It would be hilarious that the attention of the US is focused on Pennsylvania's upcoming primary if only the situation were not so stupid.

The governor supports Hilary, so my money is on her winning. Using the excuse of the Florida election problems, our dear governor moved heaven and earth to replace our tamper-proof voting machines with computer voting run by proprietary software. The beauty is that the validity and honesty of the election cannot be challenged. No independent investigation of the accuracy of the system is possible and we get no paper printout verifying our vote. Even TEXAS does better than that.

Really there are very few questions to be answered by Pennsylvania voters. Are you registered Republican? (If so WHY? McCain had that nomination sewed up months ago.) Did you change your registration to Democrat so you can actually participate in the only real election part of the election? And if you are registered Democrat… who you gonna vote for? Hilary or Obama?

Now my question actually is this: If I want Hilary to win, do I actually need to bother to show up? Since the governor supports her, odds are that the electronic voting will see that she wins. (Not that I would EVER accuse anybody of election fraud.) If I want Obama to win, does that even matter? (see above) And if I want McCain to win, do I vote for Hilary or Obama? Which of those two are more defeatable?

I hate to stay home. It would be the first election I've missed since I was eligible to vote. I think I voted for Warren G. Harding that year.

…and the staff had gathered to discuss the misprinted calendars.

I purchased my 2008 calendar the other day. I like to buy them early so I get one with the correct scenes. (It's not all that easy to find calendars with Roman temples on them and they tend to sell out quickly.)

On the back of the calendar, in prominent lettering, the following disclaimer appears:

We have made every effort to ensure that the information within this calendar is accurate; however, we cannot be held liable for any errors, inaccuracies or omissions.

For years, people have been whining at me that lawyers and their disclaimers are completely out of control. I'm beginning to agree with that sentiment.

One of my co-workers—let's call her "Zoe" since her name is nothing like that—has elevated cheapness to an art form.

This will sound like I'm making it up but I'm not. Zoe lies in wait for the vending machine guy to come and restock and remove items that are too stale to be in a vending machine any longer. Which is pretty stale really. Then she asks him if there is anything he is throwing away. If he says "yes," she asks if she can have it. He usually gives her something.

Her husband complained recently about some hotdogs that gave him indigestion. Nobody else in her family had any problems. But she returned the hotdogs to the store and asked for her money back. After getting the refund, she asked what the clerk was going to do with the meat. She was told the hotdogs would be thrown out. So Zoe asked to have them back. She kept the refund though.

Apparently cheapness is now a recognized social philosophy with a name: the "Freegan" movement. Freegans do not believe in paying for things. They believe in getting things for free, even if it means scrounging dairy products from a dumpster. The Freegans have their own website. (I'd really like to know how they get free webspace for it since it doesn't appear to be at Geocities or anything like that.)

To learn more about the Freegans, you can access their website here: http://freegan.info/

People hate lawyers. I hate lawyers too (even though I am one and sleep with one on a regular basis).* Why do people hate lawyers?

There are a number of reasons that I can think of offhand (and probably a zillion others that haven't occurred to me yet).

(1) On the whole, lawyers are pushy bastards. It's not their fault really, it's what they get paid to be. But its also what they are by temperament. If you don't have a spinal reflex to be pushy and disputatious on behalf of a client, a point of view or a legal position—don't go to law school. You'll be REALLY unhappy with your life. (Unless you want to go into tax law, and then we're talking about an entirely different range of personality defects. Or bankruptcy. Those dudes are scary.**)

(2) Lawyers are pedantic about their pissy-assed terminology. I've personally sat through more than one debate over whether a comma after (as opposed to before) the "and" changed the meaning of the document. I've also dealt with the question of whether "or" really means "in the alternative" or whether it means "maybe" or whether it means "and." Lawyers routinely quarrel over whether a "disjunctive" means the same thing as a "conjunctive." However, "and" does not mean "or" except in Massachusetts where the rule appears to be that "and" does, in fact, mean "or."

(3) Lawyers are arrogant. This is the reason I avoid bar association functions. You haven't lived until you've sat at dinner listening to two ostensibly adult people play one upsmanship games that get down to the nitty gritty of who has more change in his pocket and whose sportscar will go faster above the legal speed limit. (I don't fault lawyers for claiming that their offspring are brilliant and that their kid plays soccer/basketball/field hockey/football/ice hockey/the trombone/computer games and/or Jeopardy better than any other child who has ever lived on planet Earth. That goes with being a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle… whatever.)

