-The Docket-

[captain_jay_conrad]

“To hell with you! I’ll say what I damn well please. After all, I have freedom of speech...don’t I?” That contention is something I encountered during my final year of law school. An employee of a local health clinic was appalled when her boss ordered her to remove Torah quotes from her bulletin board at her desk. At the time, I was walking past the free law clinic. This middle-aged woman emerged from the clinic, stopped me, and asked whether she had any legal recourse available. I listened to her story, and the more I heard, the more obvious it became...she had no legal recourse.

When I attempted to explain that she did not have any recourse, that’s when she said the quote I used to open this entry. What many people fail to realize is that the First Amendment’s guaranty of free speech does not apply to private entities. That is, the First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws to limit protected classes of free speech. But, as I pointed out in an earlier entry, even that protection is not as robust as people would like to think.

Constitutional protections are not without their limits, and the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights must be viewed within their proper context. I believe that this represents one of the greatest shortcomings of both the legal system and of its practitioners. We fail to adequately explain the proper scope and application of the law to the greater public.

Law can be frustrating to the average citizen. Lawyers use obsolete and convoluted words. They dabble in so-called legal fictions, such as, “the fertile octogenarian”, or “the unborn widow”. Is it any wonder that the general public looks upon the legal system with doubt and frustration? Again, we lawyers have failed society, in that we rarely take the time to explain the process. Sometimes, we ourselves don’t understand why the system operates in the way that it does.

Still, that’s no excuse for our apparent inability to help clear up some of the misunderstandings and misgivings people have with the justice system. As a profession, we should take the time to improve both people’s understanding of and access to the justice system.

People are uncomfortable with that which they feel they have no control over, and that which they do not understand. Law makes said lack of understanding worse through its alien vocabulary and so-called “terms of art”. For instance, the term “Reasonable” can have different definitions and applications depending upon the particular law or statute defining it. The common meaning of the word has no bearings on its legal use whatsoever. To an outsider, that’s frustrating as hell. It makes the law nearly unapproachable. And, in a very real sense, that defeats the overarching purpose of the modern legal system.

It should be noted, however, that this is not a new problem. The general population has felt separated from the legal system since ancient legal codes were first codified thousands of years ago. Said legal codes were originally designed to segregate commoners from the aristocracy. The nobility were subject to a different set of punishments for the same offenses than the general populace was.

Needless to say, over time, hostility and resentment festered. In Europe, the year 1848 proved crucial with respect to simmering resentment of the double-standards propagated by an unequal legal system. Revolution swept through several European nations, and many ancient monarchies crumbled. What this proves, however, is that as time progresses, so too does the legal system.

Equal Protection under the law, and Due Process are ideals which worked themselves into the legal system. They were the direct result of disenfranchised people demanding equal access to the law. The journey has been a long one, starting in 1215. In that year, the Magna Carta―or “Great Charter”―was enacted. Magna Carta represented the first step of redefining sovereignty.

Before Magna Carta, English kings ruled through the doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings”. Thus, the crown answered to God alone. This was a milder form of absolutism, which was prevalent in France. Sovereignty was condensed into the person of one man, the monarch. They controlled all access to the courts, and their will could even over rule the courts. In a very real sense, justice rested in their hands alone. As one can see, this was not a fair system.

As the king was the sole source of legal authority, he could apply the law in an arbitrary fashion. The barons and nobles resented this and sought to make the sovereign answerable to them. At first, the changes made to the law applied only to them. It allowed for them to be judged by a jury of their peers, as opposed to being judged by the king alone. That is still seen today in our trial by jury system. Nonetheless, the landless peasants...(or “villains”, as they were known at the time), were still refused access to the law courts. Gradually over time, the concept of “consent by the governed” came to apply to all people. Consequently, under our representative republic, the people are the sovereigns of the nation. That is a far cry from what the system had been under the old Divine Right of Kings doctrine.

The concept of governing authority had shifted away from the person of one man, to the entire electorate of a nation. In that sense, the notion of Equal Protection and Due Process under the law had ushered in a new, more egalitarian system of justice. However, the system is still evolving, and the governing principles of the legal system, in practice, often leave something to be desired. Law is a living process. It’s fluid in its nature. As society changes, certain aspects of law change. What remains immutable, however, are the core principles which we should strive to achieve.

Inequity has been a very real blight to the legal system in the past. Indeed, a fair number of inequities persist to this day. However, we must take notice of the changes that have occurred throughout history. Progress is being made, and in a steady fashion. More people have access to the legal system today, than at any other point in history. People have an avenue to sensibly resolve their disputes.

While we may have disagreements as to the proper direction the system needs to go, such disagreements clearly demonstrate that the system has worked. Or, at least it has to a certain extent. I truly doubt we will ever reach a point in time where everyone is satisfied with the system. Human nature demonstrates that we are incapable of perfection. Despite this, however, we should strive for it anyway.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Every now and then, the historian in me starts contemplating one of the great questions that plagues modern humanity. Namely, what is the greatest creation of mankind? Is it one of the life-saving drugs developed in the past ten years, or is it the airplane. Perhaps it’s the Internet? I propose it is nothing so glorious or grand as those. No, our greatest creation is something so humble that we all take it for granted.

This great creation I speak of is nothing more than the written word. But, surely humanity has created far more important breakthroughs than the simple written word. After all, writing has been with us for thousands of years. Just how important can it be?

However, the mere fact that it has been with us for so long serves as evidence in support of my claim. Without writing, none of the more spectacular discoveries would ever have been possible. Researching, designing, and sharing these discoveries all relied upon the humble written word. Moreover, the protection of these discoveries, via the patent process, depends upon the written word.

In actuality, writing serves as one of the cornerstones of civilization. It forms the foundation of knowledge. Without writing, dissemination of information is curtailed. Commerce is halted, and law is decimated. Our world, as we know it, would simply cease to function. That fact, in and of itself, presents the strongest support to my claim that the written word is our greatest accomplishment.

No other man made force so drastically, or permanently, changed the course of humanity. Other developments and creations establish ages and eras. But, the written word created history itself. That’s quite an accomplishment for such a lowly and ancient creation. However, it is that sheer simplicity of writing that allows it to tower over the pantheon of invention.

Writing allows us to share a love note, or document other great discoveries. At the same time, it grants us access to ancient civilizations long since faded from this earth. If knowledge is power, then writing is its life blood. It fuels the very expanse of our breadth and base of knowledge. What other creation of ours possesses such a diverse array of functions and purposes? I contend that no other human development comes close to providing such a powerful and lasting impact.

This very document is shared through writing. Writing is both magnificent and plain. It sheds light into our minds, and is a mirror into our current condition. Through the written word, we entertain and enlighten ourselves. Even empires have risen and fallen by the power of the written word.

As long as someone is able to decipher our written language, our ideas carry the potential of lasting for eternity. Well after we are all long dead, someone could pick up one of our writings and be transported back in time, to the very instant we penned that thought. Such a truth carries real power. And, with great power, comes greater responsibility.

We must use the freedom afforded through the written word to ensure that none are denied access to such freedom. As writers, ourselves, we must condemn forces seeking to stifle the free exchange of ideas through senseless acts of censorship. In fact, we must stand as the guardians of this, our greatest of all invention. Else we risk the collapse of our way of life.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

the story
Just what are the limitations of free speech? That’s the legal question that the Supreme Court is about to address. In what can only be described as one of the worst off color jokes ever posted in social media, a man published violent rap lyrics which talked about killing an estranged ex wife and shooting up a kindergarten class. Such things can easily be taken out of context, and that’s probably what happened here.

The man’s ex wife claims to have felt threatened by the lyrics, and a federal jury agreed with her. Now, on appeal, the case is headed to the Nation’s highest court. What will the result be? I don’t know the answer to that question. On so many levels, the Roberts’s Court has been predictable, while on many others, there’s no telling what direction the Court may go.

What can be said, is that the murky area of the law reflects just how much rapid technological changes can cause the law to fall into a death spiral. The Legal system is set in a near-medieval mindset. They are slow to react in many instances, and this leaves much to be desired by the general public and by legal practitioners alike.

I’m worried as to what could be the result of this case. Should the Court start pulling on the reigns with Freedom of Speech, a new sense of governmental intrusion will sweep through the land. For the past six years, we have seen some alarming decisions being made with respect to our civil liberties, and it is something that anyone in America should be concerned about, irrespective of their political standing.

We have to remain cognizant of the threats and challenges faced by our most precious civil liberties. Should the mere element of spontaneity be a measuring stick as to whether or not certain “crude” forms of speech should be barred from social media sites? That’s a tricky question, and one the answer to which could have far reaching implications for places such as Bluemoon.

I’ve discussed how so-called obscenity is not afforded free speech protections under the First Amendment in earlier entries. A case like the one mentioned in the article posted at the top of this entry, could very well expand the definition of obscenity. If that happens, it then becomes a question of degree. Thus, we could see “terms of art” defining the very edges of what is and what is not protected by the First Amendment.

Looking at this case, the estranged ex wife claimed that the posting of the lyrics made her fear for her life. I suppose that’s possible, but given the full context of what was happening, I’m left wondering whether that’s really the case. This is one of those narrow areas, and I think that the court should give the utmost deference to the freedom of expression.

The fact that she did not face any real harm, and the fact that she still had her ex husband as a friend on this social network, also has to play into the considerations. If we allow a knee jerk reaction to occur within the court, even for supposedly politically correct reasons, we run the risk of diluting our civil liberties unnecessarily. I don’t think that’s something we can afford. Especially when we consider how many of our other civil liberties have been encroached upon by the Federal Government.

I wish that the courts would tread lightly here. However, that’s not something that this Court has a reputation for. We should all watch this case carefully, because its outcome very well could effect each and everyone of us.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Can you believe it’s December already? Another year reaches its final month. The world is still here, and somehow we managed to make it this far. All in all, I’d say that this has been a pretty good year. Or, as good as a year can be, all things considered.

Now, most articles at this point would include some crap about reflecting upon the good and bad of the year, or tell you that if you don’t live some hyper-healthy lifestyle, you’ll be dead by the end of the year. I’m not going to do that. First of all, it’s a boring cliché, and probably explains why newspaper subscriptions are in the can. And, secondly, who the hell am I to tell you how to live?

Maybe I’m wrong to address this, but address it I shall. These days we’re all bombarded with these constant messages dictating how we’re supposed to live. Right, I get it. These Knights Hospitaller of health want us to live forever. Surprise cockbags! Life is finite, and no special Nazi-approved health diet will change this open and obvious fact. I bet if you told these health-nuts that you start dying while you’re still in the womb, they’d go pray to a protein shake, before committing ritual suicide.

The goal of getting healthy is not a bad thing. But, for the love of Xenu! (As a Scientologist might say). Leave me the fuck alone. My life choices are mine to make. Last time I checked I didn’t sign up for a platinum membership at “Gym Nagsalot”. I didn't make an appointment with some bitchtastic health and fitness trainers. So, I don't need every washed up journalist telling me my life will end like it's 2012. Eating healthy is important. I get it, really I do! Oh, and the world didn't end in 2012...for fuck's sake.

The press has always loved to exaggerate. Hollywood even created a box-office flop-turned-masterpiece about it. "Citizen Kane". Hell, when William R. Hearst wasn’t making up atrocities to plunge America into the Spanish American War; then, he was busy indulging his silent movie-actress mistress’s morphine habit, while championing new anti narcotic laws. So, hypocrisy has been there from day one.

But, even Hearst would blush at the things that pass for news today. Take that European scientist who helped land a satellite on a comet―something never done before―for instance. Did we celebrate his accomplishments? Of course not! Instead, certain feminist groups took to the social media sites, berating this fellow for his shirt displaying scantly clad women, basking in the glory of their feminine physique. (Not to be confused with the Feminine Mystique!) The man bursts into tears during his internationally televised apology. And, the complaint that started it all comes from the same activists who stage so-called slut walks? Nothing says “classy” like this dichotomy. I mean, who gives two shits about what somebody is wearing? Shouldn’t we judge a person by their deeds and accomplishments? Apparently not.

This is the problem with modern society. We get so involved with penultimate and mediocre causes that we’re blinded to real accomplishments, when they actually occur. I have no problem with the cause of feminism. But, when they act like the health-Nazis, and decry a man over a God damned shirt, I have a problem. How shallow can a movement get?

