now."
Indeed.
Prisoner Throw/Expel Bodily Substances
Seriously, that crime was charged probably 6 times in 2005. Seeing it again this morning reminded me of a quote from last night. Kristin and I had squared off in a game of Sequence, and our cards had become increasingly useless during one game. Having become particularly frustrated, at one point Kristin looked up and said "If I were a monkey, I'd be flinging poo right now."
Indeed.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
I Don't Think You're Taking This Seriously, Young Man
Effin' T&E. The last real law class I'll ever take. The last class with a subject I care nothing about, in a room of about 100 students, called on at random to answer hypothetical problems. I intended not to attend class a single time after the first day, but Howie's instituted the 20% participation rule. Judging by previous exam scores I've (ahem) achieved, I can't really rely on 80% of my exam score, even to clear the pass/fail hurdle.
So I've been (more or less) attending the days that my section has been on call. I've been reading a little for those days, and working the problems to an extent. But I've also got the outline with the answers to all of the class problems with me, so if I haven't done the work and I get called on, I can just consult the outline. With that in my pocket, I've also been able to score points through voluntary participation by giving that extra answer that no one else mentioned, which I knew because...it was on my outline. I figure doing this enough will cover me for when, inevitably, I'm not there when I get called on.
Today I was supposed to be there at 3:30, but a freak occurrence (actually having work to do at LDP) kept me occupied until I realized it was 3:45, and I was not, in fact, at T&E. So I packed up my shit, since my group was on call, and hurried down there, not having read anything. I open the door, and some woman's speaking about who cares really, and I made eye contact with Howie. Brushing it off, I slipped into my seat. However, at that point the speaker began splitting the rooms into sections to discuss the problems in our reading. These were in additions to the work problems, apparently, and my outline would not help me.
So when my rows start assembling, and I'm all deer in the headlights, I look at a couple people and say "Actually, I can't stay," then duck out, smooth criminal style, after all of 25 seconds.
You know what sucks about being a 3L?
So I've been (more or less) attending the days that my section has been on call. I've been reading a little for those days, and working the problems to an extent. But I've also got the outline with the answers to all of the class problems with me, so if I haven't done the work and I get called on, I can just consult the outline. With that in my pocket, I've also been able to score points through voluntary participation by giving that extra answer that no one else mentioned, which I knew because...it was on my outline. I figure doing this enough will cover me for when, inevitably, I'm not there when I get called on.
Today I was supposed to be there at 3:30, but a freak occurrence (actually having work to do at LDP) kept me occupied until I realized it was 3:45, and I was not, in fact, at T&E. So I packed up my shit, since my group was on call, and hurried down there, not having read anything. I open the door, and some woman's speaking about who cares really, and I made eye contact with Howie. Brushing it off, I slipped into my seat. However, at that point the speaker began splitting the rooms into sections to discuss the problems in our reading. These were in additions to the work problems, apparently, and my outline would not help me.
So when my rows start assembling, and I'm all deer in the headlights, I look at a couple people and say "Actually, I can't stay," then duck out, smooth criminal style, after all of 25 seconds.
You know what sucks about being a 3L?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Triumph, Or Not
I received two pieces of news today that, while good, both seem to be rather pyrrhic victories. First, in the defamation case I've discussed here, where I wrote a brief challenging the constitutionality of the criminal defamation statute, I learned that today the DA on the case decided to dismiss the defamation charge. We've been eagerly awaiting the AG's reply brief, which was due any day, but apparently they're not going to fight it. The DA said that after conferring with the Attorney General's office, the statute would be unconstitutional as applied to our client, and therefore he could not proceed with that charge. On one hand, that's pretty damn sweet. The client has one less charge to worry about. My challenge to the statute was both persuasive and, apparently, correct. One small step for nyah.
