It was the wrong thread

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
Even less bonus chatter than last year. Interesting.

I'm truly shocked, what with all the money flooding into Fat City these days.

[Annawan23]

Anyone dropped the money for a subscription to LawCrossing? Is it worth it? Are there better or cheaper alternatives? Any advice welcomed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Justice Breyer reports for jury duty. As the article points out, if anyone could of gotten out of it, it would be him.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Justice Breyer reports for jury duty. As the article points out, if anyone could of gotten out of it, it would be him.

That's an interesting find. Too bad he didn't serve as a juror.

[Atticus Grinch]

Do NOT be 37 minutes late for a trial in Andalusia, Alabama. If you are 37 minutes late for trial in Andalusia, Alabama, cross your fingers and hope your secretary back in Montgomery doesn't sell your shit up the river.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Do NOT be 37 minutes late for a trial in Andalusia, Alabama. If you are 37 minutes late for trial in Andalusia, Alabama, cross your fingers and hope your secretary back in Montgomery doesn't sell your shit up the river.

Maybe lying about it in such a stupid way isn't the best move, either.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
"According to the Order of Contempt issued by the District Court, Pitters was booked into the jail at 11:25 a.m. January 14 and released at 2:06 p.m"

Big deal. They probably fed him lunch, being all Southern Hospitalian down there and stuff. I've had worse lunch hours.

(Unless he was raped anally or something)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
(Unless he was raped anally or something)

OK, now you're just trying to get Atticus going.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe lying about it in such a stupid way isn't the best move, either.

Given the choice between lying about it in a stupid way and lying about it in a smart way, also I tend to favor the smart way. I think that makes me an intellectual.

[Atticus Grinch]

. . . the blurb might sound mildly interesting to Richard Posner, who will then read it and take two or three days away from deciding Seventh Circuit cases, teaching law school, writing his own books, and otherwise having uninvited and unwelcome opinions about life in general in order to demolish its "analysis" in The New Republic.

He acknowledges it was written by a journalist for a "popular audience" and then proceeds to criticize it for offering its lay readership colorful though analytically irrelevant details, reminding us all why the world hates lawyers. Seriously, this is the guy in your book club who got pissed off that you wasted his time making him read The Pilot's Wife all the way through, like someone held a gun to his head after he realized it was horseshit.

Look for this cogent defense of racial profiling by auto salesmen:

• An individual's characteristics may be difficult to determine in a brief encounter, and a salesman cannot afford to waste his time in a protracted one, and so he may quote a high price to every black shopper even though he knows that some blacks are just as shrewd and experienced car shoppers as the average white, or more so.

"Some" blacks are just as shrewd and experienced as the "average" white? Can somebody explain to me how this isn't racist, even in context?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Look for this cogent defense of racial profiling by auto salesmen:

• An individual's characteristics may be difficult to determine in a brief encounter, and a salesman cannot afford to waste his time in a protracted one, and so he may quote a high price to every black shopper even though he knows that some blacks are just as shrewd and experienced car shoppers as the average white, or more so.

"Some" blacks are just as shrewd and experienced as the "average" white? Can somebody explain to me how this isn't racist, even in context?

is it a "defense" or an explanation? Did you become physically ill, and throw away the book half-way through after reading this? If so, the press would like to talk to you.

It seems that what troubles you is your assumption of an unstated (and not necessarily implicitly asserted) belief that on average blacks are less "shrewd" than whites. I'm not certain that's there. For the hypothesis to have traction only two things need to be the case: 1) that shrewdness is not equally distributed--i.e. some have more and some less; 2) that salesmen believe that average (and the distribution of) shrewdness differs according to race. The first is entirely neutral; the second is likely an untested (if not untestable) hypothesis, at least as to the underlying fact (or non-fact). At worst, Posner is a "racialist"--he acknowledges that there may be differences across races (at least in the U.S.) that may be relevant to responsive behavior.