Is it really progress to make a fashion illiterate scientist cry over a tacky shirt? That’s cool, ignore his contribution to humanity and turn him into a pariah over a fucking shirt. Thanks Twitter, you show us that revolution trumps societal evolution. Future generations can rest assured knowing that Twitter and Facebook have their best interests at heart.

And that brings me to the next “derp” moment for our illustrious and awesome modern pop culture―Social media in general. Giving credence to rabid posters on a social networking site is like giving the schizophrenic doomsday prophet on the Washington Mall a Nobel Prize in science. Sure, he belongs in MENSA, when compared to politicians, but he didn’t put a satellite on a fucking comet while wearing a tacky shirt! What I mean is, most social media sites are filled with random ramblings of people who think they have something to say―see my prior entries...I’m guilty as charged. We often spout off without thinking about what we’re saying.

Of course, that’s only one part of the equation. The other part is perhaps the more mind-boggling aspect...people take social media way too seriously. For instance, tacky shirt scientist’s biggest mistake wasn’t wearing that shirt. Rather, it was actually giving a damn about what random idiots on Twitter had to say about said shirt. Hurt feelings, as a result of social media hysteria is stupid, but threatening civil liberties over an off-color joke is outright dangerous.

In my previous entry, I highlighted how a Supreme Court case is actually dealing with this very issue. This is like Internet trolling on steroids. But, free speech is the unsuspecting victim. If this case establishes a precedent for punishing moronic comments online, then we’re screwed as a society. Revenge of the nerds becomes revenge of the idiots, and we all suffer as a result.

Perhaps what all of this demonstrates is that common sense is a thing of the past. Consequences don’t matter because we don’t need to learn anything anymore. That’s what Google is for. Sexting between teachers and students apparently passes for Biology class these days, and ends up as a lesson in criminal justice, once charges are handed down.

Consequently, we need to rethink all of our old sayings. “Actions speak louder than words, unless it’s on Twitter.” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press...unless it involves Facebook.” I mean, this is funny on the surface, until it sinks in that this is what’s really happening with respect to social media hysteria.

You would think that freedom of speech would become more important than ever, in this age of social media. But, that presupposes that we’re not a bunch of idiotic children without one iota of common sense. In some ways, we are adrift in an Orwellian nightmare. Vast treasure troves of knowledge rest a web-browser away, but somehow, we’re even dumber than before. How much will it cost us in the end? I don’t really know.

We’re also caught in an existentialist nightmare. Except Kafka would tweet about morphing into a giant cockroach, and Orkin and Terminex would start a chemical war to cash in on being the first to kill the world’s largest cockroach. Hell, we even have so-called smart watches that check Twitter feeds. On top of this, they also monitor our health and exercise routines.

And that brings this rant full circle. I didn’t need to reflect upon what happened in 2014. Facebook, Twitter, and desperate journalists will do that for me. Furthermore, I don’t need to draft a monologue on the sad state of political affairs...politicians make a better case for that than I can. No, I just have to sit back and laugh at it all.

Satire always has, and always will be the greatest weapon we wield against the forces of mass lunacy. It preserves our sanity in insane times. Without laughter, the forces of “derp” win.

So, sit back and laugh. Except if it’s on Facebook and Twitter. Because, if you display satire there, it’s unhealthy and could kill you. Therefore, satire must be banned on any and all social networking sites! After all, the Internet is serious fucking business.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/st...jeb-bush-run-2016-despite-conservative-doubts

I have to laugh at the conservatives. The very notion of running another Bush for office would be a marvelous little disaster. Honestly, aren't two Bushes enough? The same thing can be said about the Clintons. One would think that America has fallen back into some form of aristocracy where succeeding generations of politicians from a prominent family continually get in office...oh wait, I think we're headed in that direction.

For me, the greatest thing that could happen for this country is if we could finally get some fresh blood in the political arena. These tired has-beens won't do a damn bit of good for the country. They're in it for themselves, and that's not something we need. We're too busy being narcissistic over ourselves to allow another such person to be in the White House. Then again, maybe we're too dumb to get past this status quo of losers and hucksters.

Of course, I'm sure Jeb's brother going on National TV, spouting a new book and then pressing for Jeb to run doesn't hurt his chances in the least. I mean, W. never did anything to make himself unpopular with the masses, right? Oh wait...there's that whole Iraq thing. But, we can sweep that under the rug. Can't we?

Perhaps that's what's really wrong with this country. We spend one moment jumping from an election to the next moment speculating about a future election. There's no time to breathe. Candidates are constantly vying for power, and leadership is left to rot on the vine. What good does that do for the country? Is this really how we want to present ourselves? In that respect, twenty-four-hour-a-day news cycles have really hurt this country. Politicians are too busy running for office and competing for camera time, to waste precious hours in the day doing their job.

President Obama is no exception to this rule either. He usually voted present when he was in the Senate, and then headed off to play a round of golf. Some things never change! Yet, this is the sad and sorry state that our country is in. These politicians are out to get power, and worse yet, they're heading to Twitter to spread their messages. I feel as if we have slipped as a nation, and instead of helping us get back on our feet, our elected officials jab us in the eye with a stick. "Nice guys finish last...Politicians see to it!"

That probably is our unofficial motto now. These politicians gather together and make their money, all while lying to us about giving a damn. It's cute...until the reflux kicks in. Then they ban the antacid, and kick us while we're down. So, what's going to change in all of this?

Glad I rhetorically asked that for you. The answer is, not a God damned thing. If things changed, then lobbyists would be out of the job. And, we can't have lobbyists out of the job. I mean, what would happen to their special pet projects? Like a fighter jet that farts rainbows. Best yet, the rainbow-farting fighter jet will only quadruple the national debt! Hell yes! Count me in!

The only thing that would make the rainbow-farting fighter jet better, would be if it ran off the tears of orphans and taught those orphans how to read before consuming them. That way both left and right could be happy, and it would give a whole new meaning to "the War on Poverty". Of course, things won't change as long as we keep having these so-called wars.

The war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on freedom...Why can't we have a war on politicians? I don't want Jeb Bush as President. I don't want Hillary Clinton as President. Elizabeth Warren doesn't float my boat either. Although she does a fantastic job of impersonating a Native American, and telling me that I don't deserve what I earned. No, I don't trust any of these worthless politicians. Our system would work, if it weren't inundated with these idiots.

Perhaps it goes without saying, we needn't worry about whether our Founding Fathers envisioned rapid fire, fully automatic rifles. Rather, we need to worry about whether they considered stupid people becoming our elected officials. Jeb Bush called coming into a country illegally an act of love. Okay, maybe so, then does that mean 9/11 was a love tap? I guess playing grab-ass in the geopolitical sphere is cool, but the consequences of stupidity are far reaching.

And then there's the environmentalist wing. Hugging a tree won't heat my house you dumb arrogant dipshits. Rainbow farts might, but they hate that now that we have a jet that farts rainbows. So, they'll do whatever they can to ensure that our next phase of transportation involves the horse and buggy...but wait! That involves enslaving a horse! We can't do that, we have to let the horse vote and screw the people!

I guess the biggest problem then, is that there's no compromise anymore. Everyone runs to extremes and plays musical chairs with themselves. That, of course does just what it sounds like. It accomplishes nothing, and we look pretty stupid doing it. Never fear though! Our government knows best for us. And to prove it, they want to micromanage our lives. I mean, we can't personally have religious objections to certain healthcare coverage that we're now forced to buy....but corporations can!

Sweet, I don't feel like I'm getting screwed here at all. I should just shut my mouth and enjoy the madness. But, I value this country a bit more than that. Therein lies the problem. Our politicians have forgotten about the idea that...shit, maybe the nation's more important than they are.

Perhaps working for the common good might do something for us. But, that would mean Obama would have to stop playing golf. John Boehner would have to stop getting shit faced, and Mitch McConnell would have to grow a spine. I don't see any of this happening. So as Rome burns, the Senate joins the Emperor in diddling lions.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

The Story

We're facing a major problem with our military justice system right now. These incidents of sexual assault have tarnished the reputation of the entire military. Yet, that's not the worst of the problems facing the armed forces. Commanders have abused the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to overturn convictions made in court.

Congress has responded to the problem by modifying the rules, disallowing the commanders who were in charge of initiating the complaint, from overruling the decisions of the jury. This is an important step in the right direction. However, it marks one of the greatest differences between private practice and military practice. When a Judge Advocate General (JAG) represents a service member, or the state, he or she has more than one client. The Jag must, at all times, keep in mind the considerations and desires of the top brass.

That's not always a bad thing. Military justice, by its nature, must be different than civilian law. That being said, it should not be used as an excuse by top brass to sweep problems under the rug. Since our military is an all voluntary force, it is important that each and every member of our armed services are afforded a fair shake. No servicewoman should ever have to fear that she is in danger of losing her career for reporting sexual misconduct on the part of her peers.

The military is still in a transition period. Old prejudices die hard, and some officers still apply a negative stigma to females in the military. Yet, those old prejudices are dying, with each successive generation that fills the ranks. Nevertheless, the military justice system is shaped by and adheres to the older military structure and system. I think that the UCMJ is in serious need of an overhaul.

We need to take current circumstances into consideration, while adhering to some of the special requirements and needs of the military. Congress has the power to amend the UCMJ. Indeed, they have already removed the provision that allowed commanders to overturn the verdict of a military tribunal. But, more must be done, if we are to ensure that our military is a just one.

I do not see any reason to doubt Colonel Christensen's account. JAG prosecutors are not afforded the same amount of power or authority that an assistant district attorney is. Thus, if the top brass applies pressure, it is considered an order. The UCMJ allows military personnel to disregard an unlawful order. However, the burden of proof falls upon their shoulders, and that is not an easy task to accomplish. The entire military apparatus is standing in their way. Retaliation is an issue that is also being investigated. Thus, the entire system is somewhat stacked against rooting out these high-profile problems.

The military's desire to maintain a spotless record is understandable. But, by acting in the way they have, they have merely made the problem worse. Obstruction does nothing to promote their image. On the contrary, it causes the tax payer to question the efficacy of allowing the military to have a separate justice system. I believe that when it comes to these matters, it should be a joint investigatory board, one convened by the authority of the President. Since the Military is part of the Executive Branch of Government, the President of the United States is authorized to develop some of the administrative rules concerning the military.

Each branch of the military―Army, Navy, and Air Force―has a Civilian leader. That is, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are all civilians, and are the heads of that branch of the military. They would ultimately be in charge of any administrative rules concerning the military. However, as previously mentioned, it will take an act of Congress to truly resolve the problems with the UCMJ.

So, while the first steps have been taken, I sit back and wait to see whether more will be done. Sexual assault is a heinous offense, and the military should have a zero tolerance policy. If the military is incapable of performing this function under the current structure, then we need to revamp the entire structure.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

A recording of Bix's music.

I’ve always had a fascination with music. My first piano lesson started when I was three, and my first recital was at age four, then my first duet was at six. By the age of eight, I had won the coveted “All State Musician” award. Yet, music wasn’t to be my calling. Life simply had plans of her own for me, and I accept this without regret. Still, my love for music led me to develop a wide and rather eclectic taste in music.

For as far back as I can recall, one of my all time favorite musical sounds came from the sweet tones of 1920‘s era jazz. However, it wasn’t until college that I discovered one of my all-time favorite musicians, Bix Beiderbecke. He was one of those tortured geniuses who grace the musical scene, maybe once or twice a generation...if that.

Young Beiderbecke payed by ear alone. He made it into the most popular band of the era―Paul Whiteman’s Orchestra―and all without being able to read a single note of music. That endears him to me, because I can barely read music, and played mostly by ear as well. Success became the linchpin of Beiderbeck’s demise. Everywhere he went, people would pester him to play. Bix was the sort of soul who simply couldn’t say no to anyone, or to a nice stiff drink.

Playing a gig in a different town or state, night after night, and then performing and drinking himself into a near coma until five in the morning...every night for years...took a heavy toll on the young man. Very quickly, he developed a split personality. The normal Bix, kind and generous...but Bix on a bender, well he had a nasty temper and was rather paranoid.

It didn’t help that he despised the sort of music that Whiteman had popularized. It wasn’t the pure, raw jazz that served as the life blood for the musician. Rather, it was elevator music, as we might describe it today. Light, fluffy popular dance tunes, with light syncopation. Worse yet, Bix’s inability to read music meant that he was only able to shine during solos. But, the new type of music limited his ability to ever play a solo. So, he played third trumpet, and started drinking during performances.

