Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, part of the Greater Twilight Zone Metropolitan Area. It's in the scary part of the city that everyone tells you to avoid at all costs, for fear of being a story in the evening news. I ain't talking about winning the National Spelling Bee. If you've accidentally strayed onto this site and wish to leave, hit the Back button or close the window as quickly as you can. Consider that your final warning.
My last post on this blog was about cannibalism. Given the "large" number of comments, it seems as if people are not reading this blog. Or they are, but they don't post comments. Anyways.
One may wonder what the hell I'm going to write about today. Or what drugs I'm on at this moment. Or if I've heard of a delightful little thing called a psychiatric evaluation. Or you really don't give a damn. It's safe to assume that any freaking topic is fair game. I mean anything.
Today's post is about how much fun you can have with a bottle of wine(or the beverage of your choice), whipped cream, and chocolate syrup. Mmm...let's continue with this. What else is there? Add a couple songs to get the groove on("Sexual Healing" or "Let's Get it On" are excellent choices), candles, a couple roses(or more if you like), and the guy or girl of your dreams. Oh yeah. When I get that feeling, I need...sorry about that. I'm getting a little carried away by this.
If everything goes according to plan, you both should be having lots of fun by this time. What you do with the whipped cream and chocolate syrup is for you and the significant other to decide. Just kidding. Today's blog IS NOT about THAT topic, but it sounds interesting at this moment. Hell, it would sound interesting at ANY moment in my life right now. If you're a single female and are into or turned on by this stuff, send me an e-mail. I'll be glad if you write a comment. I'm so lonely. Oh, I'm so sad and lonely. My love life is nonexistant, but rumored to exist like the ivory-billed woodpecker. Then again, some doubt it exists now, despite the evidence. I mean the ivory-billed woodpecker, not my freakingly non-existant love life. Though some might say that I was referring to both or just my love life only. It's pitiful. But enough about this topic. It's time to talk about the real subject of this blog...law school.
Yeah...law school. This is a real big letdown after going on about wine, whipped cream, and chocolate syrup. I must talk about law school. I must talk about law school. Yes...about law school.
On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, I take four classes. Mondays and Tuesdays begin with Commercial Law: Secured Transactions, which isn't such a bad course. The professor is a nice guy who puts effort into teaching the material, though he has the tendency to jump around from topic to topic. I guess it's part of the course, as the statutes aren't the best or clearly written things ever. The drafters probably didn't take Lawyering or some equivalent writing course.
Wednesday begins with Evidence, which is the most entertaining course I am taking this semester and I'm not being sarcastic for once. Professor Prater teaches the material AND is entertaining in a crazy sort of way. As in doing various voices. Weird, he almost sounds like me. Then comes Business Associations I, Constitutional Law, and Estates and Trusts. Business Associations I is a good course. The professor is freaking organized and specific in his syllabus(assigning specific paragraphs), but tends to be random in his lectures. It's not that bad, but it can cause headaches. Con Law...the less I mention about this course, the better. It's an OK course. The material is interesting, but it doesn't come out that way in class. It must be the book. If a class isn't going how you thought it would go, blame the book.
Finally, Estates and Trusts. When you can honestly say Estates and Trusts is the best part of the day, that is a scary thing. Yes, it's the final class of the day. Yes, after the class is done, I get to go home. However, these are not the best reasons to like a certain class. The professor actually teaches the material without inserting his own "humble" opinion or the fact he has written a thought-provoking article/book on it. He has a sense of humor. He does have his "old person" moments, repeats stuff a lot, and he loves his hypotheticals, but by God, he's a damn good professor. If only more professors were like him...It would make the law school experience much more enjoyable.
Thursday and Friday. Thank God for those days. Two classes on Thursday: Evidence and Con Law. Friday: Evidence. I like those days. At least I don't have to lug around five or six books these days. Some days I think it's God's way of telling me that I am taking too many courses. But the logical voice tells me that if I don't take so many hours every semester, I don't graduate in three years without taking summer school courses. After taking a statistics and probability course during the summer, I don't want to take any more summer school courses of any type. Unless they involve sitting on the dock of the bay, watching the ships roll in, and wasting time.