In fairness, lawyers do have to have a very hefty helping of self-esteem. On an almost daily basis they go into court and get told by judges, court clerks, and miscellaneous people hanging around the court house that they are wrong and deserve to be shot/hung/hauled up on charges/disbarred/found in contempt/tarred and feathered and/or clocked upside the head with a gavel (or stapler). And that's just the court people. The other lawyers get REALLY nasty.

(4) Lawyers say they will do things and never do them. This one isn't universally true, although it might be true from time to time. The problem is that most people encounter a lawyer in one of two very stressful and involuntary situations: as a participant in a divorce action or as a criminal defendant.

A divorce participant expects his or her lawyer to take the other party to the cleaners, deprive them of their entire life savings as well as any opportunity to acquire more life savings, block any and all opportunities to visit with the children, and punish them on the general theory that they deserve it. (A divorce is an incredibly stressful situation, even if it is what is laughingly referred to as an "amicable" divorce. It's not a joking matter, and I'm sure I'd be the same in such a situation. My mother certainly was. Learn from the best, I always say!)

A criminal defendant, on the other hand, is invariably innocent and should never have been arrested. Criminal defendants believe that the ONLY possible reason for a conviction is that counsel was ineffective. The typical assertion goes like this: "I wasn't there and didn't do it. If I was there, I was only an innocent bystander. I didn’t' do anything! If I was there and did something, it was an accident. But if it wasn't an accident, it definitely was self-defense. But really, I wasn't there. I have an alibi. Only I don't remember her last name or where she lives. I think her first name was Brandi. Or Sharee. Maybe it was Taquila?" (I know you think I'm exaggerating, but I actually see this sort of thing all the time. Well, okay, only some of the time. Oh, maybe not the Brandi/Sharee/Taquila thing, but I did see that twice and it wasn't even the same defendant. Brandi/Sharee/Taquila must get around.)

(5) Lawyers want to get rich. I really have no response to that claim. What is there to say? Lawyers are SO unlike professional football players and other sports figures who perform their valorous deeds for free.

(6) Lawyers treat everything like it’s a game. No they don't. They treat everything as a WAR. A war they intend to WIN. Both sides in any courtroom battle (note the word "battle") are there to WIN. Compare lawyers to the much admired sports figures, who just go to the field to "play"—pansies that they are!

You know why they got rid of trial by wager of battle? The lawyers were scarier and more ferocious than the paid champions. Lawyers don't only like to WIN… they think WINNING is all there is. But it's not a game. It's a war. Even the terminology say so. Courtroom tactics… law office logistics… trial strategy.

(7) Lawyers set things up so you have to hire a lawyer to understand the law. *doh* Like you think car manufacturers don't manufacture cars to you have to hire a professional to repair the vehicle? That's the real reason they use all those computer chips nowadays.

(8) Lawyers are easily bored. I'm bored writing this. And I'm going to stop now.
_____

* We are married so we are supposed to sleep together.

** The lawyer with whom I sleep does bankruptcy, so I'm entitled to say that from first hand experience.

The professor who taught my criminal law class had a few simple precepts that I have since concluded express Universal Truth. Things like "don't piss off the trial judge, he's the one who's going to sentence you." And the corollary rule, "don't piss off the investigating police officers—they have guns." Obvious points one might think, but you'd be amazed at how many people go out of their way to insult the trial judge and irritate investigating officers.

We all thought the professor was being overly-cynical when he explained to us that some people are too stupid to be free and no matter WHAT is done to try to help them out, they won't cooperate because they can't. (A friend of mine who is a PD says this is because the average person who commits crimes does not have a grasp on cause and effect. Not complicated cause and effect mind you. Even concepts like gravity seem to elude them. They also appear to believe that "the right to remain silent" pertains to communications with defense counsel, but does not apply to conversations with police officers.) Both the professor and my PD friend have concluded that, for the most part, criminals are not apprehended by dogged police work or brilliant forensic investigation and crime-scene reconstruction. The typical case is solved because the perpetrator is too stupid to be free. After almost twenty years in the business, I'd have to say … I agree.

I once handled a case in which the perpetrator started telling people that he really needed to kill his estranged wife. He felt that her demands for child support and equitable distribution were out of line. Naturally, he did not want to hire a divorce attorney. He concluded that self-help would be a better strategy. After weeks of sulky semi-threats, he bought a hand gun. And told all his friends that he had obtained the weapon for the purpose of killing his wife. He also told her (on more than one occasion) that he intended to kill her. Late one afternoon, he showed up at the tavern where she worked and aimed his gun at her. She leaped over the bar and ran out the door, across the street and into the neighboring fire hall. It was shift change time at the fire hall. And there had been a city-wide safety meeting there that day. So, aside from two shifts worth of firefighters, many police officers, shift commanders, the police chief, the fire chief all were milling around the place. The guy followed his wife, blasting away as she dodged around trucks, people and various types of emergency gear. He managed to hit her in several vital organs before five firefighters tackled and sat on him. Despite the immediate treatment she received from several EMT crews, the woman expired. Police officers were summoned from the local police station and the man was arrested after the firefighters permitted him to stand up and be handcuffed.