His fellow trumpeters and coronet-players would have to wake him up, so that he could play his part. It finally reached a head one night in New York. He collapsed in intermission, and wasn’t able to finish the concert. Paul Whiteman went to check on him in his cheap hotel room. What he found was horrific. The young man punched the walls, attempting to kill a snake, which existed only in his delirious mind. Whiteman sent him back to his home town of Davenport Iowa.

This was perhaps the greatest mistake Whiteman could have made. Bix’s family never supported the lifestyle that he chose for himself. They reluctantly agreed to allow him to stay. Beiderbecke had always attempted to maintain a close relationship with his family. He had attempted to stay in touch by sending them a copy of every record he’d ever made. Yet, during this extended trip home, he discovered every record, still in the packages he had sent...unopened. His father had squirreled them away in a closet, where they’d be out of sight and out of mind.

Bix was already in a bad place mentally. This didn’t help matters any. Soon, Bix left home, and was back in New York. Despite his best efforts, Bix was reacquainted with his long time mistress of destruction, prohibition era Gin. His drinking worsened as he learned that Whiteman could no longer afford to keep him on the band. The Great Depression gutted the once thriving music industry. Radio was taking over, and Beiderbecke’s freelance improvisational style had fallen out of favor.

He couldn’t find much work, and he found even less rest. People ventured to his apartment at all hours of the day, to listen to him play, and to give him drinks. Again his health slipped. When he did manage to finally find some work, he blacked out during the performances, and the backup trumpeter would have to take his place. This happened live on a radio broadcast. He was soon replaced. Engulfed by his own stardom, and cursed by it as well, he retired to another apartment, in Queens. It was more quiet, and people scarcely visited him there.

He had fallen in love with a stunning redhead, whom he wrote home about. But, their love wasn’t to last. Bix attempted to quit drinking again. Now he suffered from severe DT’s. On a sweltering late August day in 1931, he was holed up in his tiny apartment. Neighbors were disturbed to hear frantic screams emanating from the cramped quarters. The apartment manager rushed to the room. He found Bix trembling horribly. With terror Bix shrieked, “There’s two Mexican men with large knives hiding under my bed!”

The manager humored the delirious man by searching under the bed. Before he could assure the tenant that no one had been hiding under his bed, the greatest coronet player of the era collapsed into his arms. Bix was dead, at the age of 28.

God, his story makes me want to write something about a man with ambition. A natural talent at what he does―only to have it swallow him in the end. The whole scope of the tragedy moves me. To get swallowed by your dreams...how surreal, and terrifying at the same time.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Congress hauled Honda and one of their subcontractors to Capital Hill to explain why the Japanese auto manufacturer was forced to issue a mass recall of large numbers of their vehicles. Apparently, Honda's subcontractor utilized unstable explosives in the charges for the airbag unit. Thus, the airbag is apt to explode, during collision, potentially injuring or killing vehicle occupants.

Now, the Japanese auto manufacturer faces harsh questions in response to this development. However, I'm a bit baffled as to why Congress is even addressing this issue. Vehicle design defects is nothing new. Every major manufacturer has recalled their product at some point or another, however those cases rarely ever draw congressional ire. For instance, the heavily government-subsidized Chevrolet Volt had an early recall...because the steering wheel would fall off during regular operation. Yet, Congress didn't call GM to the Hill for that. They did, however, bring GM to the capital with respect to a decades-old problem with their ignition switches failing during use.

Consumer protection and safety is an important issue. I get that. However, Congress's interest seems misplaced here. Yes, it's a problem effecting a great number of vehicles. And, I know some owners will simply ignore the recall. But, Congress has no power to award financial damages for injuries sustained by the public. That's the purview of the court system, and it has the immediate effect of forcing change on manufacturers.

Tort law was always meant to deal with these sorts of issues. Manufacturers are held accountable for their design and manufacturing defects. Class action suits forced changes in automobile manufacturing, including the development of crumple zones and crash tests. Congress enacted laws, after the extent of the dangers were made known, via the litigation process. Here, however, Congress has not allowed for the process to move forward. They're asking questions of the manufacturers without knowing the full extent of the potential danger.

I fear that these hearings are mere fluff. Congress wants to distract from their poor performance on other issues. Think of it as a "Wag the Dog" moment for our representatives. Their approval ratings are so low, that they hope such phony displays as these might appease the voting public. But, Congress is ill equipped to address personal injury matters. Congress creates laws, the President enforces them, and the courts handle matters of dispute or injury. That's the way the system's been since it was designed some two-hundred-thirty plus years ago.

Nevertheless, Congress feels compelled to inject itself into the matter. There's a danger of micromanagement here, which leads to a flood of useless laws that accomplish nothing. Such moves by Congress severely undermines the integrity of the law, as well as the legal system. Each branch of government is supposed to abide by the powers enumerated to it via the Constitution. Yet, every branch seems to ignore these well-established boundaries.

Our Founding Fathers never intended the boundaries to be cute little guidelines. They are strict mandates, which help protect the public from an over-expansive government. Like I said, above, protecting consumers is important. We already have consumer protection legislation in place. Congress doesn't need to enact a new law with respect to this issue. On the contrary, Congress should allow the system to function as it was intended to. That would help ensure that the problems are addressed in an orderly fashion, without wasting taxpayer funds.

In this sense, Congress is very much like the nobility at Versailles in revolution-torn France. They have separated themselves from their constituents, and rule in pure seclusion. They are out of touch, and their proposed solutions have no basis in reality. Washington D.C. thinks of itself as Mount Olympus. All government officials are gods or goddesses, and we the people are their playthings. That's not how it was meant to be, but it is how things developed.

Proper constraints and balances are needed. Taking care of the people's welfare is necessary. However, this should be done in a responsible way. We have a legal system to address such concerns. Just as we have elections to hold lawmakers accountable for the senseless laws they do pass. When the balances are adhered to, the system works. But, when egos get in the way we face an incomprehensible quagmire on Capital Hill. I think America deserves better than this.

I fear that the dog-and-pony shows in D.C. are orchestrated for appearances alone. Why would they do this? Because discontentment is swelling among the people. A great many of us feel as though the country is headed in the wrong direction. Yet, that's not the greatest problem facing America. The most alarming problem is that our elected officials don't listen to us. I don't care which party is in power, none of them are listening to us. They act in such a manner as to belittle us. These officials think they're smarter than we are.

No one should be shocked by the statements made by Jonathon Gruber. When he called the American voter stupid, he was merely reflecting a strongly held belief by both sides of the political spectrum. This is the direct result of the isolation that Washington has created for itself. They don't listen to us, because they don't have to. Washington D.C. is a long way away from most of us. And, who the hell has time to travel to D.C. Sure, we write letters, send emails, flood their switchboards with phone calls. Somehow, they still don't hear us.

They lock themselves in their own private kingdoms, and leave us to face the music. This isn't good for the country, but it is our current reality. So, Honda, who should be held accountable in our legal system, is put on parade. It's a bit like how feudal societies put the condemned in public square to be pelted by the angry mobs, before their heads were removed. I guess, in some respects, we haven't progressed at all.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Another Grand Jury Decision Rocks the Nation.

The Story

Another Grand Jury decision, refusing to indict an officer in the death of a minority, rocks the country yet again. This time there is video evidence recounting exactly what occurred in the events leading up to the death of Eric Garner. The facts behind the case are a bit sketchy, but I'll recount them here as best I can.

Apparently, police were called by local business owners to arrest Mr. Garner, who was selling what is known as “loose cigarettes” outside their stores. In other words, Mr. Garner was selling tax free cigarettes on the street. Selling loose cigarettes has become a lucrative petty offense arising in response to the ludicrous taxes placed on tobacco products by both New York State and New York City. In addition, Mr. Garner had a history of nonviolent criminal offenses. Nevertheless, he allegedly resisted arrest, causing officers to spring into action. They pummeled the man, depressed his face into the concrete, and they continually ignored his eleven cries of “not being able to breathe”.

I've heard many prosecutors and law enforcement personnel defend the officer's actions, by saying, “everyone knows that if someone is suffocating, they're unable to speak.” However, there is a phenomenon known as “positional asphyxiation”. Positional asphyxiation happens where someone suffers from asthma, as Mr. Garner did, and pressure is applied to the person's back, as it was in this case, it restricts the airways enough to deplete the body of oxygen. The restriction is severe enough to cause death if adequate pressure is applied, but does not prevent the asphyxiated person from speaking.

While I have not seen the full evidence considered by the Grand Jury in its decision, and I know that New York law requires 12 Grand Jurors to agree on an indictment, I can say that the video evidence concerns me. It is true that the officer did not appear to intend to kill Mr. Garner. However, the video indicates a reckless failure to deescalate the situation. There can be no question that the results were tragic, and nobody deserves to die at the hands of police, especially when they are unarmed and presenting no threat to the life or physical safety of the officer. The video evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that Eric Garner presented no immediate or direct threat to the physical person of the officer, or to the officer's life.

What is equally concerning, however, are some of the statements made by Garner's grieving widow. Last evening, she appeared at a press conference which was held at Al Sharpton's National Action Network offices in Harlem. During this press conference, Mrs. Garner refused to accept the officer's apology. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is what she said after the press conference, in a statement to the media. Mrs. Garner claimed, “they probably got twelve white motherfuckers to vote against indictment”. She then claimed the Grand Jury's failure to indict was tantamount to a “modern day lynching”.

This sort of race-driven speculation only adds fuel to a fire for a fight we shouldn't even be having. It is ridiculous, that sixty years after the Civil Rights Movement, we still claim that we haven't made any progress in race relations in this country. If we have made no progress in race relations, then why do we have a Black President? Why do we have Black Congressmen and women, and a Black Attorney General? Moreover, I must posit the following question: If we haven't made progress in race relations, why was their a black female police sergeant present at the time of the incident?

Having racial and ethnic pride is not a bad thing. But, this balkanization in the United States is clearly a dangerous trend, and we must reevaluate it. Whatever happened to the notion of a united America? An America where we had a vision of who we are, and a clear national identity. It should not matter whether you are Black, White, Jewish, Hispanic, Hindu, Straight, Gay, Bisexual...any of it! All that matters is that you're an American citizen. And, that as an American citizen, you have unalienable rights. Therefore, we must push for true equality. Equality is such an important and fundamental aspect of the American character. I fear, looking at some of the responses made in the wake of these tragic Grand Jury decisions, that such responses are inspired by a desire for revenge.

Revenge should never be the goal of any political movement. Nor should it be the focus of the justice system, and it certainly shouldn't be the goal of justice in general. But, those powerful voices out there seeking so-called justice in the face of these decisions want nothing more than revenge. A justice system based on revenge is nothing but a hollow reflection of what a true justice system should be.

I may be idealistic and naive when it comes to the ways of the world. But, I do know that it's never a bad thing to strive for a truly objective justice system. I believe that is a requirement of any governmental system if it is to achieve true justice. There is no finite set or permanent fixture for justice. It is a process. That means we must continually and consciously monitor the actions of the justice system to ensure that it is fair. It also means that we have to stop and reflect upon it, as a society and a nation, to determine the necessary steps to make the justice system fair and equal.

Revenge will never make justice fair or equal. Rather, revenge is the path to animosity which leads to destruction. I am not vilifying the anger felt by the protesters. But, I wish that the anger was channeled in a constructive manner. We should strive to benefit all Americans, not just individual segments of our population. As an American, I feel pain and fear when I see the police escalate a situation leading to the needless death of a fellow citizen. Fear turns to outrage when the death resulted over a petty and insignificant offense. That being said, I also understand the need for police to respond to the demands of the public. The stated purpose of the police is to serve and protect.

Police forces cannot achieve their purpose if they ignore the will of the people in the area. Nevertheless, the police don't serve and protect by needlessly ramping up physical force on people who are barely resisting, if at all. I think we need to reevaluate all of the police policies and tactics with respect to these tense situations. They reflect poorly upon the entire department. And, this is because there was no need to rush to a physical confrontation and altercation that ultimately ended with Mr. Garner's death.