Never crossed the street?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
. . . the blurb might sound mildly interesting to Richard Posner, who will then read it and take two or three days away from deciding Seventh Circuit cases, teaching law school, writing his own books, and otherwise having uninvited and unwelcome opinions about life in general in order to demolish its "analysis" in The New Republic.

If you think he's a racist jackass, why would you care if he smacked your book around? If you write something, and more than one or two people (friends) review it, someone will criticize it. At least if it's someone well known, the demolition derby would probably increase sales.

I doubt he spent as much as two or three days on that review.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This site is priceless.

A taste:

• My Boss: Why the hell didn't you print the attachments of the email that came just now? Me: uuuhhh..sir...the email that came just now doesn't have any attachments (thinking: Am I blind?) My Boss: It Does! Me: (thinking wtf??) No, sir, it doesn't... My Boss: (in a bad temper) But I see the paper clip that indicates the attachements (on MS Outlook)..Come into my office and i'll show you! Me: ok (thinking: Whatevah!) ..And I go to his office...and I look at his screen.. Me: excuse me, sir..but where's the attachment? My Boss: Here! Look! (finger pointing at a certain spot on the screen) Look at the paperclip that indicates the attachment! And I looked..The sweet sweet terror! He was pointing at the MS Office Assistant that looks like a paper clip, only with big blinking eyes.. Me: ..... (thinking: OMG sonofa%#@$@!%!%(!%*#%)

But wait, there's more!

• I've been cutting a commercial for a large insurance company and it's been like chewing tin foil so.... I got hauled into the boss's office yesterday and he was pissed. My Boss: I just got off the phone with the client and they want a meeting to discuss having you pulled from the project. Me: Why is that? My Boss: She said you've been difficult to work with because you won't give her exactly what she wants. Something about you refusing to put thier URL in the spot at the end because it "can't be done". WTF are you doing?! Me: No, she wants the URL at the end to allow viewers to go directly to the website via the television by clicking on it with the remote. I told her it was impossible because a TV set isn't even connected to the internet let alone not being a browser. Maybe sometime soon, but not right now. She then went on a tirade about how she KNOWS about WebTV and that cable AND satellite both carry the web and that I just don't want to do the work. My Boss: ::*eye twitch*:: WebTV? Sorry, pal. Go back to work I'll fix things. God help us all....

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It seems that what troubles you is your assumption of an unstated (and not necessarily implicitly asserted) belief that on average blacks are less "shrewd" than whites. I'm not certain that's there. For the hypothesis to have traction only two things need to be the case: 1) that shrewdness is not equally distributed--i.e. some have more and some less; 2) that salesmen believe that average (and the distribution of) shrewdness differs according to race. The first is entirely neutral; the second is likely an untested (if not untestable) hypothesis, at least as to the underlying fact (or non-fact). At worst, Posner is a "racialist"--he acknowledges that there may be differences across races (at least in the U.S.) that may be relevant to responsive behavior.

Never crossed the street?

If there is any difference between "racist" and "racialist," the distinction becomes less apparent to me when talking about characteristics such as intelligence (here, "shrewdness"). "Blacks are on average dumber than whites, but I don't hate them for it" is not a particularly important step toward humanity.

If your argument is that Posner was simply reporting an assumption made by the salesmen, and then defending their behavior as rational because they held that assumption, maybe so. But in a book review that praises responsible, analytical, "articulate" thinking over the book's argument for the supposed superiority of snap judgments, it would seem strange that Posner would call the salesmen's behavior "rational" when it is accomplished at the end of a train of flawless logic that nonetheless has an inarticulate snap judgment as the locomotive.

Frankly, I admire Posner as a judge. There is no question that he is smart. But the question is whether that makes him wise.

[cheese grits]

Hello, everyone. I'm new here. It will be nice to meet all of you, I'm sure.

Are there any Delaware lawyers around? If so, what treatise do you use for contract interpretation? I'm new to Delaware law, so...

Cheers.

CheeseGrits