On the other hand, this means that the overbreadth challenge is done with. The client isn't going to pay for a challenge to a statute that has no effect on him. Effectively, it's over. Which sucks, because I really wanted to get a statute struck down as being unconstitutional, and I firmly believe that this one should be, based on every bit of law I've read on the subject. I suppose the AG could recommend that the legislature take a look at the statute, since it is extremely vulnerable to such challenges in the future, but I doubt that will happen. So the statute stands, and nobody's going to fight it, unless and until another case like this comes along. Plus, our client still faces a bunch of other charges, so he's not off the hook.
The other piece of news - the Winnebago County DA's office, where I worked this summer, has not filled its two intern positions for the summer, and have asked me if I would like to work there temporarily while I search for a permanent job. Again, on the one hand, that's very cool. It means, once and for all, that I won't be unemployed this summer if I don't want to be. I may find a full-time job before that, and I am certainly still going to be looking at all times. But, this gives me a little security. At least for a few months. Plus it's a prosecuting position, which is what I want. The more experience I get in prosecution, the more likely I can find a full-time position as one.
The downside - it's in Oshkosh. So same problems as last summer. I'd travel down here a lot more often this time, probably staying in Oshkosh only twice a week, but still - - major pain in the ass. Plus, it won't pay like a full-time position. Probably more than I made this summer, but still not that great. And I could already probably keep my position I'm in now, clerking for a local attorney, through the summer (and beyond) until I find a job. That position pays about twice as well, and would require me to work only half as many hours a week (which, for the summer, is a sweet-ass prospect). Of course, I'd have to get Lexis or Westlaw access somehow to continue that, and I won't have it free through my student account anymore. Grrr. Plus, I would rather be prosecuting, get the chance to be in court, be a real attorney, or at least act like one. Then there's the housing situation, because my lease runs out in mid-June.....
Maybe I could be a psycho and do both, work two days a week here, three up there, get paid a whole lot, but have to work and travel a whole lot, get the best and worst of both...
OR, maybe I will find a full-time job, right where I want to be, or near enough. Maybe I won't have to worry about either of those options. I'll keep looking.
Until then - Goddammit! Why don't two half jobs equal one full job?
And also, eat it, Attorney General Van Hollen! I schooled you, homey!!
On the other hand, this means that the overbreadth challenge is done with. The client isn't going to pay for a challenge to a statute that has no effect on him. Effectively, it's over. Which sucks, because I really wanted to get a statute struck down as being unconstitutional, and I firmly believe that this one should be, based on every bit of law I've read on the subject. I suppose the AG could recommend that the legislature take a look at the statute, since it is extremely vulnerable to such challenges in the future, but I doubt that will happen. So the statute stands, and nobody's going to fight it, unless and until another case like this comes along. Plus, our client still faces a bunch of other charges, so he's not off the hook.
The other piece of news - the Winnebago County DA's office, where I worked this summer, has not filled its two intern positions for the summer, and have asked me if I would like to work there temporarily while I search for a permanent job. Again, on the one hand, that's very cool. It means, once and for all, that I won't be unemployed this summer if I don't want to be. I may find a full-time job before that, and I am certainly still going to be looking at all times. But, this gives me a little security. At least for a few months. Plus it's a prosecuting position, which is what I want. The more experience I get in prosecution, the more likely I can find a full-time position as one.
The downside - it's in Oshkosh. So same problems as last summer. I'd travel down here a lot more often this time, probably staying in Oshkosh only twice a week, but still - - major pain in the ass. Plus, it won't pay like a full-time position. Probably more than I made this summer, but still not that great. And I could already probably keep my position I'm in now, clerking for a local attorney, through the summer (and beyond) until I find a job. That position pays about twice as well, and would require me to work only half as many hours a week (which, for the summer, is a sweet-ass prospect). Of course, I'd have to get Lexis or Westlaw access somehow to continue that, and I won't have it free through my student account anymore. Grrr. Plus, I would rather be prosecuting, get the chance to be in court, be a real attorney, or at least act like one. Then there's the housing situation, because my lease runs out in mid-June.....