I still need to see the entirety of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury to be convinced that they made the right decision, in light of this video evidence. Until then, I am unconvinced that there wasn't any probable cause for, at least, manslaughter. After all, I value all human life, irrespective of whether it's Black, White, Purple, Gay, Straight, Bisexual...it doesn't matter! Human life is human life, and human life should not be extinguished so thoughtlessly.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Do you ever have one of those moments where you seem to lose interest in almost everything? I seem to be going through a moment like that right now, and I'm not entirely sure why. It comes and goes, but right now it haunts me in a particularly strong fashion. It's as if a shadowy form rushed into my life and snuffed out my creative spirit. Whatever it is that I'm attempting to sit down and do, my interest fades with a quick and sudden burst. It's annoying as hell, but I cannot seem to get around it at the moment.

Perhaps it has something to do with the time of the year, but I doubt it. I have no reason to not enjoy this time of year. I'm with family, in a good environment. Sure, I don't have everything I want, but who does? In these times I try to reach within myself to rekindle my muse, or whatever it is that pushes me on my merry little psychotic way. But, I think my soul decided to go to a bar, get drunk, and pass out somewhere. Which, of course, doesn't do me a damn bit of good.

I never imagined that something like writer's block could translate to other areas in life. And, that's probably because I haven't been paying enough attention to it. Whatever the reason is, I'm sure it will pass in due time. Then again, when the hell does due time arrive, and could it get here any sooner? Such questions have no quick answer. They're simply rhetorical spit-wads shot from a dingy and dented straw at the face of reality.

The usual witty and snar-kastic remarks fail to leave my nimbly corrupt fingers. I find myself drawing a blank at my rudimentary responses, like I'm trapped in the first year of law school all over again. The mere thought of that brings shivers to my spine. How I'll never forget the way the professor would spot our picture upon the seating chart and begin the process of grilling us, in front of our fellow victims of Socratic torture, in the wee hours of the morning. Nothing get's the blood going like being asked about easements on property at 8:00 A.M., and that after getting approximately one hour of sleep the night before, because I had to draft some stupid memo over a woman that wrecked her car in a fictitious state, and a poorly run race-track.

I do miss the friends I made in law school. And to think that it started six-years ago seems surreal to me. Time only quickens as we get older. As a kid, I never believed my parents when they told me this. Now, I could strike the younger me with a hammer multiple times over for being dense. But, what's happened has happened, and the past cannot be undone...at least, not that we know of yet.

Then there are moments of indecision. As if I'm over thinking things. That too, may be a result of the grilling from law school, or second guessing arguments I have prepared for the court. We lawyers bluff confidence, and prod ourselves like red-headed stepchildren, because we didn't think of every variable. The stress of this profession is more self-inflicted expectation anxiety, than anything else.

Of course, once going through law school, we seem trapped in speaking about this topic ad nauseam. It truly reduces us to a cage, where we cannot escape...no matter what insane thing we try. I wonder how dull it must be to hear us bitch about coffee, or make jokes about slip-and-fall colleagues? But, despite the negatives I have incurred from it all, I wouldn't change it for the world.

I see things so differently now, and I have developed a way of forcing myself to place my thoughts down succinctly...or what would pass as such for a lawyer, even when I don't feel like writing. The pure strength of perseverance is nothing short of amazing. Yet, how long does this character trait last? Or, worse yet, can it be over done? That's something I don't know the answer to. I'm sure it's possible, but I don't want it to happen. Oh, if only things came with simple answers. Yet, nothing worth devoting a career to is ever simple.

If it were, then we'd never do it, because it isn't challenging. Good writing is a bit like this. So much of it is made up of challenging ourselves to improve. If ever someone attempts to say they have completely perfected writing, they should be hog-tied and whipped for lying. Writing, like any worthwhile endeavor, is a process. Every time we jot down our thoughts, we are working on improving the process. No one writes perfectly, and they never will. But, as long as the message we wish to convey gets to our intended audience, then I think we have contributed something to the cause of "perfect writing".

In that sense, we've taught ourselves to improve. We can discover the areas that need work, and then we may set about the task of correcting it. With that, comes the pleasure of a feeling of accomplishment. As if we have hurdled some great obstacle, thrusting ourselves unto a higher plain of performance. That, in and of itself, could give our hardships value. Without these dark moments, or moments of self-doubt, we wouldn't ever appreciate or understand the bright and good moments. Contrast must always have its place in the picture...even if it's a bucktoothed turtle-faced jackass. It's still part of the family.

With the holidays here, and the New Year fast approaching, I can look forward to the coming year. Somehow or another, I will improve upon the experiences I've had. I'll find a way to use my talents to help more people, or curse them...depending upon the situation. This journey of life needs a positive attitude...even from the pessimistic professions of the world.

So, I'll keep pushing myself through, looking for the better way to do what I need to do. For stopping would only make the negative moments outshine the great moments, and that's the last thing I want to happen. Perspective is so important, but sometimes it's difficult to keep things in perspective.

It's like perspective runs around attempting to play an incessant game of hide and seek, and I've forgotten where I placed the shotgun―to bring a swift end to a game I don't feel like playing...by blowing perspective to hell where it belongs.

Then again, I could be like some of my clients, who believe that cameras don't catch their true personas. I mean...Walmart's security camera didn't catch you, with your distinctive face tattoo stealing three-hundred pairs of bras and stuffing them in your electric scooter...it had to be your twin cousin...right?

So, I turn to humor to unlock my spirit from these chains. Laughter uplifts me, even when I'm in the darkest of moods. Or could it be that I've turned into one of those cliche super-villains that just laughs at anything...because that's what they're expected to do? I know lawyers are evil...but I didn't know we were that cliched.

I guess what it comes down to is I'm tired. I should be in bed, but I don't feel like it. Thus, I'm being the lawyer in my daily decisions too. Answering the question of "Should I go to bed?"...with "Yes and no". Such is life.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

The tree is up, gifts are bought and another year comes to its conclusion. This marks my second year at Bluemoon. It doesn't feel like it's been two years, but it has. My time here has been, and continues to be good. I have to take this moment to thank all of those of you who've made me feel welcome here. This is the sort of community that each and every one of us would be lucky to find in our lives.

So, to all of you creative spirits, let this odd-ball lawyer encourage you to never stop being creative. Your dreams and greatest fantasies are within reach, as long as you believe it. I know it may seem cliched, but I've seen many achieve their dreams by believing in themselves.

When you believe in yourself, you become the master―or mistress―of your own destiny. Nobody can take that away from you. The future is yours. It's just waiting for you to claim it. Also, should you start feeling down, look in the mirror and tell your reflection,” Screw it! This feeling is temporary. There's no way in hell I'm going to let negativity define me!” Trust me, you'll start to feel better in an instant. After all, the first word in the phrase, “I love you”, is “I”. Ayn Rand was crazy, and wrong about a great many things. However, that quote of hers was dead on. One cannot find true love, until one learns how to love themselves.

Therefore, take life by the horns, and love yourself like no one else can. For, to tell the truth, no one can love you like you can love yourself. You can always find solitude from others, but you can never seclude yourself from yourself. I think this is the formula for contentment.

Maybe I'm crazy, or out of touch with reality...but, I don't think so. There's too much truth in it for it to be mere fantasy. So, as long as you believe in yourself, I'll believe in you too. That's my Christmas gift to you. Now, go out and enjoy yourselves. Life's so much better that way.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Since we're now in the last month of 2014, I figured I'd do what most writers who think they're important do...I'll pay tribute to a certain place or person that left us in this year. Now, considering the magnitude of such a post, you'd think I might choose someone of great importance, or a place of meaningful significance...and, you'd be right. The bar across the street from the courthouse was a fantastic little hovel.

It was nearly as brilliant as the bail bondsman's office located directly adjacent to a gun store. These places have a unique spot in my heart, for they give me comfort. This now defunct bar was host to several brawls of criminals after their arraignment hearings. The deputies loved it, because they could double up on their quotas by simply rearresting people and just across the street from the office.

But, we attorneys loved it for a whole different reason. It was a place to get plastered after work. A place where we would challenge ourselves to erase the faces of our co-workers in a blaze of pure alcoholic glory. Or it was a place where some of us wound up being criminals ourselves.

Of course, there's more to it than that. The courthouse rests in the center of a dying downtown region. It's marble halls and now duckless dome dominated the skyline until some asshole put up a skyscraper in 1910...and no one has built a tall building sense...because, well, this is a small Texas town and Jesus hasn't been elected mayor yet.

Anyway, the closest thing you could call a restaurant to the Court is Ninfa's Mexican food, which is alright but not that close. Diamond Back's that costs a ton of money, and isn't even open at that time...or Jimmy Johns...how do people even eat at that place? No, that little run-down tavern was a connection to the past. To simpler days, when people would go to the barbershop, grab a beer, and then do their pre-sentence hearing for grand theft auto.

There's a certain style we lack these days. That sort of awareness that, even when you're about to be charged with the most embarrassing mistake of your entire life...you should at least look good doing it. One can always make out the lawyers around the courthouse, whether we were hanging out at the bar, or standing there wishing that our clients would jump off a cliff, because we were the only ones dressed up.

Atticus Finch didn't have to worry about jurors or clients showing up in torn up jeans and flip flops. Of course, the whole segregation and sexism thing was a problem, but even those being oppressed did so in style. And that's what hits me...have we gotten to a point as a society that we simply are too tired to care anymore?

I don't want to think so, because that devalues from the memory of great places like this departed tavern. But, I don't understand people who show up for court in their pajamas, after we have sent them paperwork, called them on the phone, sent letters...all reminding them to wear nice slacks or a skirt, and closed toe shoes. No, that's too much to ask for.They still arrive wearing God knows what, requiring a wardrobe adjustment post haste.

So, by now, I have memorized which courtroom on the third floor carries the additional sets of clothing. I have had to get clothing for at least half-a-dozen clients who were masters of the wardrobe. I mean...rainbow suspenders with cut off jeans and hot pink slippers...holy shit, I didn't know those colors went together....because they don't!

Then we have clients who want to fight a plea deal. They're the ones who think that the law should apply to everyone but themselves. It's fascinating to watch these people. They blame us for their actions. Like the girl who stole 25 wigs from a wig shop...all on camera. I sat her down in a secluded spot of the courthouse, (the fallout shelter part...no one goes there), and showed her the DVD of her slipping the wigs into her purse and waistline.

"Good for me, those dumb cunts shouldn't of [sic] put them wigs out like that," she murmured, as if that would convince me to say, "Your Honor, clearly my client did this, but it's the store's fault she shoplifted them!" Yeah, that's a trial winning argument if I've ever seen one. That's not the worst part of it. I managed to get her probation and an ankle monitor for the times she would need to have jail time. In other words, I got her house arrest when the District Attorney originally wanted 325 days in jail.

Our District Attorney is the sort of man who believes that incarceration is a fitting punishment for J-walking. Never in my life have I seen a man that demanded that the smallest infractions be met with the most draconian of punishments. Of course, what no one talks about is the fact that he was charged with DUI before even becoming a lawyer. But, because daddy was a circuit court judge, Jr., gets off Scott free. Of course, whom receives the worst punishment under this District Attorney? If you guessed rapist...unless the rapist also was charged with DUI, you'd be wrong.

That's right, he charges people who were caught doing the same thing he did as a youth, with the harshest penalty. He is especially hard on first-time offenders. I had one client who was a first time offender, and another client on his fifth offense. The first time offender was sentenced to a full year in jail, while the fifth time offender got two weeks. I don't really know how to explain that...other than our District Attorney is nuts.

So after facing a day like that in the courthouse, it was sort of nice to be able to slide into some forgotten hellhole of a place. The Bourbon was always good, the music was always crappy, and the company was enough to make one forget about the craziness they just saw. I suppose you could call such a place a melting pot. Lawyer, cop, and criminal all sitting down ignoring what they witnessed throughout the day. Such a thing is rare, and even rarer still since that place shuttered itself earlier this year. God speed fair dive, we shall miss thee yet.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Why do we tolerate government lies? I've never understood this. When someone lies to us we get angry. However, when the government lies, we shrug it off as if it's nothing. I think this is because it's expected. The government lies so often that we expect them to lie to us. Unfortunately, this makes it seem like such behavior is acceptable. But, it is not.

Governmental officials must be held accountable. By assuming the mantel of elected office they have not shed the mantel of responsibility. Yet, the way things are, one would never know it. Governmental officials act without thinking. They believe no one is capable of holding them accountable. This represents one of the greatest dangers we face. Our government separates itself from us. Its members convinced themselves that constituents don't matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This sort of thinking is nothing new. Every generation confronts this problem at some point. Now we must address this issue. The responsibility falls upon our shoulders, and we must act accordingly. Whenever a government officer lies, we must call them on it. Every government must answer to the people they represent. In a monarchy, ministers answered to the king. That makes sense. Monarchies define sovereignty in one person. The king or queen personifies such power. In a representative republic, on the other hand, the people represent sovereignty.