The guy's defense was as follows: "I wasn't there and didn't do it. This is a case of mistaken identity and I have an alibi. But if it turns out that I was there, I didn't do anything—I was a mere bystander. However, if I was there and did something, it clearly was self defense." (I know you think I'm making that up, but I'm not.) There were around eighty witnesses to the shooting, one way or another. Only about five or six of them testified because the assistant district attorney concluded that eighty police officers and firefighters and bar patrons would be overkill. The jury found the guy guilty of first degree murder, despite his claim that it was a sudden heat of passion sort of killing (which he didn't commit because he wasn't there). Verdict: too stupid to be free.

Then there was the guy who decided to break into a woman's trailer and rob her. He telephoned first to make sure she wasn't home. He used his home telephone. She had caller ID. And she was home, she just didn't feel like answering the telephone. He broke into the trailer, she observed him, he punched her in the face and ran away. The victim knew his name because they lived in the same trailer park. It had snowed that day and he left tracks from his trailer to hers—and back again. The police arrested him and the woman identified him at trial. The jury found him guilty of burglary and simple assault. Verdict: way too stupid to be free.


Paris Hilton is a socialite whose claim to fame appears to stem from the fact that daddy is very rich and she made a notorious sex-video that led to a staring role in some television series called The Simple Life: Skank Edition. I'm being too harsh. She is a very talented actress. Her performance as "Paige Edwards" in House of Wax earned her the Teen Choice Award for "Best Scream" of 2005 and copped her a nomination for " Breakout Performance – Female." Apparently all this success went to her head. In March of 2006, Brian Quintana was granted a restraining order against her based on her harassment and constant threats. Ms. Hilton has been directed to keep a minimum distance of 100 yards away from Mr. Quintana unless they are attending the same party. At parties, she only has to maintain a distance of 25 feet.

Moving onward and upward, in September 2006, Ms. Hilton pled nolo contendere (although she probably did it in English and not Latin) to a charge of reckless driving (alcohol-related). The trial court imposed a fine and 36 months of probation. During her plea hearing, she admitted she knew she had been driving without a license. In March of 2007, she was charged with violating the terms of her probation on more than one occasion by speeding, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program. (During one incident, she was caught driving 70 miles an hour in a 35 mile an hour zone—with her headlights turned off. No doubt so that police officers wouldn't notice her.) She showed up more than 15 minutes late for her probation violation hearing. (Judges do not like that, if you were wondering.) Her defense was focused on a claim that she did not actually read the probation acknowledgment she had signed. ("I just sign what people tell me to sign. I'm a very busy person.") She also blamed her publicist—not defense counsel—for failing to properly explain to her how probation works. The trial judge found that Ms. Hilton had indeed violated the terms of the order of probation and sentenced her to serve 45 days in the county jail. She's filed an appeal. And it IS California, so she might get away with her probation violations. But my verdict is still "too stupid to be free."

Starbuck is not the right name for a girl. It has the word "buck" in it which ought to have been a clue to the morons at the Sci Fi Network that it is a boy's name. The previous version of Battlestar Galactica properly used the name Starbuck for a male character. The present version of Battlestar Galactica, among many other flaws, faults and stupidities, improperly uses the name Starbuck for a female character. This is Wrong.

There are many things on television to which I take exception. Starbuck is only one of them.

I also dislike that annoying commercial for the Asian automobile that uses von Trapezoid type creatures singing "So Long, Farewell" from The Sound of Music. It would be proper (but stupid) for Volkswagen to use that song. But it's not something an Asian car manufacturer ought to even consider employing. (Like naming your son Pu-Yi Schultz—or your daughter Starbuck Gretchen Wong. It's inappropriate.)

Whatever happened to proper nouns? Why can't television shows use the names of things any more? A&E did an hour-long show about the decline of small farm agriculture in Rome, the rise of large estate farming and the effect both had on the Republic. Not once in that entire hour did they mention the word "latifundia"—which is the expansion of the Roman equivalent of industrialized agriculture to create huge estates for the wealthy and strip the small family farmer of his land holding. One would think that a network that is supposedly dedicated to "educational" entertainment could use proper nouns. (But what else can one expect of people who can't keep the distinctions between Richard II and Richard III straight?)