Maybe I could be a psycho and do both, work two days a week here, three up there, get paid a whole lot, but have to work and travel a whole lot, get the best and worst of both...
OR, maybe I will find a full-time job, right where I want to be, or near enough. Maybe I won't have to worry about either of those options. I'll keep looking.
Until then - Goddammit! Why don't two half jobs equal one full job?
And also, eat it, Attorney General Van Hollen! I schooled you, homey!!
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Animal Cruelty
Note: I will review Eragon in due time, as promised. But first...
Anybody see the guy in the Library Mall today handing out flyers saying "Pamphlet against animal cruelty?" I kinda had the urge to pimp-slap that asswad as I walked past. First, he had the most effeminate voice I've ever heard on a man. As far as I'm concerned, whether man or woman, gay or straight, hippie or human being, you speak with that lilting high-pitch and ridiculous lisp, I have every right to ridicule you.
Beyond that, animal cruelty is not a major concern for me. I mean, sure, I cannot abide cruel animals. I hate it when animals attack people for no reason, like Utah and his raccoons. I don't like when the kitty attempts to take my goddamned pot pie. But you know what? I take it like a man, walk it off, and smack kitty in the face, saying "No kitty, that's a bad kitty!!"
So instead of going out onto library mall with your ponytail, girly voice, and "my other tank top is also a purple sequins tank top" sticker, complaining about your lack of control over the animal kingdom, break off a strip and take back your own pot pie.
Anybody see the guy in the Library Mall today handing out flyers saying "Pamphlet against animal cruelty?" I kinda had the urge to pimp-slap that asswad as I walked past. First, he had the most effeminate voice I've ever heard on a man. As far as I'm concerned, whether man or woman, gay or straight, hippie or human being, you speak with that lilting high-pitch and ridiculous lisp, I have every right to ridicule you.
Beyond that, animal cruelty is not a major concern for me. I mean, sure, I cannot abide cruel animals. I hate it when animals attack people for no reason, like Utah and his raccoons. I don't like when the kitty attempts to take my goddamned pot pie. But you know what? I take it like a man, walk it off, and smack kitty in the face, saying "No kitty, that's a bad kitty!!"
So instead of going out onto library mall with your ponytail, girly voice, and "my other tank top is also a purple sequins tank top" sticker, complaining about your lack of control over the animal kingdom, break off a strip and take back your own pot pie.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Prologue
As I've probably said before, I discovered Tolkien's Lord of the Rings pretty late in the game. I saw the movies first; I just finished the extended versions, and now I'm just starting the books. I went to the movies knowing practically nothing of the story, and with little interest to learn it. As much as I've always enjoyed sci-fi, fantasy was another matter. I assumed that LotR was a story with a little person taking a journey through a magical land, encountering wizards and elves and whatnot, and all learn an important lesson, or somesuch. Stories about the days of yore and maidens and horses and men with flowing locks and forgotten languages and no electricity and magical creatures held no interest for me. LotR had all of those things in droves.
And yet, I found The Fellowship of the Ring to be absolutely spectacular. Epic in every sense of the word, sweeping and beautiful and exciting. And not just because of the badass medieval weaponry, which is far cooler than what we've got now. Far more personal, far more skill required. Additionally, the personal stories were excellent. But what really struck me were the themes of power, greed, ambition, manipulation, sacrifice, responsibility, love, and embracing one's destiny. While the story was certainly had its share of little people and annoying fantasy elements (particularly the ubiquitous fantasy naming - the _____ of _____. ie "the sword of Elendil," "the Watchtower of Weathertop," etc.), it was much darker and more exciting than I expected, with extraordinary characters, massive battles, and all beautifully-written.
In fact, for my tastes, I would say the story falls just short of perfect. The only overall story I would say I enjoyed as much was the Matrix trilogy. LotR was better written, certainly, and even more sweeping and epic, but the Matrix was more contemporary and urban, with a few mind-blowing concepts, without the fantasy elements I find annoying. However, I still find something about Revolutions to be disappointing, and the first half of Reloaded is admittedly slow, while each LotR installment is phenomenal. The slower-moving parts of LotR were far more satisfying because the story makes you care more about the characters. That way, when the action relents, you're still more engaged with the story.