Our government is supposed to operate via the consent of the governed. We elect representatives to stand in our place. Those representatives are supposed to act upon the will of the people. But, in our busy lives, few of us contact them. When we fail to maintain contact, our representatives have no idea what our will is. This is why Congressmen and Senators used to take constituent correspondence so seriously.

Every letter stated our will. The will of the people stood firm. Consent prevents oppression and tyranny. Government actors sought to preserve consent. Their political futures depended upon it. Yet, sometime in the twentieth century, our government began ignoring our will. They made concerted efforts to distance themselves from their constituents.

Congress delegated alarming portions of their power to the Executive Branch. Suddenly, unelected officials carried the authority of law. Bureaucrats drafted regulations effecting the entire voting population. However, that same population lacked any mechanism to hold them accountable. Without accountability, government becomes detached. Its members separate themselves from the people they supposedly represent.

This new insulated government struts before the cameras in a show of pomp and circumstance. They thumb their noses at their constituents. Politics degraded from representation to a popularity contest. Government transformed from benevolent servant to tyrannical master.

That leaves us with an important question. How do we restore the government to its proper function? There is no easy or quick answer. It involves grass root efforts. On top of that, it requires a renewed interest by the constituency. Each election displays the full magnitude of the problem. Huge swathes of the population don't even vote. Failure to vote cedes the right of consent without proper input. Consequently, more people become disenfranchised. The entire process collapses into a vicious circle. And we all suffer as a consequence.

To prevent further decay, we must voice our opinions to our leaders. We must denounce incorrect behavior, and encourage correct behavior. Government is a process, and we must all participate. Despots love it when the population is dissatisfied and disinterested. Such a population largely ignores their leaders.

History provides many examples of this. In Rome, when the people were dissatisfied, leaders sought to distract them with bread and circuses. They filled their bellies and quieted their discontentment. It works, as long as there is bread. When the bread runs out, the rotten edifice crumbles to the ground. Through this process, first the republic fell, then the emperors. Finally, Roman unity was weakened to such an extent that outside forces toppled them.

China had a similar system. Emperors relied upon the "hydraulic mandate of heaven". At its simplest, this meant that the emperor ruled when the people were satisfied. Floods, comets, famine and war all represented omens of weakness. If all these things occurred at once, the emperor lost the mandate of heaven and the right to govern.

The principles of good government are universal. At the most basic level, all governments must serve the people. Failure to do so strips the government of its legal authority. America is no different, and the bitter complaints of the people represent the first warning signs. Our government has become detached. Its members no longer understand their constituents, and dissatisfaction has skyrocketed.

Lying is a key aspect of this. The people no longer trust the government, and the government does nothing to regain their trust. Mistrust also increases dissatisfaction. Again, the vicious circle descends upon us without end, and the people grow increasingly frustrated. Can we blame them? Their leaders snub them with contempt, and disregard their concerns. Government turned its back on too many redress of grievances.

History warns that such circumstances are unsustainable. Dissatisfied populations begin to revolt. The French Aristocracy learned this first hand. While the nobility hid in Versailles, the people starved. When famine struck, the people revolted. By 1792, the reign of terror began. Robespierre sent multitudes to the guillotine, before succumbing to it himself.

The pent up anger of the people crashed against the establishment like a tidal wave. Terrible suffering swept the land until their anger subsided. Deaf governments always meet this end. It may take longer, depending upon the power of the government, but the people hold the real power. Their will dictates the true path of the nation.

For these reasons, I can never understand why a politician would lie. He or she risks drowning in the aftermath. In the past, our politicians seemed to understand this. Now, however, they seem completely oblivious to it. They no longer represent us. They represent their own pet projects and selfish desires. Their self-indulgence threatens the sanctity of the land.

This downward spiral shall continue, until proper respect is restored. Only the people can restore the natural order of things. But, that requires vigilance on their part. I think the people are becoming more vigilant, but I think the politicians are as blind as ever. They remain willfully blind at their own peril. History is unkind to deaf governments.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Translation:

Sometimes, when I struggle with a bad case of writers block, I break out my Pelikan M200 fine-point nib and let my mind bleed onto the page as blots of ink. Perhaps it's a bit old fashioned, but I find it frees my mind from the constraints imposed by either typing or dictation. There's also the added benefit of a unique and personal writing style that is all my own.

One of my favorite things to look at when I'm at the law library is the reporter from the mid to late 19th century. Many of the cases were lovingly transcribed in near perfect Spencerian Script. If you don't know what Spencerian Script looks like, grab a can or bottle of Coca-Cola. That beautiful flowing script used to be common in business and legal documents.

In the days before typewriters, and later computers, dominated writing a beautiful cursive script was prized. Spencerian started losing favor in the 1870's. This was the result of two things: (1) The first mass produced typewriter; and, (2) Introduction of the Palmer Method of Business penmanship.

My cursive script is based off of the Palmer Method. Palmer retained the continuous flow of Spencerian Script, but eliminated much of the embellishments and ornamentation of the older Spencer Method. The result is an italic cursive script that, while not unattractive, lacks the artistic grace of the Spencerian Script.

It amazes me that authors like Charles Dickens and H.P. Lovecraft actually wrote out entire drafts in longhand. In Dickens's case, the typewriter wasn't really available yet. For Lovecraft it was a combination of personal preference and lack of funds. Even by the mid twentieth century typewriters were complex and expensive pieces of equipment.

Many authors transcribed their first drafts by longhand because it was easier to cross out mistakes, make notations and revise than on a typewriter. Another reason was the great expense of typewriter ink ribbons. Costs also meant the authors waited until they refined the draft as much as possible, before committing it to a typewritten draft.

Of course, the computer with its word-processor software has eliminated all of those old concerns and restraints. In some ways, the computer and Internet have spoiled us. I admit that my spelling sucks, thanks in large part to Google's suggested corrections. On top of that, I struggle with the discipline required to make my penmanship legible.

It's sad, but penmanship is a dying art. School curricula around the country have eliminated cursive handwriting. The argument is that it takes too long to teach, and it's no longer necessary with the ready availability of computers and word processors. Despite this, some will seek the craft as a hobby. So, I don't think penmanship will completely vanish.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Iconography of the law explored.

One afternoon I sat in another attorney's law office, waiting to refer a personal injury case to him. While we waited, the young client and his grandparents gazed upon the attorney's sculpture of Lady Justice. The Bronze goddess stood erect, clad in a tight-fitting toga. In her right hand, she gripped the sword of justice pointing it at the floor. As always, a blindfold covered her eyes, and she clutched the ever familiar scales of order in her left hand.

“Wait a minute! Lady Justice has a sword?” The young man said with a mixture of awe and disbelief. “Why does she have a sword?”

Why indeed. Court systems throughout the world boast a colorful array of iconography intended to symbolize the spirit and letter of the law. Each prop wielded by Lady Justice represents a universal truth of the legal system. The iconography is so commonplace we scarcely give it a second thought. Lady Justice personifies the best attributes of the ideal legal system. Fairness, impartiality, clemency and, if need be, retribution. That's not even considering the fact she has a nice figure.

So, just who is this enigmatic Lady Justice? Modern representations depict an amalgamation of various different deities from the Greko-Roman Pantheon. The most widely accepted answer is that Lady Justice is Themis. Themis is an ancient Greek Titaness. She held the title of the “good counselor” and represents the divine order of natural law and custom. The ancient Greeks thought of her as the organizer of human governance and justice.

From her earliest mythology, Themis sought a purity unobtainable by humanity. In a sense, she adhered to the basic elements of a pure legal order. Such characteristics embody the shared values of all legal systems―whether they achieve it or not. Themis hasn't always appeared as we imagine her today. Her mythology has evolved over time.

Our first depictions of her lack the well known blindfold. As far as the Greeks were concerned, a goddess who saw the future didn't need a blindfold. Not to mention shyster attorneys were a rarity back then. However, this also signifies a difference in belief regarding the theories of justice for the ancients, and our own views. Ancient justice wasn't impartial. Rather, it was supposed to represent the edict of the will of the gods. Zeus needed a system to shut up the women he impregnated when Hera wasn't looking. Our modern system, on the other hand, contends that true justice, by its nature, must be impartial. Zeus wouldn't do too well in a modern court...imagine all the child support payments for his demigod children! Because we hold impartiality to be of such importance, Lady Justice wears the blindfold commonly attributed to the Roman goddess of fate, Fortuna.

Another relatively unknown thread of Themis's mythology is that she had an evil sister. After all, no Greek mythology soap-opera would be complete without a rival! Themis's sister personified the exact opposite characteristics and attributes of Lady Justice. Suffice to say, her sister was her nemesis...and what a coincidence, for her sister was named Nemesis! Lady Justice can proudly announce that she is the sister of Lady Wrath. According to the ancients, whenever Themis was ignored, Nemesis would take her place and punish them. It's fascinating that the justice system has a connection to this commonly used word, Nemesis, but most aren't even aware of that connection.

Of course, no modern courthouse displays iconography of the bloodthirsty Nemesis. They have no need to. Lady Justice carries a sword for a reason. If the rules of justice go unheeded, the courts will punish the offenders...at least, in theory. Applying that to the iconography, Themis points the sword to the earth. This demonstrates that she's perfectly willing to use it, but only as a last resort.

Themis's scale is her other most recognized symbol. No scumbag lawyer's office or logo would be complete without this classic representation of justice. Even the ancient depictions of Lady Justice included this prop. The sands of evidence must be weighed by the fact-finder to get at the truth. My own cynical view is that shysters think they can pull a fast one on Blinded Justice by manipulating the evidence. In theory, she's supposed to cut them down in cold blood with the sword. But, their putrid blood is so vile, she'd rather not risk poisoning herself.

It's really amazing just how complex the mythology behind our courthouse iconography is. Few people understand that it has such deep roots with western history. Greek mythology has a power all unto itself, and it mates perfectly with the power resting within our justice system. I believe that was the point when Themis was chosen to depict our modern justice system. With that in mind, we must evaluate the last central aspect of her character.

That last central aspect of Themis is her attire. In ancient depictions she often appears partially disrobed, bearing her breasts. That's because the ancients viewed the nudity of the goddess as a representation of her innocence or purity. Our more prudish modern depictions don't show her denuded of her toga. Nonetheless, she still wears a tight-fitting garment to represent the same innocence or purity that the Greeks attributed to her.

While the mythology has long since faded from common belief, the mystique of Lady Justice is just as powerful and enticing as it ever was. Her sumptuous figure towers over the halls of justice throughout the world to this day. Most ignore her stoic presence as they face whatever conflict or stupid action dragged them to the courthouse.

For me, she serves as a reminder. Attorneys too often disregard the tenets of justice. They concern themselves with expedience and self indulgence. Unfortunately, that feeds the negative opinions held by the public. Themis is meant to slow us down, slapping us with the purpose of justice in a single depiction. And she does a fantastic job of that. She's bold, beautiful and brave. She also has a sword and would cut us down if we pissed her off.

Few icons of justice carry the power or appeal of a scantily clad sword-wielding goddess. I mean, what's not to like? It's somewhat saddening to know that most depictions of her go unnoticed. She adds a nice flare to an otherwise pompous and dreary courthouse.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Is law a scientific discipline?



For the past one-hundred years the approach to legal education has been scientific. This is the result of the dream by one man. Who is this man? His name was Christopher Columbus Lagdell, and he was the president of Harvard University.

American legal education wasn't always as regimented as it is today. Originally, the law was an enigma. From America's inception, law was taught via apprenticeships. Aspiring young attorneys turned to established practitioners for instruction in the craft of the law. Once they gained a basic understanding of the legal profession, they would take a bar exam. Passage of the bar bestowed the right and privilege to practice law. While this system worked for nearly two centuries, concerns developed about the quality of practicing attorneys. For Langdell the problem stemmed from the approach of legal reasoning.

Therefore, he developed a solution that was both unique and revolutionary. Langdell believed that law was a science, and that the law library was a lawyer's laboratory. He imposed an entirely new system of legal education to be held at the graduate level, training law students in proper legal reasoning. This method is known as the case-law method, and continues to be a mainstay in American legal education. The case-law method focuses on past case-law, or court decisions, requiring the student to dissect the case and discern the legal reasoning behind the court's decision.