I think I'm going to arrange my schedule so I'll never have to attend a single class on Friday. That would be really cool. Some people I know don't have classes on Friday. Those people are lucky. I would normally include other nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives, but I like them(the people) too much to include these choice words. The words and phrases I would use include cool, fun, drop it like it's hot, etc. I can't believe I just used "drop it like it's hot." Next thing you know, I'll be using stuff like "tricked out car with gold plated spinners" and "pimped up crib" regularly in my blog posts. Now that would be really crazy...
Well, that's a relatively quick summary of some 2L law school courses plus some other stuff like teacher reviews. However, if you don't give a damn about the law school stuff but are more interested in the other stuff, you know what to do. If it isn't your cup of tea, I'm willing to accomodate to your own personal vices. To paraphrase Woody Allen, if it isn't dirty, you aren't doing it right.
That's all for now.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
I Could Eat You Up...
Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own.
-Robert Louis Stevenson
In return for coming to treat them like brothers, and tell them the commands of our lord God and the king, they were preparing to kill us and eat our flesh, and had already prepared the pots with salt and peppers and tomatoes.
-Bernal Diaz, The Conquest of New Spain
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, a site that can radically change your life in thirty minutes or less, unlike most self-help books. Whether or not the change is a good thing, well, I never made any promises. After a week of law school and a bout of insomnia during the weekend, I'm in the mood for posting. And not just on any subject, but on a topic that most will find...well...questionable. Maybe even bizarre.
On the other hand, since this is my blog and I have a certain reputation to be off-the-wall sometimes, this shouldn't be too surprising a topic coming from me. What could this topic be? Cannibalism. Yes, Hannibal Lecter's predilection.
You're probably thinking, "What the...cannibalism? Why this topic? Are you crazy or something?" To make a long story short, I'm reading a book by Reay Rannahill called Flesh and Blood and it describes the history of this most unusual and interesting act.
To state the obvious, which makes for a very good beginning, most modern societies abhor the idea of cannibalism. It is a taboo subject not meant to be mentioned. People have written about varous subjects like murder, incest, and other wrongs and have dissected the topics in a million ways. But cannibalism, now that's a subject few thread.
We've been told and taught that "Eating people is wrong." One can also include "Killing people is wrong" and "Lying is wrong." In general, these rules are valid and like many other rules, exceptions apply like killing someone in self-defense, but only as a last resort. One can generalize that commiting one of these acts without real justification is wrong. However, the rule against cannibalism is unlike these rules in two important aspects: thinking about commiting this act is seen as wrong also and being justified in commiting cannibalism is socially unacceptable.
Let's tackle the thinking aspect. It's well accepted that thinking about commiting a wrong act is not a crime and it is not socially unacceptable in any way. We all have had these thoughts at one time or another, some more frequently than others. We can freely admit that we've thought about hitting someone (battery) or wanting something that we don't have but someone else does (envy or possibly theft), or killing someone you just didn't like (murder or manslaughter). But you rarely hear anyone say in all honesty, "I want to eat that person." The previously made statement was worded incorrectly. Eating someone in a literal sense, as in partaking of their flesh in a Lecterish way. Just thinking of that makes you wrong.
OK...I'm now establishing that I'm not a normal person, at least with the thinking process and what exactly is in my head. Now let's go to the justified cannibalism. We should know about the Donner Party. They ate dead people to survive. A celebrated story involved a plane crash in the Andes. And a most famous legal case involved killing a person and eating them to survive. Even then, people still regarded this behavior as creepy, even though it was the only possible way to survive long enough to get help.
And yet, society in an unconscious way, despite the ingrained teaching of "eating people is wrong," gives support to this behavior. Have you seen The Silence of the Lambs? That movie won several Oscars and gave us the classic line of "I ate his liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti", despite Lecter's cannibalism. It's creepy and shocking. Of course, one might consider other factors as to why people saw this movie, but you're paying money to see a cannibalistic character. If people didn't like the movie, there wouldn't be the (in my opinion)inferior sequel.