About the only thing I can really point to in LotR about the story itself that I found somewhat lacking was the absolute dichotomy of good and evil. True, I love me some epic good and evil battles like you wouldn't believe. That's not the problem. What I find lacking is the almost complete lack of ambiguity, the "kill all evil without question" mentality. (The Matrix had this too, admittedly.) From what I could see, the only ambiguous character in the story was Gollum/Smegol, and true, there was Gandalf's excellent cautionary warning to Frodo that we should not be quick to judge others, and that we should not so blithely decide who should live and who deserves death. But the rest of the story - tens of thousands of orcs killed with no remorse. In the real world, the lines of good and evil are not so clearly drawn. As someone who will probably take a career in criminal law, I've come to terms with the fact that crime is not synonymous with evil, and real-life criminals are not like the villains of myth that should be locked up or killed for their crimes. Of course, LotR is fantasy, and in a fantasy we would like the satisfaction of standing up to evil and eliminating it once and for all, because we can't do that in real life. In real life, there are no easy solutions, no black and white decisions. Corruption and depravity linger, and no matter what measures we take to suppress or eradicate them, we never fully can. So I can't fault LotR for that; personally, I think the question deserves greater attention, but not every story can address every issue. It would be particularly silly to hold LotR accountable for this, considering the vast array of issues it does address, and often expertly.
The point of all this? Next I will review Christopher Paolini's Eragon, the book and the movie. Since LotR is the standard-bearer for all fantasy literature, I thought I should provide the framework I use for reviewing such a story.
And yet, I found The Fellowship of the Ring to be absolutely spectacular. Epic in every sense of the word, sweeping and beautiful and exciting. And not just because of the badass medieval weaponry, which is far cooler than what we've got now. Far more personal, far more skill required. Additionally, the personal stories were excellent. But what really struck me were the themes of power, greed, ambition, manipulation, sacrifice, responsibility, love, and embracing one's destiny. While the story was certainly had its share of little people and annoying fantasy elements (particularly the ubiquitous fantasy naming - the _____ of _____. ie "the sword of Elendil," "the Watchtower of Weathertop," etc.), it was much darker and more exciting than I expected, with extraordinary characters, massive battles, and all beautifully-written.
In fact, for my tastes, I would say the story falls just short of perfect. The only overall story I would say I enjoyed as much was the Matrix trilogy. LotR was better written, certainly, and even more sweeping and epic, but the Matrix was more contemporary and urban, with a few mind-blowing concepts, without the fantasy elements I find annoying. However, I still find something about Revolutions to be disappointing, and the first half of Reloaded is admittedly slow, while each LotR installment is phenomenal. The slower-moving parts of LotR were far more satisfying because the story makes you care more about the characters. That way, when the action relents, you're still more engaged with the story.
About the only thing I can really point to in LotR about the story itself that I found somewhat lacking was the absolute dichotomy of good and evil. True, I love me some epic good and evil battles like you wouldn't believe. That's not the problem. What I find lacking is the almost complete lack of ambiguity, the "kill all evil without question" mentality. (The Matrix had this too, admittedly.) From what I could see, the only ambiguous character in the story was Gollum/Smegol, and true, there was Gandalf's excellent cautionary warning to Frodo that we should not be quick to judge others, and that we should not so blithely decide who should live and who deserves death. But the rest of the story - tens of thousands of orcs killed with no remorse. In the real world, the lines of good and evil are not so clearly drawn. As someone who will probably take a career in criminal law, I've come to terms with the fact that crime is not synonymous with evil, and real-life criminals are not like the villains of myth that should be locked up or killed for their crimes. Of course, LotR is fantasy, and in a fantasy we would like the satisfaction of standing up to evil and eliminating it once and for all, because we can't do that in real life. In real life, there are no easy solutions, no black and white decisions. Corruption and depravity linger, and no matter what measures we take to suppress or eradicate them, we never fully can. So I can't fault LotR for that; personally, I think the question deserves greater attention, but not every story can address every issue. It would be particularly silly to hold LotR accountable for this, considering the vast array of issues it does address, and often expertly.