What this system of education seeks to achieve is nothing short of remarkable. By requiring the student to read voluminous amounts of case-law, law schools teach students to interpret legal analysis, thereby granting them the ability to predict legal decisions based on the factual circumstances at hand. The legal tests for determining a law's application became formulaic in nature. A prime example of this is the legal definition of a crime. This definition is not literary in nature. Rather, it is like a recipe used to engage in a complex scientific experiment. Crime, in its legal sense, is defined as: (1) Actus Reus―a conscious action by a party; (2) Mens Rea―a guilty intent or thought by the party; and, (3) Concurrence of Time―meaning that the two other elements occur within a reasonable amount of time in order to constitute a crime.

What we see from this is that a person's actions and thoughts must satisfy all of these elements to be considered a crime. In legal terms, this is what is known as a "bright line rule". In other words, the definition of a crime is universally applicable to all jurisdictions. It worked until the legislature established "statutory intent" crimes. Nonetheless, the basic definition remains the principally used legal definition to this day. It also demonstrates a rather scientific approach to legal reasoning and education. Science follows the scientific method, and Langdell attempted to apply the scientific method to legal reasoning.

So what is the scientific method? We've all heard about it, or read about it in school. But, the actual process itself is rarely laid out in its full formulaic format. Therefore, I shall set it out in as formulaic a method as possible. Step 1: Ask a question; Step 2: Research the question; Step 3: Formulate a hypothesis, that is make a prediction based upon the research; Step 4: Experiment, meaning you actually test your hypothesis; Step 5: Repeat the process before announcing it to the public at large. As you can see, the scientific method is designed to question a hypothesis and the results. In addition, such results should be repeatable under similar circumstances. This is the approach Christopher Langdell envisioned for legal education. He determined that the legal process is experimentation, and that the results could be repetitious. Thus, a law student's instruction focused on establishing reasoned analysis of a law's application, empowering the student to "think like a lawyer".

This approach carried its own problems, however. Law is not wholly scientific. When facts are disputed, and measurements are unobtainable, law relies upon the art of persuasion. In a practical sense, law is a combination of art and science. A true practitioner of the law must know both the formulaic reasoning behind the law, and also possess the persuasive authority and capability to challenge the formulaic law when its application is wrong. When law is absolute tyranny and oppression reign. Tyranny and oppression represent the complete antithesis of true law and justice.

We should all strive for an objective legal system. An objective legal system is one that is able to determine when the law's application is unjust or unfair. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, and justice should never be about retribution. If law was wholly scientific, then legislative statutes would be absolute in their interpretation and application. But as previously mentioned, absolutes in the law lead to absurd consequences. Consequently, Christopher Langdell should have thought of law as an elevated art with elements of science within it. That's what I think, anyway.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

"Truth is stranger than fiction," or so they have told us. In the case of the latest James Bond flick this statement holds more weight than ever before. Sony Pictures, the parent company of the studios which produce the James Bond movies has been targeted by a rogue hactivist group that's assumed the Orwellian name of "Guardians of Peace". These supposed "guardians of peace" are upset that Sony's studios have made a comedy film that centers around two reporters being sent to North Korea to assassinate the communist dictator.

North Korea claims to be outraged over the film's content, but denies any connection with the so-called Guardians of Peace. Of course, when it comes to the North Korean government, one really can never trust what they claim. The Guardians of Peace have threatened some sort of retaliation against the movie theaters and movie-going public that goes to see the film in question, "The Interview", making vague references to the September 11th attacks of 2001.

In addition to making threats about this movie, the hackers managed to swipe an early script of the upcoming Bond flick called "Spectre". They have threatened to release the contents of the film, should Sony not pull the plug on the Christmas Day debut of "The Interview". Of course, if the Bond producers need to go back to the drawing board to create a new, wholly original story, I think their plot will be easy to devise.

Why not make it about what just happened to their studio, and to themselves personally? I mean, this story has all the makings of a classic Bond film. On the one hand, you have a maniacal communist despot covertly funneling funds to a radical hacker group which assumes the misleading moniker of "Guardians of Peace". While on the other hand, you have western companies being brought to their knees by the infiltration of their computer networks. The leaking of confidential emails and copyrighted materials has caused severe financial damage to Sony and the studios. What's worse, it's had a chilling effect all throughout Hollywood.

This all sounds like the diabolical schemes of a Bond super villain in the veins of Jaws or Gold Finger. Not to mention, the story is probably more riveting than that of the original script. The past several Bond films have been disappointing, at least for me. They lack that certain flare that the Bond films of yesteryear possessed. It seems like the story line has struggled to adapt to a post Cold War era. Luckily for the film producers, Vladimir Putin seems hell bent on thrusting the world into another Cold War. Once again, nefarious Russian plots and an International terrorist organization can take center stage in a Bond film, and not feel outdated.

After all, the Guardians of Peace could be like a modern era Spectre. They have wreaked havoc on the movie industry, and are seeking to stifle free speech, and all in response to a movie poking fun at the insane little dictator of one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Wouldn't it be nice if there really were some dashing Secret Agent who could jump into the fray and bring such scoundrels to justice?

While the nature of espionage has changed over the past fifty years since Bond made his debut, if anything, the stakes are higher now than they were back then. Anyone with a decent working knowledge of computers has the ability to bring down entire economies and national governments. I can't think of anything more dangerous or threatening than that. It also plays on the moral dilemma of remaining free in the face of despotism.

At the center of it all is the humble Internet. It is the catalyst of a new dawn of free speech, yet it also holds the power to shower ruin upon the world. Like any tool, the Internet can be used for either noble or malicious purposes, depending upon who uses it. This affords us a real opportunity to delve more deeply into the social problems that have been created through the cyber war that has been raging since the Internet became mainstream.

The Guardians of Peace serve as a stark reminder that not everyone who uses the Net is out for pushing humanity forward. Governments like China and North Korea want to curb the Internet, because it challenges their autonomous authority. They would rather stifle innovation than allow the free market of ideas to flourish. This sort of backwards thinking is the challenge that we all face today. It is a much greater threat than the Soviet Union was in the Cold War. Why? Because the antagonists now have the ability to hide in the shadows.

In the Cold War, the enemy was easy to identify. There was a face to our opponent. In this new conflict, however, the enemy is amorphous. There is no face to attach to the random attacks that occur. Instead, the antagonist of this new drama hides behind the anonymity of the Internet, and spreads more immediate chaos than the Soviet Union ever dreamed possible.

The "Guardians of Peace" could cause more economic hardship with a click of the mouse, than Gold Finger could by irradiating America's entire gold supply at Fort Knox. In that sense, the real villains of this drama are even more terrifying than the evil super geniuses dreamed up by Fleming in his vast array of James Bond novels. Ideals of liberty hang in the balance once again, but the real life defenders of these liberties are as anonymous as their enigmatic foes. A new game of cat and mouse is afoot, and the results are far from certain.

Of course, a movie based entirely upon cyber-espionage would be boring. There's not enough explosions or simple fight scenes. However, I think those elements could be interwoven into the real dangers, thereby creating a new image of the spy thriller. Certainly, in light of the fact that government organizations, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), have been collecting and correlating data on their own citizens, the genera could take a new and dark twist.

Indeed, the entire question of "just who is the bad guy," could be explored in new and intriguing ways. I find that the possibilities for this are limitless. Then again, Hollywood hasn't been focused on creating cutting edge dramas like this in a long time. And, that's a damn shame.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Life can be hard on us at times. We think we've found the perfect relationship, or we believe that we've made it in our career. Then, out of the blue, things fall to shit faster than we could imagine. That's just the way life can be. We look for answers in all the wrong places. Or, we attempt to find solace in the arms of another. One of the worst phrases in the human lexicon is: "Another person can complete me."

That's a dangerous line of thinking. The reason being is that it focuses fulfillment on another. That's dangerous for any type of relationship. No one can complete you, but you. It's a difficult lesson for us. Popular culture has conditioned us to believe that this is the path to personal achievement and fulfillment. But, nothing could be further from the truth.

Truth is, the only way we can reach a healthy relationship is to learn to love ourselves. We have the ability to separate ourselves from others, but there is no way to separate ourselves from ourselves. As strange as that may sound, it's the absolute truth. To truly love another, we must learn to love ourselves first and foremost. It's simple yet hard to accept at the same time.

There is only one person capable of fulfilling our need for acceptance. That person is the same one who greets you in the mirror every morning. When you wake up at 2:00 AM, it's you that you have to live with. Thus, before you can step into any meaningful relationship, you have to love yourself first. Of course, this seems selfish with the sort of pop culture that thrives in the modern era.

Why is that? It's a common misconception that we must sacrifice ourselves to serve others. We've been convinced that this is an honorable course in life. But, the truth is, it leaves many of us dissatisfied in our station in life. We find ourselves lacking an understanding of our fundamental needs. Yet, that's understandable too. No one can understand our basic needs, other than ourselves.

This is because we have to live with ourselves, every hour of every day. We must understand our strengths, weaknesses, and desires. No one can understand these things like we ourselves, because no one lives with us as constantly as we ourselves. As simple as that may sound, it's a difficult concept for many to accept.

I, myself, have struggled with this on and off all my life. Time after time, I mistakenly fall for the lie that fulfillment can come from another. Enhancement may come from others, but fulfillment never will. When things fall apart, I have blamed myself. Yet, this isn't entirely fair. Circumstances may not be right for the sort of relationship that I have hoped for. Nonetheless, in the end, it's me that I have to live with.

No matter how a relationship ends, we still have to find a way to live with ourselves. Therefore, learning what our true desires and needs are is of the utmost importance. We are the only ones who can fulfill the most basic needs in our life. On top of that, we have to love ourselves for who we are, and not the sort of fanciful idol that we've created for others to be enamored with. If we don't learn to love ourselves, how can we expect others to love us?

And that's the dirty little secret of it all. We cannot expect others to love us, if we haven't figured out how to love ourselves. In other words, the love of others will find us once we place ourselves in a healthy relationship with ourselves. Fulfillment is a self fulfilling prophesy. Completion comes when we know ourselves completely.

By learning to accept our own faults, and to love them as part of ourselves, we learn how to accept the fault in others. It allows us to develop the sort of patience that's needed in relationships. This reality can be hard to accept. There are times when I don't want to realize that I haven't accepted myself fully. That, somehow, I still haven't managed to embrace every aspect of my character. This includes the good and bad traits about me.

It's easy to run away, to place the blame on others. Yet, fault rest squarely on my shoulders. Once I learn to love myself unconditionally, self reflection becomes all the easier. I'm able to look past the mistakes I made, and learn from them. That's the step that will lead to a successful relationship in the future. Of course, that's never easy to hear when something you hoped might work out has gone to shit.

We listen to our inner demons, instead of embracing or beautifully flawed selves. That's such a painful thing to do. Nevertheless, it's of the utmost importance. Because, when we learn to do that, we stumble upon the finer things in life. Who wants to embrace an injured, incomplete and insecure person? No one.

But, we cannot be secure in ourselves, unless we have learned how to lover ourselves. It's one of those catch-22's in life that we simply cannot escape. We either learn to accept ourselves for ourselves, or set ourselves up for a slew of unhappy and unfulfilling relationships. It's always easy to say this, and much more difficult to accomplish it.

How do we learn to love ourselves? It's a question I've asked myself time and again. The answer comes from self reflection. We must each find our own path to fully understanding and accepting ourselves. We must dig within our souls, and discover who we truly are. If we don't take those difficult, yet necessary, steps...we'll never be able to engage in a healthy and promising relationship.

Therefore, when you feel your conscience attempting to tear down your self-confidence. Kick that bitch to the curb and stand up for yourself. Throw out that nagging voice of negativity and enforce the positive aspects of your life. Reward the aspects of your character you like, and learn to improve your flaws. It'll never be a complete process, but once you accept this, you learn to accept yourself. Then, and only then, will you find the path to the sort of relationship that you have dreamed of. Indeed, you'll seek a partner, not to complete you, but to share the journey of self-fulfillment with you. That's the sort of relationship that we should all strive for.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Twin Peaks Screw Up.



Hello folks, let me start off by apologizing for my extended absence. Things have been rather hectic and busy around here, so I simply haven't had the time to log on as I've done in the past. Now that we've got the preliminary housekeeping out of the way, I want to jump into a major story that has impacted my hometown, as well as my vocation. I'm sure you all remember, during the last month―and between being flooded from the ceaseless rain―Waco Texas bore witness to a little biker incident.

