Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I just finished Chuck Klosterman’s “Killing Yourself to Live.” Chuck explains perfectly why the argument that driving is more dangerous than flying is so hollow. In a car crash, you usually have maybe a moment of sheer horror before the lights go out. Its sudden and you’re dead. In a plane crash, you have anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes of sheer horror, and when a plane crashes, you’re about 5000X more likely to die than you are in the average car accident. Chuck Klosterman is no scientist, and his book is not much more than a rambling pot-soaked lark. But he explains perfectly why, when I hear people use that “your car is much more dangerous than a plane” bit, I want to scatter their teeth about the room. Its like when people say “Possession is 9/10 of the law.” No, no its not. Not at all. What you’re really saying is “whoever is holding the item has an advantage because the person seeking to get it must use a lengthy legal process to take it away from the possessor.” But the question of who rightly possesses the thing by law has nothing at all to do with possession.*
*Unless you’re debating adverse possession, in which case, get a fucking life.
|
A friend and I were at a bar after a final in our last year of law school, and a guy we worked with who was just finishing his first year sat down. My friend was talking about how he was buying this house and 1L goes, "are you getting a fee simple?"
He actually believed all that shit meant something. When was the last sale of a proerty that would revert "when the big oak tree falls?"
how can that crap still be on the bar exam and preventing people from being lawyers?