The phrases we use. "We're going to eat the competition for lunch" or "You're so good looking, I could eat you up" or "Take a bite our of crime." Some phrases are of a more sexual nature when referring to certain sexual acts which shall not be described in this blog. I'm very sure that readers of this blog know what I am referring to. Why do we have these phrases that make references to cannibalism, despite our dislike of it? Yes, it is figurative language and it should not be taken literally, but doesn't it seem creepy none the less? Cannibalism is OK just as long as it's figurative and not physical? Doesn't that explanation make perfect sense but no sense at all given the supposedly taboo nature of the subject? Or I might be thinking way too much.
Finally, the reference to cannibalism that will open up a big can of worms. Religion. In particular, the rite of Communion. The eating of the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ. Cannibalism AND vampirism in one holy rite. Now, most people will consider this to be symbolic in nature. Then again, the Catholic Church with the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 made the act of eating bread and wine to be the literal thing. The doctrine of substantiation. In 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith banned the ordination of those suffering from coeliac disease as sufferers of this disease are allergic to wheat products. You can't have gluten-free Hosts, as they really aren't Hosts; since it is Chrsit's body, one can't accept substitutes. Of course, the Church might have reverted back to the ancient doctrine stated in the Didache. Certain Orthodox branches still are symbolic. Cannibalism is bad, but if it's part of a religious ritutal, then it's OK, whether the cannibalism is symbolic or literal. Anyways, I digress.
Am a saying cannibalism is a good thing? No. I'm just pointing out the odd inconsistencies in our own thinking, myself included. We see cannibalism as an inherently bad thing. Those who practice it or condone it are evil and Godless and barbaric. If you resort to cannibalism to survive, you're forgiven but socially stigmatized. And yet, people consider symbolic cannibalism in the religion of "modern" and "civilized" people. Watching cannibalism being portrayed in movies is fine, as it is not real cannibalism. We refer to cannibalism in figurative language and see nothing wrong with it, despite cannibalism being ingrained in our minds as bad.
I hope you have enjoyed your ride through my mind. I probably have most of you wondering if I am sane. I assure you, I am, but the voices in my head are not. That's all for now.
-Robert Louis Stevenson
In return for coming to treat them like brothers, and tell them the commands of our lord God and the king, they were preparing to kill us and eat our flesh, and had already prepared the pots with salt and peppers and tomatoes.
-Bernal Diaz, The Conquest of New Spain
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, a site that can radically change your life in thirty minutes or less, unlike most self-help books. Whether or not the change is a good thing, well, I never made any promises. After a week of law school and a bout of insomnia during the weekend, I'm in the mood for posting. And not just on any subject, but on a topic that most will find...well...questionable. Maybe even bizarre.
On the other hand, since this is my blog and I have a certain reputation to be off-the-wall sometimes, this shouldn't be too surprising a topic coming from me. What could this topic be? Cannibalism. Yes, Hannibal Lecter's predilection.
You're probably thinking, "What the...cannibalism? Why this topic? Are you crazy or something?" To make a long story short, I'm reading a book by Reay Rannahill called Flesh and Blood and it describes the history of this most unusual and interesting act.
To state the obvious, which makes for a very good beginning, most modern societies abhor the idea of cannibalism. It is a taboo subject not meant to be mentioned. People have written about varous subjects like murder, incest, and other wrongs and have dissected the topics in a million ways. But cannibalism, now that's a subject few thread.
We've been told and taught that "Eating people is wrong." One can also include "Killing people is wrong" and "Lying is wrong." In general, these rules are valid and like many other rules, exceptions apply like killing someone in self-defense, but only as a last resort. One can generalize that commiting one of these acts without real justification is wrong. However, the rule against cannibalism is unlike these rules in two important aspects: thinking about commiting this act is seen as wrong also and being justified in commiting cannibalism is socially unacceptable.
Let's tackle the thinking aspect. It's well accepted that thinking about commiting a wrong act is not a crime and it is not socially unacceptable in any way. We all have had these thoughts at one time or another, some more frequently than others. We can freely admit that we've thought about hitting someone (battery) or wanting something that we don't have but someone else does (envy or possibly theft), or killing someone you just didn't like (murder or manslaughter). But you rarely hear anyone say in all honesty, "I want to eat that person." The previously made statement was worded incorrectly. Eating someone in a literal sense, as in partaking of their flesh in a Lecterish way. Just thinking of that makes you wrong.