The media was quick to hail the Police spokesman, Sgt. Swanton's characterizations of the event as complete fact. I don't fault the media for this, we'd like to believe everything that our various law enforcement agencies tell us. Especially when the event concerns an alleged mass shooting of some nine people, and an incident which resulted in 170 arrests. To add a sugar-coated topping to this case, there's also the fact that each of the arrestees was held for $1 million bond.

Again, so far, that all seems to make perfect sense. We have a case dealing with "violent criminals" who shot up a local breastaurant―much to the giddy joy of many of the local Southern Baptist big-wigs in the area―near one of the most popular Tex-Mex joints and a popular shopping center. (Think strip mall and you've got the perfect image of the Central Texas Marketplace). Already, the case has the makings of a prime time drama in the light of "Sons of Anarchy". Sweet....right?

Apparently two notorious outlaw biker gangs, the Cassocks and the Banditos, stumbled into a recruiting and territorial pissing match...or so spokesman Sgt. Swanton claims. Adding fuel to the proverbial fire, authorities also allege that the restaurant franchisee refused to cooperate with law enforcement officers (including local, county, state, and federal agencies). Supposedly, these various law enforcement agencies planned to set up a sting operation in order to apprehend these no good bikers who not only engage in dastardly organized crime, but also magically melt polar icecaps with evile C02 emissions from their motorized bicycles.

Police went on to claim that several thousand weapons were confiscated on the scene, including deadly steak and butter knives retrieved from every table inside Twin Peaks. Law enforcement officials also included sporting rifles found in vehicles parked outside a nearby sporting-goods store, Cabela's. Cause, you know, hunting rifles were used on the scene...oh wait, actually they weren't.

This is where the story starts getting ugly. Local police swoop in and arrest every person affiliated with motorcycles in any shape or fashion. Most of the people killed, were shot with .223 rounds (your standard issue AR-15 round, as utilized by the police), and one of the victims was a decorated Vietnam War veteran with absolutely no organized crime affiliation or criminal record whatsoever. What's more, surveillance tapes show that, contrary to the claims of police that the shooting started inside the establishment, only one gang member drew a handgun and returned fire outside. In fact, most of the people present sought to get away from the hail of bullets, and assisted restaurant goers to safety. As a result of this evidence, those people arrested simply for being present, with motorcycles or wearing motorcycle apparel, now have major legal claims against the county, city, District Attorney, Chief of Police, County Sheriff, and last as well as probably least, Spokesperson Sgt. Swanton.

Rolling the clock forward about a month, we find that there are still people, with absolutely no criminal records, being held on a staggering $1 million bond. (Yeah that's a fair amount for bail. Let me just call Well's Fargo and I can pull that money out of thin air!) In fact, to give you some perspective on the simmering situation here, of the 170 people arrested, at least 115 had no prior criminal record at all, nor did they have any affiliation with outlaw biker gangs. That presents an alarming number, and poses a significant problem for District Attorney Abel Reyna. Indeed, the entire story offered by the authorities is unraveling before our eyes.

During the initial reports following the incident, the District Attorney claimed that everyone arrested was involved with criminal activity and was facing organized crime charges. (A felony carrying stiff prison sentences.) But, here's the problem with the D.A.'s initial claims, most of the groups involved were not criminal biker gangs. In fact, most were legitimate organizations, including: Texans for Motorcycle Safety, the Veteran's of Texas Motorcycle Association, and even a retired police officers' organization. What's more, the supposed nefarious meeting of criminal elements at the restaurant was actually a meeting of a political lobbying group pushing for increased motorcycle safety legislation. Hot Damn! I never knew that lawful assembly had become a form of racketeering.

I mean, the First and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution explicitly exclude protection to these notorious, bloodthirsty, and wanton criminal organizations. The only people who present an even greater threat to public safety are those damnable jaywalkers! I mean you can hardly avoid them in the crowded parking lots of Central Texas Marketplace.

If my tone seems overly sarcastic and critical in this case, it's because this reflects a common undertone of the sort of overzealous prosecution that has plagued McLennan County since Abel Reyna took office back in 2010. We have seen a rapid increase in unworldly sentences and charges for minor offenses since he took office, and a blatant disregard for some of the most basic tenets of our criminal justice system. Undeterred by the glaring legal pitfalls and headaches his handling of the situation might cause, Reyna pounced upon this case like a starving lion. Unfortunately, he seemed to also completely disregard the fact that the "meat" might be poisoned.

Indeed, the meat contained poison. Several civil suits have been brought against all the various authorities involved by those affected criminal defendants who actually broke no law whatever. I'm glad to hear that the people harmed by Reyna's reckless policies are filing suit, but at the same time, I'm enraged that the taxpayers will be forced to pay out the nose for sloppy investigative work by the various law enforcement agencies involved. Simple police work, and adherence to the rule of law, could have rendered the necessity of such suits moot.

Unfortunately, when the authorities begin acting like a band of gangsters themselves, the end result is a costly slew of lawsuits. Criminal defense attorneys work to ensure that the government always proves every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We do this so that the law is strictly adhered to. If our prosecutors and law enforcement officers followed the letter of the law, such incidents as these would drastically decrease in number.

Now, I'm the first to admit that the authorities are simply human, prone to making errors. But, the Twin Peaks incident fits a much larger pattern of behavior which has plagued this county over the past half-decade. Each and every person accused of a crime, deserves their right to a speedy trial and reasonable bond. Because the District Attorney chose to disregard a thorough investigation, people with no connection to criminal activity, attending a lawful gathering, were wrongfully arrested. On top of this, they were burdened with cruel and unusual bond, suffered harm to their good reputation, and found their First Amendment rights violated. All of this leads to a further erosion of the trust people have for the so-called justice system.

The other consequences are deeply problematic as well. Sgt. Swanton claimed that the restaurant understood that there was a criminal investigation pending for months, and had refused to cooperate with police in their investigation. Such refusal to cooperate included failing to call off the "rally". Now, again, this meeting was not some criminal enterprise, in truth it was a political meeting organized by a State Senator for the improvement of motorcycle safety laws. When the government compels a private institution to close its doors to an event, significant First Amendment implications are triggered. What's more, the parent company of Twin Peaks (a rather poor knockoff of Hooters), yanked the franchise, thereby permanently shuttering the establishment.

Consequently, the entire staff―including those poor scantily clad waitresses―are out of the job, and the community is losing a lucrative source of tax revenue. You know, the sort of revenue that might be useful in defending against the plethora of lawsuits being filed against the government and its agents. Again, this is all the result of sloppy work on the part of the police and the District Attorney. When the facts are examined, based on the totality of the circumstances, it becomes quite evident that the police acted with too much force, prematurely released information to the press, and all before obtaining any facts to substantiate their claims.

As a result, slander occurred, a business was lost, and the floodgates for even more litigation were thrust open. I seriously doubt the county will be able to win their lawsuits, and this will most likely be settled outside of court in the plaintiffs' favor. It's a shame to see that this has happened, but I won't hold my breath that the various law enforcement agencies, and especially the District Attorney's office, will have learned their lesson from this debacle. But, I can always hope, unless that too, is a crime these days.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Texas doesn't recognize Same-Sex Marriage...but it does recognize Same-Sex Divorce.

If you ever needed proof that the courts can be snarky, you only have to look as far as a recent decision handed down by the Texas Supreme Court. As I am sure you are all aware, the United States Supreme Court is currently deliberating and negotiating on the final decision to be handed down on a State's challenge of same-sex marriage, but Texas, a state which doesn't even recognize civil unions has come out in favor of something...namely, same-sex divorce. We can all be certain that this decision must have been handed down for primarily political reasons. Nevertheless, it accomplishes something that many state officials have wished to avoid.

In their ruling earlier yesterday, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful for a court clerk to deny a plaintiff's petition to seek a same-sex divorce. The State argued that they did not have to offer a same-sex divorce, as the State does not recognize a right to same-sex marriage. The State Supreme Court ultimately ruled that this is violative of the Fifteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Now, why might it matter that the Court handed down this seemingly bizarre ruling?

The answer is, that by recognizing same-sex divorce, the Supreme Court is circumstantially recognizing a right which the State never has recognized before. If there can be same-sex divorce, it logically follows that there may also be same-sex marriage. Of course, this runs the risk of falling into the same deadly logic flaw of "I think, therefore I am," but you must always remember that legal logic is always flawed logic.

A valid legal question can now be presented asking why a same-sex couple cannot get married in Texas, if they are allowed to get divorced within the State. This represents a prime example of one of those sorts of cases that law students pull their hair out in response to, because these cases make little sense. Yet, that's one of the things that we also come to love once we grow comfortable with the way the legal system operates. Think about it, it's a way to recognize a right, without appearing to do so.

This might not seem important, or it may even seem disingenuous on the surface. However, Texas Supreme Court justices are elected and are therefore exposed to the whims of the electorate. Texas, practically being the buckle of the Bible-belt, has a strong evangelical voting base which would purge the Supreme Court of Texas's bench with hell-fire come election season. Therefore, what better way to acknowledge the existence of a right without risking direct vengeance and wrath from bitter evangelicals? By recognizing same-sex divorce.

Of course this sort of view paints a rather cynical picture of the highest State Court. Nevertheless, I do believe that it is fundamentally important for courts to be able to operate in such a fashion, if it serves an important governmental or civil interest. In this case, the Texas Supreme Court may be gambling that the United States Supreme Court will rule in favor of the plaintiff's in the same-sex marriage case which should be decided in the coming weeks. If that's the case, then it's important for the State to begin making preparations for implementing the changes necessary to utilize same-sex marriage licenses and certificates.

The flip side of that is, of course, that there must also be a right to divorce. For just as sure as heterosexual spouses have a right to divorce, the same must hold true for same-sex spouses as well. Another area that will be a painful thing to watch develop will be the onerous custody battles which are sure to follow any same-sex marriage breakthroughs. I don't say this as a way of deterring from the ability of same-sex couples to be wed. Rather, I am sharing one of the more distasteful aspects of family law, whether it be a hetero or homosexual couple.

Custody battles are nasty, harmful, and will never be good for the child. If there can be one bad thing to be said about no fault divorce, it's that it has led to a substantial rise in the number of contentious custody battles. That said, it's also important to note that no fault divorce has allowed more benefits than harms, in that people are no longer forced to suffer through obviously flawed couplings which are irrevocably irreconcilable.

As the ruling currently stands, however, Texas is in a strange position. The State still does not officially recognize same-sex marriage; but it does recognize same-sex divorce. While this gap exists now, it is a clear indication that the prohibition will eventually topple, whether or not the Supreme Court rules against state prohibitions on same-sex marriage. It'll be interesting, as an attorney, to see how the state-level courts ultimately address this odd development.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

The Cuckold Flower?



I love it when I am unable to catch some proper sleep. Because it's during moments like this that I discover odd things on television. For instance, this morning, I stumbled upon a strange show on the Smithsonian Channel called 'Amazing Plants'. Now, I know that this sounds like a particularly dull show, but I found myself captivated by the images, flickering across the screen. Swarms of wasp-like bees darted about a colorful flower with intense energy. Nature is truly amazing in some of its designs.

I am sure that many of you are sitting back, wondering how in the hell I could find a show about so-called "Amazing Plants" interesting. Bare with me, because I'm about to share the story of a plant that is even more deceptive than a crooked lawyer vying for advertising space during a Matlock re-run marathon. The plant of which I speak is the "Bee Orchid". I found myself baffled by the name. The plant doesn't look very different from any other orchid. Its vibrant colors are stunning to the eye, and it seems hardly more than a humble wayside flower. Yet, at the base of its supple bloom, rests a deception that attracts horny wasps and bees like a late 90's -era AOL chat-room attracted pedophiles.

The bee orchid has evolved in such a way that the lower half of its blooms resemble a female wasp or bee. Male wasps and bees flock to the plant and attempt to copulate with it. They attack each other in order to get their chance to "mate" with this all too willing and fast temptress. What's more, the plant adds to the prevarication by releasing a strong scent, mimicking the pheromone scent of a female wasp or bee. Thin hairs at the base of the plant feel like a real female; and combined with the scent, these poor male insects are duped into a mating ritual that does nothing for spreading their own DNA. Frustrated in his efforts to get lucky, the bee departs in anger, only to be fooled by the next orchid masquerading as a queen bee. I guess you could say it's a type of voyeurism which the plants get off on, or you might say it's a type of vicarious mating.