When was it decided (and by whom) that American television shows must have attractive, slender characters to the exclusion of all else? The only overweight people on TV are bald men or women cast as evil busybodies. Nobody is allowed to have a big nose. Nobody is allowed to have thin hair or a pencil neck. British television programs aren't this stereotyped. They use actors of all builds and types so that the casts more closely resemble a slice of life. I will grant you that the female love interest always has to be 18 years old and blonde, but at least she has a mom who looks like a mom!

American television wasn't always this way. If you watch anthologies of shows from the fifties, the casts were diverse and chosen mostly for their ability to act. (I'm sure there was a certain amount of casting couch nonsense going on, but it doesn't seem to have totally dominated everything.) If Kate Smith were singing today, she would be singing alone in her bathroom because she sure as hell wouldn't be allowed on American television. Imogene Coca and Sid Caesar would be laughed out of the studio and Carole Burnett would never get so much as an audition.

And we wonder why anorexia is a crisis in our middle schools.

There is a condition peculiar to the internet in which one human becomes the host for many disparate personalities—personas or personae to use the vernacular. It's a benign condition when done for a joke, as long as the readers are in on the joke. However, the joke wears thin when the human uses alternate personae to post in support of one another in public debates.

Even this has an amusing aspect if you wander around AW reading messages the personae leave for one another saying things like "Thank you so much, [X]. I hope that this can be resolved soon. You're absolutely right, it's plain WRONG."

I think I will log off as Maria now and have Susannah Marius and Aelia Cassius leave messages for me telling me what a WONDERFUL journal entry this is!

I just watched a show on the History Channel about junk food. And I am totally sick of people blaming everybody other than themselves for their personal problems. In particular, I'm sick of people blaming the fast-food industry, the snack-food industry and the purveyors of soda-pop for American obesity.

Ronald MacDonald has never ONCE stalked a single human being and force-fed him or her a plastic cheese laced salted grease sandwich. Little Debbie does not force feed jelly rolls to small children.

Children eat the wrong foods because parents enable them to do so. Children are obese because their parents facilitate that. This would be the entire generation of parents who never learned to say "no" and mean it. The parents are obese because they eat too damned much of the wrong foods and/or drink too much beer.

Of course the flip side of that coin would be the adult idiots who obsess over forcing the children to eat organic seaweed and drink soy juice so they don't get "fat." Those poor kids end up with diseases caused by malnutrition which usually are associated with third world countries suffering from drought.

In any event, I'm quite tired of idiot lawyers out to make a killing, Al Gore, Meryl Streep and anybody else who wants to blame the purveyors of calorie laden food for obesity. If you don't want your kids to be fat, feed them apples and not Oreos. Feed them well balanced meals of normal food. If you don't personally want to be fat, stop swilling beer and eating cheetos soaked in gravy.

If you WANT to be fat, that's fine by me. Just shut up about it. And speaking of shutting up, I wish Jay Leno would find something to complain about other than spray cheese and fat Americans and I wish Conan O'Brian would give Kirstie Alley a break – she's lost the damned weight so close your yob about her.

I suspect I'm going to have to stop watching television.

Why? All you get is a backwards beat. Which technically would be a teab.

Rolling Rock must now be boycotted at any price. If its not real, why buy it? It's just Bud under another name now.

Iron City Beer is okay. It IS still made in the US and its "not Budweiser beer." The brewery makes IC Lite, of course. But, lite beer is an abomination. Put an ice cube in your brew if you want watered-down bilge. The brewery has an interesting tradition. They developed the snap-top lid (in conjunction with Alcoa). As they saying goes they "revolutionized" beer and pop cans. (I'm not calling it soda. If you ask me if I want "soda" you better give me something with ice cream in it.) They used to bottle Olde Frothingslosh for Christmas (the beer with the foam on the bottom--made with hippety hops).

Then there is Penn Pilsner… a REAL beer. Which is so "not Budweiser" the two should not be mentioned in the same paragraph, let alone in the same sentence. It's good though. Really good. As in really really really GOOD. The brewery also makes a fine dark beer, which tastes a tiny bit "burnt" to me—but I'm told that's what makes it so special. (Of course Heinz ketchup also tastes burned to me which is why I won't eat the stuff.) The really great beer is the Penn Oktoberfest. Worth a trip to the 'Burgh in August and September to get THAT one!

The Penn Brewing Company runs a restaurant at the brewery with the best German food you can get outside of gramma's kitchen (assuming gramma was from Germany and is a good cook). Their sauerbraten with home made spätzel also is worth the trip to Pittsburgh. And their potato pancakes are better than dessert. I can't quite figure out what they do with their sauerkraut. I recently tried molasses and white sugar and it was almost right. It just occurred to me… maybe they put BEER in it? I'll have to try that next!