The point of all this? Next I will review Christopher Paolini's Eragon, the book and the movie. Since LotR is the standard-bearer for all fantasy literature, I thought I should provide the framework I use for reviewing such a story.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Meeting of the "Minds"
Holy buckets. Put three lawyers in a room, let them discuss a legal issue for ten minutes. An hour later, try to recall any of what just happened. Today my employer wanted to discuss a case with me, and we talked about it for awhile before determining we didn't know how to proceed. Plus, there were some unresolved issues, such as him wanting to file a completely nonsensical motion, and me balking at it. So he called up his Yoda-esque attorney friend (complete with green skin) to have him conference with us and offer his opinions. Then the fun began.
Now, I prefaced this by saying three lawyers, and included myself. Normally I wouldn't, but this was one case I've been working for so long (the overbreadth challenge to the defamation statute) that I knew what I was talking about, and felt comfortable interjecting amidst the blabbing. It went like this. My employer would frame a question, but not in a way that the other guy could answer it effectively. The other guy would start to answer, thinking it through for himself, and then stop. I would frown at both of them. Then my employer would spout off some other stuff, which didn't really come into play yet. Yoda would consider this, then give another hypothetical answer, even more off-topic. I would interject, trying to draw them back to what the real issue was. My employer would agree with me, then add some more stuff to muddle the issue. Yoda would have a clearer picture, and offer a better response. My employer would ask another circuitous question, Yoda would ponder it, then give another response that didn't address anything relevant. I would frown at both of them, check my watch, and wait for the correct moment to intervene. And so it went, this ridiculous meeting of the Ents.
I can't wait to do this professionally. I want to be the guy obscuring the issue as much as possible, and getting paid roughly a billion dollars an hour to do so.
Now, I prefaced this by saying three lawyers, and included myself. Normally I wouldn't, but this was one case I've been working for so long (the overbreadth challenge to the defamation statute) that I knew what I was talking about, and felt comfortable interjecting amidst the blabbing. It went like this. My employer would frame a question, but not in a way that the other guy could answer it effectively. The other guy would start to answer, thinking it through for himself, and then stop. I would frown at both of them. Then my employer would spout off some other stuff, which didn't really come into play yet. Yoda would consider this, then give another hypothetical answer, even more off-topic. I would interject, trying to draw them back to what the real issue was. My employer would agree with me, then add some more stuff to muddle the issue. Yoda would have a clearer picture, and offer a better response. My employer would ask another circuitous question, Yoda would ponder it, then give another response that didn't address anything relevant. I would frown at both of them, check my watch, and wait for the correct moment to intervene. And so it went, this ridiculous meeting of the Ents.
I can't wait to do this professionally. I want to be the guy obscuring the issue as much as possible, and getting paid roughly a billion dollars an hour to do so.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Frauds
Incompetence doesn't just hurt you, it hurts those around you. Remember that when you get your degree, find a career, and call yourself a professional. Remember it when you've got a big office, a big salary, and a big ego. Or if you don't. Know matter where you end up, try not to be an incompetent, arrogant moron, because you'll just be making good people suffer.
For instance, the incompetence of the person who prepared my parents' taxes almost led them to commit tax fraud, and almost forced me into a position to have to commit tax fraud just to fill my taxes out correctly. You see, I was all up on getting my homestead credit and a cool $800 extra this year, until my dad told me he and mom were claiming me as a dependent. I was like "Nigga what?" Apparently since they paid the final portion of my tuition last year, their tax person told them they could claim me as a dependent and get a credit back on that money and more. All of which would disqualify me for receiving the homestead exemption.
