
Showing posts with label What I Did at Work Today. Show all posts
Showing posts with label What I Did at Work Today. Show all posts
Monday, July 21, 2008
2008-09 Law Review Schwag
Law Review t-shirts are often a subject on this blog. Most notably for their effect on intoxicated undergraduate women. So without further ado, I present the 2008-09 Law Review T-Shirt:


Thursday, July 17, 2008
Always Something Good in The Economist
From The Economist, "What a way to run the world," July 3, 2008 print edition:
"Faced with the need to reform international institutions, the rich world—and America in particular—has a choice. Cling to power, and China and India will form their own clubs, focused on their own interests and problems. Cede power and bind them in, and interests and problems are shared. Now that would be a decent way to run a world."
"Faced with the need to reform international institutions, the rich world—and America in particular—has a choice. Cling to power, and China and India will form their own clubs, focused on their own interests and problems. Cede power and bind them in, and interests and problems are shared. Now that would be a decent way to run a world."
Monday, July 14, 2008
Weekly Law School Blog Roundup Posted
This week's roundup is posted at Thanks, But No Thanks. A direct link to the roundup post can be found here. The War of All Against All made it into this week's roundup with the Google search post regarding what it means to be in the top third in your class.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Some People Just Deserve What They Get
I was in court today watching a rearrangement for a defendant who was entering into a plea agreement. The judge was going through the traditional colloquy:
Judge: Are you under the influence of drugs?
Defendant: No.
Judge: Are you currently taking any prescription medications?
Defendant: Yes.
Judge: You are? [You dumbass! A simple "no" is all you are supposed to say.] Which medications are you currently taking?
Me (thinking): Please say something great like oxycotin, codene, or something great that will get you in even more trouble or invalidate your plea agreement!!!! Please!
Defendant: Valtrex.
Defendant's Husband (from the audience): WHAT?!?!?!
Judge: Do we need to take a short recess?
Judge: Are you under the influence of drugs?
Defendant: No.
Judge: Are you currently taking any prescription medications?
Defendant: Yes.
Judge: You are? [You dumbass! A simple "no" is all you are supposed to say.] Which medications are you currently taking?
Me (thinking): Please say something great like oxycotin, codene, or something great that will get you in even more trouble or invalidate your plea agreement!!!! Please!
Defendant: Valtrex.
Defendant's Husband (from the audience): WHAT?!?!?!
Judge: Do we need to take a short recess?
Perspectives: Anti-Cell Phone Use While Driving Laws
Oh noes, it's another "substantive" post that goes beyond our usual sarcasm and bitching. Yesterday, I experienced an increasingly common phenomenon for the first time. While on the phone with my sister, who currently lives in New Jersey, she said, "I have to go, I'm about to start driving and it's illegal to hold the phone up to your ear while driving in New Jersey." This was the first time anyone has ever ended a phone conversation with me because the person was about to go driving. I usually reserve my planned phone calls SPECIFICALLY for driving time so I can sort of multitask instead of having those calls take up time I could spend doing something else. I also like to spend driving time on the phone because it is an effective way to occupy my mind while performing the relatively mundane task of keeping the vehicle under control.
Many states now regulate cell phone use while driving in some form. One of the most common regulatory approaches is to require the use of a hands-free device for cell phone use while driving. However, opponents of regulation often argue that the problem lies in the distraction of the conversation, not in the use of the phone itself. While I agree with that to some extent, are those opponents willing to entertain the notion of making it illegal to talk to one's passengers? I don't think that would ever happen, but that's one logical conclusion of that argument. Here is a color-coded map of states with various levels of laws on point:

What do you guys think about this issue? Should states be regulating cell phone use while driving at all? What form should this regulation take? Do we like the hands-free requirements already adopted in many states? Do we need to go further and require drivers to bind and gag their passengers to avoid conversational distractions from backseat drivers? Please discuss in the comments. Seriously.
I anticipate a debate of epic proportions in the comments, by which I mean I expect to get at least one post from Phaedrus being a dickhead, one from El Guapo employing some good ol' boy Southern sense, and one from mootgoescow including at least one internetism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