OK...I'm now establishing that I'm not a normal person, at least with the thinking process and what exactly is in my head. Now let's go to the justified cannibalism. We should know about the Donner Party. They ate dead people to survive. A celebrated story involved a plane crash in the Andes. And a most famous legal case involved killing a person and eating them to survive. Even then, people still regarded this behavior as creepy, even though it was the only possible way to survive long enough to get help.
And yet, society in an unconscious way, despite the ingrained teaching of "eating people is wrong," gives support to this behavior. Have you seen The Silence of the Lambs? That movie won several Oscars and gave us the classic line of "I ate his liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti", despite Lecter's cannibalism. It's creepy and shocking. Of course, one might consider other factors as to why people saw this movie, but you're paying money to see a cannibalistic character. If people didn't like the movie, there wouldn't be the (in my opinion)inferior sequel.
The phrases we use. "We're going to eat the competition for lunch" or "You're so good looking, I could eat you up" or "Take a bite our of crime." Some phrases are of a more sexual nature when referring to certain sexual acts which shall not be described in this blog. I'm very sure that readers of this blog know what I am referring to. Why do we have these phrases that make references to cannibalism, despite our dislike of it? Yes, it is figurative language and it should not be taken literally, but doesn't it seem creepy none the less? Cannibalism is OK just as long as it's figurative and not physical? Doesn't that explanation make perfect sense but no sense at all given the supposedly taboo nature of the subject? Or I might be thinking way too much.
Finally, the reference to cannibalism that will open up a big can of worms. Religion. In particular, the rite of Communion. The eating of the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ. Cannibalism AND vampirism in one holy rite. Now, most people will consider this to be symbolic in nature. Then again, the Catholic Church with the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 made the act of eating bread and wine to be the literal thing. The doctrine of substantiation. In 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith banned the ordination of those suffering from coeliac disease as sufferers of this disease are allergic to wheat products. You can't have gluten-free Hosts, as they really aren't Hosts; since it is Chrsit's body, one can't accept substitutes. Of course, the Church might have reverted back to the ancient doctrine stated in the Didache. Certain Orthodox branches still are symbolic. Cannibalism is bad, but if it's part of a religious ritutal, then it's OK, whether the cannibalism is symbolic or literal. Anyways, I digress.
Am a saying cannibalism is a good thing? No. I'm just pointing out the odd inconsistencies in our own thinking, myself included. We see cannibalism as an inherently bad thing. Those who practice it or condone it are evil and Godless and barbaric. If you resort to cannibalism to survive, you're forgiven but socially stigmatized. And yet, people consider symbolic cannibalism in the religion of "modern" and "civilized" people. Watching cannibalism being portrayed in movies is fine, as it is not real cannibalism. We refer to cannibalism in figurative language and see nothing wrong with it, despite cannibalism being ingrained in our minds as bad.
I hope you have enjoyed your ride through my mind. I probably have most of you wondering if I am sane. I assure you, I am, but the voices in my head are not. That's all for now.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Platform 9 and 3/4 and Carrel 3-31
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the official site where you can read the random, yet coherent thoughts that float in the mind of a KU Law School student. Unless you possess mind reading equipment or you are naturally telepathic, this is the only verified source. If you do happen to have such technology or this "gift," the US government will abduct you and perform experiments. In traditional fashion, they'll deny it ever happened. I know. My relative's UFO was repossessed at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Anyways...
One of the supposed benefits as a KU Law School 2L is the study carrel. Instead of a small pseudo-cubicle in the slightly-stuffy law school basement (commonly called "The Dungeon"), one gets a small pseudo-cubicle on the 3rd through 5th floors of the law school library. That's a MAJOR improvement over a small pseudo-cubicle in the basement! Excuse me for that moment of sarcasm. I can't help myself. Despite being told about all the great things of law school, it isn't halfway close to how people describe it.