It didn't sound right to me, but my tax grade was laughable, so I didn't question the wisdom of their tax lady. However, a hot tip from Kristin the Queen of Taxery said that bitch was trippin', and there was no way my parents could claim me as a dependent. So we hit up the Tax Code, and she was right - out of four conditions to be a "qualifying child," I missed on two. I called my dad, told him the tax lady was wrong, and she had better check herself before my parents get indicted for tax fraud.
Dad called her, she told him that as long as I was a full-time student, I could be claimed as a dependent. Hmm. Well, that's not what the statute says, but she's a professional, right? She's done this plenty of times before, right? She must know what she's doing. Maybe she knows an exception to the rule that we, lowly law students with our "statutes" don't know about.
So I got her number, and I called her. Naturally, she was a bit cranky, so I played as polite as I could. I explained my concerns, and pointed out the statute I was looking at. Turns out she was going off the same statute. Okay...so I read her the conditions I didn't meet. First, I didn't live in my parents' residence for at least half the year. She said as long as I'm a full time student, that doesn't matter. Okay...doesn't really say that anywhere, but oh well. Next, I must not have turned 24 by the end of the calendar year. I explained that I turned 24 in October. If I'm not mistaken, October is part of the calendar year. She never really gave me much explanation for that, just confirmed the fact that I was wrong. On the other hand, Kristin, who had heard the conversation, confirmed that this woman was full of shit. So there I was.
I told my dad, he said he'd probably just go with what they filed, and trust that she knew what she was doing. Which, according to the statute, is encouraging people to commit tax fraud. But then, I wanted my $800. Now, if my parents put that I was a dependent, on for my homestead thing, I checked that no one claimed me as a dependent, I would also be committing tax fraud because I knew otherwise. Even if I was the only one actually following the goddamn laws.
Luckily, my dad contacted a CPA friend, who told him that the tax lady was 100% wrong. So they have to amend, and I can do my thang.
Moral of the story: This is what happens when you "know what you're doing," and don't listen to reason.
And in case you were wondering, as applied to the tax lady, the Hand Formula for this would be "suck my balls, you incompetent biznatch."
For instance, the incompetence of the person who prepared my parents' taxes almost led them to commit tax fraud, and almost forced me into a position to have to commit tax fraud just to fill my taxes out correctly. You see, I was all up on getting my homestead credit and a cool $800 extra this year, until my dad told me he and mom were claiming me as a dependent. I was like "Nigga what?" Apparently since they paid the final portion of my tuition last year, their tax person told them they could claim me as a dependent and get a credit back on that money and more. All of which would disqualify me for receiving the homestead exemption.
It didn't sound right to me, but my tax grade was laughable, so I didn't question the wisdom of their tax lady. However, a hot tip from Kristin the Queen of Taxery said that bitch was trippin', and there was no way my parents could claim me as a dependent. So we hit up the Tax Code, and she was right - out of four conditions to be a "qualifying child," I missed on two. I called my dad, told him the tax lady was wrong, and she had better check herself before my parents get indicted for tax fraud.
Dad called her, she told him that as long as I was a full-time student, I could be claimed as a dependent. Hmm. Well, that's not what the statute says, but she's a professional, right? She's done this plenty of times before, right? She must know what she's doing. Maybe she knows an exception to the rule that we, lowly law students with our "statutes" don't know about.
So I got her number, and I called her. Naturally, she was a bit cranky, so I played as polite as I could. I explained my concerns, and pointed out the statute I was looking at. Turns out she was going off the same statute. Okay...so I read her the conditions I didn't meet. First, I didn't live in my parents' residence for at least half the year. She said as long as I'm a full time student, that doesn't matter. Okay...doesn't really say that anywhere, but oh well. Next, I must not have turned 24 by the end of the calendar year. I explained that I turned 24 in October. If I'm not mistaken, October is part of the calendar year. She never really gave me much explanation for that, just confirmed the fact that I was wrong. On the other hand, Kristin, who had heard the conversation, confirmed that this woman was full of shit. So there I was.