Of course, if these plants were human they'd be labeled sexual predators. Their appearance and scent is the plant world equivalent to the creepy guy sitting in a junker van with "free candy" painted on the side in bold misaligned letters. Despite this, I find myself intrigued by this odd little flower. It's deceptive mating dance amuses me more than it probably should. In fact, the plant's very survival depends on the art of deception. Yet, this deception is on a far more primal level than most other examples found in nature.


Some of these plants can be found in the UK. Unfortunately their game of deception doesn't work there, falling flat. Britain lacks the species of wasps and bees which are attracted to these flowers. While the plant is able to self-pollinate, their numbers are far fewer, since their "suitors" are absent. So, the British Bee Orchids get all dressed up for a night out, only to be stood up by nature denying them their escort for the evening.

It gets worse, the plant's replication of the bee is so accurate that the male bees are known to prefer the flower over the real thing. Of course, such creepy behavior as preferring a live-sex doll over a real female, has led to some challenging concerns with respect to the bee's survival. As a result, the bee less successfully reproduces. In the past this may not have mattered much. Insects represent the largest sub-species of animal in the world.

What's tragic is that the main bee which pollinates these bewitching tricksters of nature is endangered, and only exists in the Mediterranean, as well as in very small numbers throughout the Americas. The bee (Eurcera) was once rather plentiful throughout a vast majority of Europe. However, they are dying off in staggering numbers, much like the American Honey-Bee, and they are no longer found in Europe at all. What's worse is that resorting to self-pollination is a bit like inbreeding. These orchids are facing such a narrow reproductive field that botanists fear they'll develop genetic defects.

The evolutionary history between the bee and the flower is also interesting. Scientists believe that the bee evolved first, and the plant adapted to lure the bee to it, because it increased its chances of pollinating more flowers. Consequently, the bee and its orchid formed a tight-knit ecological partnership based on false romance. Of course, fate discovered their sordid affair and is attempting to break them up. So, nature can be fascinating and a bitch all in the same breath.

However, not all hope may be lost for the seductive little plant. Scientists have discovered that there are around two-hundred different species of "Orchid Bees", and they continue discovering new species each year. Thus, if the particular bee for this plant goes extinct, natural selection might step in and begin altering their appearance and fragrance. After all, nature guided her down the path she traveled to ensnare the first unsuspecting species of bees. A cuckold flower can be a devious dame, and nature's scorn might just unleash her evolutionary fury.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Girl gets stuck in a storm drain because she failed to see it--texting.


http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...xt-while-walking/story-fnjwnhzf-1227409517534


I'll be one of the first people to admit that technology has revolutionized our daily lives for the better. That said, there are times when I have to wonder whether all this technology has been as beneficial as we claim. It seems that with each advancement in the field―such as cellphones becoming smartphones, which are now becoming wearable peripheries―we have to ask whether these devices cause a lapse in common sense.

I come now to a story which happened in China. A young woman managed to get her leg stuck in a storm drain, all because she failed to pay attention. Her eyes seem captivated by the glowing screen of her smartphone in the palm of her hand, distracting her from her surroundings. It's a problem that's become all too common, throughout the entire globe. We are so attached to our devices and so immersed in cyberspace that we forget about the scenes and people around us.

In social settings, it can be a rude intrusion with people frequently checking text messages or the device incessantly goes off, begging for our attention for some mundane notification. However, out on the streets and sidewalks, our obsession with technology poses a real danger. Divided attention, and our immersion into cyberspace renders us incapable of reacting to the various obstacles and people in the real world as they unfurl before us. Unfortunately, for this young woman, her lapse of attention meant a trip to the hospital. It took firefighters 45 minutes to free her from the metal grate, and they sent her to the hospital for minor injuries.

If this young woman had been watching where she was going, this entire ordeal could have been avoided. Yet, this case clearly demonstrates the problem we have with technology today. We've allowed it to dominate our lives to such an extent that we've forgotten the basics in life, such as common sense. Should we sacrifice common sense, I'm afraid we're going to encounter ever increasing numbers of these cases. While smartphones make the transition wearable peripheries, (like smartwatches), we must address concerns about not only the intrusions to privacy, but also the social etiquette with which we should use such devices.

Can we handle so many fully immersible devices vying for attention, and pay attention to our current surroundings at the same time? Articles, like the one cited above, seems to demonstrate that we clearly haven't found a way to juggle all of these devices in a safe and coherent way. Indeed, a solution to this problem seems far off or distant. Will we just kick the can down the road, seeking solutions only after these events become a pandemic? Or, will we take the time to set down a code of cohesive rules for the polite and proper use of these devices within society?

Now, I don't mean rules as in the legal sense of the word―although in the case of using smartwatches while driving, we're beginning to see state legislators itching to pass new laws concerning such rules. Rather, I speak more to the sense of cordiality. Society used to strictly adhere to a code of etiquette. Of course, by our modern standards, these early etiquette codes were paternalistic, arguably even condescending. Nevertheless, these codes served a purpose and they helped ensure that society was polite.

With the rise and rapid advancement off these all-consuming pieces of technology I'm left wondering whether we really should revisit our etiquette codes to discern how one should act in public when using these devices. Should we take the time to establish a clear set of guidelines, I believe it could save a lot of headaches and aggravation. After all, when we're all glued to these devices at every moment throughout the day, you never know when you've missed the perfect opportunity because you're oblivious to the world around you.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Tragedy and Freedom of Speech.



In the wake of the tragic and senseless shooting of nine innocent Black parishioners at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Charleston South Carolina, The United States has plunged herself into a debate over sensitivity towards the feelings of a great many, and our treasured First Amendment Rights to free speech and freedom of expression. While on the surface it may not seem that these rights are in jeopardy, when evaluating the current developments that occurred since that horrific tragedy, the seeds for a much worse problem have been sewn. Already, we have witnessed several State fair grounds and government institutions implement policies blocking the sale and display of the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. While it is true that this Confederate Battle Flag may negatively impact many segments of society, we must recall that the First Amendment is designed to protect those forms of free speech which are not necessarily popular.

Such speech is perhaps the only speech which requires any forms of protection. Walking the narrow line of censorship is a dangerous proposition. It clearly threatens our ability to speak our minds and be free to challenge our government. We must remember what starts out as a small, well-intended gesture, of reconciliation often unravels into a blanket condemnation of certain perspectives and forms of speech. When this occurs, we have crossed over into the realm of tyranny and oppression. Everyone should take pause and notice of the true danger that we might lose our ability to freely speak our mind.

Whether one believes that the Confederate flag is a reprehensible symbol or not is, for purposes of free speech, irrelevant. What matters, in this context, is that it cannot be banned by governments for purchase and display. I personally don't believe there is a problem with removing it from display upon government structures or buildings. However, it is a far different cry to mandate that the flag cannot be laid at the graves of Confederate veterans interred at numerous Federally owned cemeteries. After all, such an action is a form of free expression, made by the descendants of those soldiers.

We should be able to disagree with certain forms of free speech, without calling for its absolute ban or destruction. Perhaps, my point of view here is either naive or insensitive. But, I do believe that the First Amendment is, arguably, the greatest and most treasured of our fundamental liberties. Once we travel down the path of encroaching upon or limiting those liberties, we have descended into dangerous territory. Every dictator who has ever claimed power in world history has sought the limitation of free speech in some form or method. In so doing, the dictator has eliminated the right of his or her people to freely express themselves without the fear of governmental retribution and legal repercussions. Unfortunately, I fear that we are close to going beyond attempting to be sensitive to the feelings of many, and have tread into the realm of suppression of speech.

Suppression of free speech is never a good thing. This is because it allows the government to amass far too much power. Moreover, it empowers the government to determine what sort of speech is acceptable, and it allows them to punish those people who offer opinions which are contrary to those of the government. If the entire purpose of the social reaction to the Confederate Battle Flag is in the quest for a more tolerant and enlightened society, then we must figure out how to achieve this without calling for the censorship or prohibition of certain forms of free speech.

It is not easy, and I don't believe we shall find a solution readily. Nevertheless, I believe that the central tenets of our First Amendment are, and shall always be, sacred and imperative to our freedoms and our way of life. We must not surrender our fundamental liberties in the wake of such a tragedy. For in so doing, we have handed victory to the cowardly killer who callously took the lives of nine innocent people. We should be better than this, and I think we are better than this. Consequently, I believe we must all come together, and determine how we should respond to this tragedy, without alienating or demonizing our fundamental freedoms and liberties. Such actions would be the first step towards the loss of all rights and freedoms, and we should avoid that at all costs.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

It's been a while, and a lot has happened.

It's been ages, since I last dropped a line, in the old docket. A lot has happened, over the course of the past approximate three years. Some of it good, some of it bad. In April, of last year, my mother passed away, and I have been burdened with trying to wind down the estate. This is a task that I wouldn't wish upon anyone, but it is a task that was left to me nonetheless. My father hasn't been taking the loss very well, but who can expect that, when your wife passes away, exactly one month to the day, before your 40th wedding anniversary.

During the past year, I've had some time to reflect upon the things that have changed. I don't think that my mother has departed totally. At least some part of her remains within the penumbras of my mind. And, odd, or superstitious as that may seem, I do take a sense of comfort from it. It helps dull the edge of the pain and depression that comes along with this sort of thing. Maybe it's macabre of me to write about these things, but I don't think so. There's a lot of truth to letting the mind speak of its own pains. It's part of the healing process, if you will.

Life and death, they're merely the flip side of the same titular coin. We all experience life, and, ultimately, we shall all experience death as well. Thus, the main thing is to live life to the fullest, as long as we have breath in our lungs. Never take the friends, family, and loved-ones we have for granted. For, you never know when their―or your―last moment will come. Now, you have to know, I don't say this to be a fear monger. No, nothing could be further from the truth. I write of these things because it comes to me through a sense of experience.

We learn through experience, and we certainly wouldn't understand the good things, if we lacked the bad things to compare them to. Pleasure is sweetened by pain. Life is enriched by death, or, at the very least, the fond memories of it are. With the steady, incessant, and oft-times terrifying march of time, the blows are softened. Yet, the sense of loss remains. It sits there, gnawing at our souls, refusing to relent. The beady eyes of fate, destiny, or life itself, can send shivers down the spine. Still, none of this can fully dull the pain. It becomes a constant companion.

Thus, the life lesson we have here, is not to sweat the small stuff. Take time to enjoy things. Bring our minds into the present. The future belongs to the future, but the present belongs to us. I think that's the most important lesson I have taken away from all that has happened. I'm not any less of who I am without my mother...in a holistic sense. But, I am less confident than I was. This is because my pillar of support is gone. But, that doesn't mean I've lost hope. No, I still have hope. I still cling to the notion of a better, brighter, happier future for all who are dear to me, and for myself, as well.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Things have changed quite a bit since my mother passed away. Work has been keeping me busier than ever. Time seems to fly by more. Yet, at the same time I feel listless. Maybe listless isn't the right word. Restless, I believe would be the better term. It's just been a series of hurdles and challenges over the past two years.

The amazing thing is that I have managed to hold things together. While my social life has gone to hell in a handbasket; the rest of what I'm doing seems to be going well. It's the small things in life which make all the difference. I'm more introspective than I have been in a long time. Hell, one could say that I've become a cynic too. Then again, haven't I always been? Needless to say, I digress. Tomorrow will bring another day, I just have to find the way to muster the energy to push through it.

In a few days I'll be heading home from Dad's apartment and making the trek back down to my place. It seems weird that things got shaken up the way they have over the years. Still there will always be that sense of inner strength that can find all of us, but especially at the times when we least expect it. Who knew that I would say such things, when just a short while ago I was the one in need of hearing it.

That is another important lesson I have learned in life. The cycles get wilder, but experience teaches us to take them in stride. Maybe that's one of the primary reasons why I found the ancient Stoics so fascinating. It was as though they were taking a mature, if not fatalistic, stance. They projected an image of absolute invincibility. Emotions are great and all, but when they overwhelm it grows tiresome.

Heaven knows I don't want to have to deal with the great weight of my own emotions all the time. It's hard enough having to deal with clients who are in an emotionally difficult situation, each and every day. I'm glad I can help them when I can. At the same time, I have to assume a healthy, albeit delicate, balance. Well, I'd write more, but I'm hen-pecking this drivel on my phone. So, I think I'll give my thumbs a rest for now.