If you haven't seen these pseudo-cubicles, it isn't as great as people describe it. For those who have not, imagine a utilitarian desk made of an unholy composite of plastic and something that wants to be wood. Put up three walls of this same material covered with fake cherry paneling. Place a "shelf" made of the wall material above the desk. For added spite to students, toss in a chair upholstered in a funny blue material that's closely related to burlap. That's the supposedly vaunted "study carrel," the pinacle of form, function, and efficiency in study that 2Ls and 3Ls all want. I think I'd rather find a quiet corner in the law school and study. Either that or the informal commons which has much better chairs but looks like a lobby in a modern art museum. In my opinion, there's way too much earth tones and recessed lights. One would also think the administration would spend a little more money in getting the heating/cooling system upgraded. It is inconsistent. Some rooms are sweltering and others are frigid. I digress.
As a 2L, I decide to sign up for a study carrel. Lo and behold, I see a signup list for study carrels. Noting that nearly all of them are signed up for with two names, I find an empty one. Carrel 3-31. Interestingly enough, when the SBA posted the official list of carrel assignments, they misspelled my name. I'm now "James On." Go figure. There's also a sheet for "phantom carrels" or carrels that do not exist. If your carrel does not exist, you sign this sheet with your name and your "phantom carrel" number. So I check to see if my carrel exists. I check the third floor very carefully. They have 3-25, but nothing past that. My carrel doesn't exist, just like a parking space in the Yellow parking lots after 9:30 AM. I take that back. The parking lots exist, but they're full.
Excuse me for a moment while I go into The World of Make Believe...
My carrel does exist, but in a magical dimension like Train Platform Nine and Three-Quarters in the Harry Potter novels. All I have to do to get there, that is my study carrel, would be to extrapolate its location if it were to exist in the real world and walk towards it with absolute confidence. Or I partake of illegal drugs. Once I do that, I will magically arrive at study carrel 3-31 and all my problems will be solved. To accomplish this goal, I'll need to calculate the length of an average carrel and the spacing between them.
I've taken rough measurements of these distances and averaged them out. One of the major assumptions I have made is that the carrels continue unimpeded by other foreign objects. This is based upon the description in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. In the book, the Hogwarts Express platform is located where a solid wall is. I have approximated the location of the mythical study carrel 3-31 and it is located in a corner directly across from Room 309. In this corner are a table and several chairs. This might be a poor spot for a carrel, but it's ideal. It's in a corner that few people go to and this reduces the chance someone will see me pop out of a wall.And study carrel 3-31? What will it be like? Quite possibly, the damn best place to hang out at ever. Not some pseudo-cubicle, but an expansive space. Ideally, it would be akin to an Armani suit. Something stylish, a timeless blend of modern and classic.
A large leather sofa and not just any ordinary leather. Leather with a buttery texture that will make you melt into the seat. Five or six comfortable chairs. You need some sort of entertainment. A plasma TV with DVD player. A multi-format CD player. Dolby surround sound system. An eclectic assortment of books, newspapers and magazines. A dart board. Maybe two. An XBox and a Playstation 2. A pool table or two. A ping-pong table for ping-pong and Beer Pong. What else should be in there? A high-quality European coffemaker for various coffee drinks. Soda. A fully stocked bar with all sorts of alcohol. That will be perfect. Ahh...a piece of law school heaven.
I've got to share the wealth with others. It won't be any fun if I'm the only one enjoying all of this stuff. I'll invite people over. It'll be invitation only. We'll watch movies and listen to music as loud as we want. Play videogames. Eat, drink, and be merry, for law school can be a very taxing experience. No hassles, no worries, no problems.
We all need to relax. Put away the books for a few moments. Time will slow down to a near perfect stop. All of this will be possible in study carrel 3-31, the Shangri-La of Green Hall. All I have to do is find it, walk in and take possession in Fee Simple Absolute for eternity(My former Property professor says the three most romantic words are fee simple absolute). I can just imagine it right now...
Damn. Time to get back to reality. Most likely, I'll get one of those pseudo-cubicles that all the 2Ls and 3Ls get. It's too bad reality won't be close to what I imagined, at least with respect to study carrel 3-31. However, while I'm studying or if I'm bored, I'll imagine I'm in the mythical 3-31 of my dreams. It will make the experience much more pleasant.