I told my dad, he said he'd probably just go with what they filed, and trust that she knew what she was doing. Which, according to the statute, is encouraging people to commit tax fraud. But then, I wanted my $800. Now, if my parents put that I was a dependent, on for my homestead thing, I checked that no one claimed me as a dependent, I would also be committing tax fraud because I knew otherwise. Even if I was the only one actually following the goddamn laws.
Luckily, my dad contacted a CPA friend, who told him that the tax lady was 100% wrong. So they have to amend, and I can do my thang.
Moral of the story: This is what happens when you "know what you're doing," and don't listen to reason.
And in case you were wondering, as applied to the tax lady, the Hand Formula for this would be "suck my balls, you incompetent biznatch."
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Snack Court
Today, as part of my requirements at LDP, I went to observe Drug Court proceedings. For those of you not familiar, Drug Court is for (usually) first-time drug offenders that, rather than getting sentenced to jail time or a fine, go through a program to get clean. It's all very positive and encouraging, everyone's talking about the progress the offender has made, and what they have to do to stay clean, and the benefits of overcoming addition, etc.
My question is, do they have anything similar for snack addicts? I know snacking is bad for me; I know I snack when I'm nervous, or bored, or breathing. I snack constantly. I try to limit myself to less unhealthy snacks (hence my struggles with animal crackers instead of, say, deep fried, cream filled donuts), or non-chocolate candy, but it doesn't make much difference -- I end up eating such a large quantity that it negates any health differential.
So where the hell is my support group?
Fuck it. I'll be right back, I'ma get me some Skittles.
My question is, do they have anything similar for snack addicts? I know snacking is bad for me; I know I snack when I'm nervous, or bored, or breathing. I snack constantly. I try to limit myself to less unhealthy snacks (hence my struggles with animal crackers instead of, say, deep fried, cream filled donuts), or non-chocolate candy, but it doesn't make much difference -- I end up eating such a large quantity that it negates any health differential.
So where the hell is my support group?
Fuck it. I'll be right back, I'ma get me some Skittles.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Infiltration
Is it weird that Lord of the Rings characters seem to be popping up in my everyday life? On my way home from work today, I spotted Saruman standing on the sidewalk on Gorham street. His hair was still shock white, and there was some graying in his beard; it looked like he had cut it a little in back, but it was definitely him. He was looking a little worse for the wear; gone were the stately white robes, replaced by the quasi-homeless army green jacket and brown pants. But I imagine that after getting kicked outta Dodge by the Ents and no longer being funded by Sarun & co., his financial prospects might not be looking so hot.
I guess it's not that strange to see him; after all, I've been learning sentencing from Gollum for the past 5 weeks. Good to see he didn't let the fires of Mt. Doom keep him down.
I guess it's not that strange to see him; after all, I've been learning sentencing from Gollum for the past 5 weeks. Good to see he didn't let the fires of Mt. Doom keep him down.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Guilty
Sorry about the lack of posts lately. I've been busy with a lot of things going on, but none of them seemed particularly post-worthy. There was one event that made me think.
So lately I've been working at LDP. Defense is obviously a change for me; I've never had to deal with clients, never had to deal with real people and their problems. Even working as a clerk for a guy who does a lot of defense work - he deals with the clients, I get the legal issues. A lot of the clients seem pretty shady, so its a relief to forget their role in the process and just deal with what the law is (and occasionally attempt to fabricate the law on their behalf).
LDP is different. Forget, for the moment, intake at the jails - not a pleasant experience, but there's nothing overly shattering going on. I speak to the inmates, ask them the most basic questions, and move on to the next. Though the scene isn't pretty, you never really have to engage with anything.
