Thursday, July 01, 2004
to donald at crescat, two things.
1] jeopardy.
2] sadaam and jurisdiction.
1] the guy who wrote the book that got me into law school,
Dr x 40 John Bear, lost on Jeopardy. Wierd Al has a song about that.
Dr x 40 is not like jennifer 8 lee; the guy has 40 doctorates, most of them from diploma mills he picked researching "Bear's guide to alternative degree programs."
He also wrote "effective complaining", i should put that on my wishlist. Bear's advice was, yes, you can get a legitimate degree through the mail. I picked one that was close and cheap, Western Illinois U. It took me a year, a grand, and I graduated with a 4.0. I already had the credits, having flunked out of college 4 times. Therest of his advice was, don't go to lawschool through the mail; you won't pass the bar. So I went to mizzou, although I had to apply twice and effectively complain the second time.
I lost on jeopardy, baby, ooo-oo-oo-ooo.
2] One of the things they teach in Patriot School 101 is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. That's also the first half of civil procedure, and was the first question on the Indiana bar exam. In CivPro I mostly thought it was a meaningless formality, but it turns out in the real world
many cases do hinge on jurisdiction, about 1/2. So don't ask just,'was i going over the posted limit', ask, what court am i in, why am i -here- rather than -there-.
We are highly trained professional though; trying this at home can really piss off the judge - thus setting up your appeal.
Based on what I read at CNN, [i don't have a tv] Saddam did very well pro se.
He's in his element here, the guy might be crazy, but he's not stupid. My favorite thurber cartoon, the guy is in the courtroom, and the prosecutor is asking, 'does -this- refresh your memory?', pointing to a Kangaroo.
Remember the gore/unabomber game? Each turn of play, you are given a quote, and have to guess does it come from Gore's book, or the Unabomber manifesto.
Just for fun, try this. Replace Saddam with Bush in the CNN article. Make a few other changes as needed for context, like have the trial in Canada or before the UN.
What exactly makes Bush's invasion of Kuwait ok, and saddam's not? What is the burden of proof, is it reasonable doubt? Does he have a right to a jury trial? If so, who are his peers? If not, can capital punishment be an option?
There are some pretty good arguments that kuwait is part of persia, and was stolen by the british. There's a very bad movie with Ralph ['rafe'] Fiennes as Lawrence.
By 'very good' i mean, creating reasonable doubt, not meeting a preponderence of the evidence. The bad movie also has somebody who has to be Dr. Bashir as Prince Feisal.
Anyway, Saddam could win, if he is overcharged, and embarras thewar effort, or could lose, and become a glorious martyr. I saw a banner today that said 'help al-kieda grow - vote bush/cheney '04.'
After Bush v. Gore, we saw some of the worst possible outcomes of a bush presidency - senseless wars at home and abroad, comstockery, economic collapse. What we didn't get to see is the just as bad, but different, things Gore would have done.
Right now the polls show Bush losing to anyone, even Kerry.
It's time to ask, what is the worst case scenario under Kerry? What is it about kerry that will leave us longing for the good old days of Clinton and Bush?
3] those people are very very smart. in eugene's case, it's a managed perception - he makes a point of only posting on topics he knows a lot about. solem uses academic speak, and is so over my head i don't try. the clerk is very very smart, especially when he's wrong. i'm smart like rainman, an idiot-savant. crescat is smart, in a the smart set kind of way, because it is organized in a way that lets everyone's best shine through, instead of a committee-like lowest common denominator kind of way. as to baude, sometimes i think, i like this guy, meaning, he agrees with me but puts it better. sometimes, though, i think he's way smarter than me, and i'm humbled.
at www.wilwheaton.com, there's a word that the filters translate as "people smarter than me."
1] jeopardy.
2] sadaam and jurisdiction.
1] the guy who wrote the book that got me into law school,
Dr x 40 John Bear, lost on Jeopardy. Wierd Al has a song about that.
Dr x 40 is not like jennifer 8 lee; the guy has 40 doctorates, most of them from diploma mills he picked researching "Bear's guide to alternative degree programs."
He also wrote "effective complaining", i should put that on my wishlist. Bear's advice was, yes, you can get a legitimate degree through the mail. I picked one that was close and cheap, Western Illinois U. It took me a year, a grand, and I graduated with a 4.0. I already had the credits, having flunked out of college 4 times. Therest of his advice was, don't go to lawschool through the mail; you won't pass the bar. So I went to mizzou, although I had to apply twice and effectively complain the second time.
I lost on jeopardy, baby, ooo-oo-oo-ooo.
2] One of the things they teach in Patriot School 101 is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. That's also the first half of civil procedure, and was the first question on the Indiana bar exam. In CivPro I mostly thought it was a meaningless formality, but it turns out in the real world
many cases do hinge on jurisdiction, about 1/2. So don't ask just,'was i going over the posted limit', ask, what court am i in, why am i -here- rather than -there-.
We are highly trained professional though; trying this at home can really piss off the judge - thus setting up your appeal.
Based on what I read at CNN, [i don't have a tv] Saddam did very well pro se.
He's in his element here, the guy might be crazy, but he's not stupid. My favorite thurber cartoon, the guy is in the courtroom, and the prosecutor is asking, 'does -this- refresh your memory?', pointing to a Kangaroo.
Remember the gore/unabomber game? Each turn of play, you are given a quote, and have to guess does it come from Gore's book, or the Unabomber manifesto.
Just for fun, try this. Replace Saddam with Bush in the CNN article. Make a few other changes as needed for context, like have the trial in Canada or before the UN.
What exactly makes Bush's invasion of Kuwait ok, and saddam's not? What is the burden of proof, is it reasonable doubt? Does he have a right to a jury trial? If so, who are his peers? If not, can capital punishment be an option?
There are some pretty good arguments that kuwait is part of persia, and was stolen by the british. There's a very bad movie with Ralph ['rafe'] Fiennes as Lawrence.
By 'very good' i mean, creating reasonable doubt, not meeting a preponderence of the evidence. The bad movie also has somebody who has to be Dr. Bashir as Prince Feisal.
Anyway, Saddam could win, if he is overcharged, and embarras thewar effort, or could lose, and become a glorious martyr. I saw a banner today that said 'help al-kieda grow - vote bush/cheney '04.'
After Bush v. Gore, we saw some of the worst possible outcomes of a bush presidency - senseless wars at home and abroad, comstockery, economic collapse. What we didn't get to see is the just as bad, but different, things Gore would have done.
Right now the polls show Bush losing to anyone, even Kerry.
It's time to ask, what is the worst case scenario under Kerry? What is it about kerry that will leave us longing for the good old days of Clinton and Bush?
3] those people are very very smart. in eugene's case, it's a managed perception - he makes a point of only posting on topics he knows a lot about. solem uses academic speak, and is so over my head i don't try. the clerk is very very smart, especially when he's wrong. i'm smart like rainman, an idiot-savant. crescat is smart, in a the smart set kind of way, because it is organized in a way that lets everyone's best shine through, instead of a committee-like lowest common denominator kind of way. as to baude, sometimes i think, i like this guy, meaning, he agrees with me but puts it better. sometimes, though, i think he's way smarter than me, and i'm humbled.
at www.wilwheaton.com, there's a word that the filters translate as "people smarter than me."
Comments:
Post a Comment