Client work is different. For instance, I had a client with final pre-trial on Wednesday. Obviously, I can't go much into details; suffice it to say, I thought it was a pretty clear cut case, and she would have to plead (the offer was pretty decent, all things considered). Then we found out she was currently homeless, either living with friends or in her car, and 5 mos. pregnant, and was about to lose her job based on a faulty drug test result. Plus she's got a heart condition, and had a pacemaker installed about a year ago. All at the tender age of 18. This makes me think about how lucky I've had it, and how as a DA, I'd be able to skip all of this unnecessary real life stuff. I get the file with its boilerplate information on a nameless defendant and a standard offense, and make an objective decision.
Just like life - I can go through every day in my cushy life without having to see the problems other people face. I've always had this public servant attitude in me, this vague notion of wanting to do great things so I could help people; actually helping real people has been something different. And I start to think maybe I'm not as good of a person as people generally assume. I don't know.
On the other hand, all apologies to Mr. Utah, but I do give money to homeless people on occasion. Not so much to the panhandlers, but I also get a lot that come up to me directly and ask for a dollar or two. They've always got some story why they need it, and I'm not sure I ever really believe them. But I think either way, they've got it worse off than me, and dropping a couple dollars won't hurt me. Maybe they can sense I'm a softie. Maybe they can just see it.
So when we spoke to the DA and got her to offer a much better deal, I felt pretty good. And when I called some shelters for this girl to stay at, I felt better. Speaking to people has never been my strong suit; when we spoke to this girl at the courthouse, my supervising attorney did most of the talking, so I just got to hear the sad story. But now, it was my turn to speak. So I called her, informed her of the places she could go to stay, places she could get hot meals. And when, in tears, she thanked me for all of my help, I felt.....
Guilty.
So lately I've been working at LDP. Defense is obviously a change for me; I've never had to deal with clients, never had to deal with real people and their problems. Even working as a clerk for a guy who does a lot of defense work - he deals with the clients, I get the legal issues. A lot of the clients seem pretty shady, so its a relief to forget their role in the process and just deal with what the law is (and occasionally attempt to fabricate the law on their behalf).
LDP is different. Forget, for the moment, intake at the jails - not a pleasant experience, but there's nothing overly shattering going on. I speak to the inmates, ask them the most basic questions, and move on to the next. Though the scene isn't pretty, you never really have to engage with anything.
Client work is different. For instance, I had a client with final pre-trial on Wednesday. Obviously, I can't go much into details; suffice it to say, I thought it was a pretty clear cut case, and she would have to plead (the offer was pretty decent, all things considered). Then we found out she was currently homeless, either living with friends or in her car, and 5 mos. pregnant, and was about to lose her job based on a faulty drug test result. Plus she's got a heart condition, and had a pacemaker installed about a year ago. All at the tender age of 18. This makes me think about how lucky I've had it, and how as a DA, I'd be able to skip all of this unnecessary real life stuff. I get the file with its boilerplate information on a nameless defendant and a standard offense, and make an objective decision.
Just like life - I can go through every day in my cushy life without having to see the problems other people face. I've always had this public servant attitude in me, this vague notion of wanting to do great things so I could help people; actually helping real people has been something different. And I start to think maybe I'm not as good of a person as people generally assume. I don't know.
On the other hand, all apologies to Mr. Utah, but I do give money to homeless people on occasion. Not so much to the panhandlers, but I also get a lot that come up to me directly and ask for a dollar or two. They've always got some story why they need it, and I'm not sure I ever really believe them. But I think either way, they've got it worse off than me, and dropping a couple dollars won't hurt me. Maybe they can sense I'm a softie. Maybe they can just see it.
So when we spoke to the DA and got her to offer a much better deal, I felt pretty good. And when I called some shelters for this girl to stay at, I felt better. Speaking to people has never been my strong suit; when we spoke to this girl at the courthouse, my supervising attorney did most of the talking, so I just got to hear the sad story. But now, it was my turn to speak. So I called her, informed her of the places she could go to stay, places she could get hot meals. And when, in tears, she thanked me for all of my help, I felt.....
Guilty.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)