That's all for now.
One of the supposed benefits as a KU Law School 2L is the study carrel. Instead of a small pseudo-cubicle in the slightly-stuffy law school basement (commonly called "The Dungeon"), one gets a small pseudo-cubicle on the 3rd through 5th floors of the law school library. That's a MAJOR improvement over a small pseudo-cubicle in the basement! Excuse me for that moment of sarcasm. I can't help myself. Despite being told about all the great things of law school, it isn't halfway close to how people describe it.
If you haven't seen these pseudo-cubicles, it isn't as great as people describe it. For those who have not, imagine a utilitarian desk made of an unholy composite of plastic and something that wants to be wood. Put up three walls of this same material covered with fake cherry paneling. Place a "shelf" made of the wall material above the desk. For added spite to students, toss in a chair upholstered in a funny blue material that's closely related to burlap. That's the supposedly vaunted "study carrel," the pinacle of form, function, and efficiency in study that 2Ls and 3Ls all want. I think I'd rather find a quiet corner in the law school and study. Either that or the informal commons which has much better chairs but looks like a lobby in a modern art museum. In my opinion, there's way too much earth tones and recessed lights. One would also think the administration would spend a little more money in getting the heating/cooling system upgraded. It is inconsistent. Some rooms are sweltering and others are frigid. I digress.
As a 2L, I decide to sign up for a study carrel. Lo and behold, I see a signup list for study carrels. Noting that nearly all of them are signed up for with two names, I find an empty one. Carrel 3-31. Interestingly enough, when the SBA posted the official list of carrel assignments, they misspelled my name. I'm now "James On." Go figure. There's also a sheet for "phantom carrels" or carrels that do not exist. If your carrel does not exist, you sign this sheet with your name and your "phantom carrel" number. So I check to see if my carrel exists. I check the third floor very carefully. They have 3-25, but nothing past that. My carrel doesn't exist, just like a parking space in the Yellow parking lots after 9:30 AM. I take that back. The parking lots exist, but they're full.
Excuse me for a moment while I go into The World of Make Believe...
My carrel does exist, but in a magical dimension like Train Platform Nine and Three-Quarters in the Harry Potter novels. All I have to do to get there, that is my study carrel, would be to extrapolate its location if it were to exist in the real world and walk towards it with absolute confidence. Or I partake of illegal drugs. Once I do that, I will magically arrive at study carrel 3-31 and all my problems will be solved. To accomplish this goal, I'll need to calculate the length of an average carrel and the spacing between them.
I've taken rough measurements of these distances and averaged them out. One of the major assumptions I have made is that the carrels continue unimpeded by other foreign objects. This is based upon the description in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. In the book, the Hogwarts Express platform is located where a solid wall is. I have approximated the location of the mythical study carrel 3-31 and it is located in a corner directly across from Room 309. In this corner are a table and several chairs. This might be a poor spot for a carrel, but it's ideal. It's in a corner that few people go to and this reduces the chance someone will see me pop out of a wall.And study carrel 3-31? What will it be like? Quite possibly, the damn best place to hang out at ever. Not some pseudo-cubicle, but an expansive space. Ideally, it would be akin to an Armani suit. Something stylish, a timeless blend of modern and classic.
A large leather sofa and not just any ordinary leather. Leather with a buttery texture that will make you melt into the seat. Five or six comfortable chairs. You need some sort of entertainment. A plasma TV with DVD player. A multi-format CD player. Dolby surround sound system. An eclectic assortment of books, newspapers and magazines. A dart board. Maybe two. An XBox and a Playstation 2. A pool table or two. A ping-pong table for ping-pong and Beer Pong. What else should be in there? A high-quality European coffemaker for various coffee drinks. Soda. A fully stocked bar with all sorts of alcohol. That will be perfect. Ahh...a piece of law school heaven.
I've got to share the wealth with others. It won't be any fun if I'm the only one enjoying all of this stuff. I'll invite people over. It'll be invitation only. We'll watch movies and listen to music as loud as we want. Play videogames. Eat, drink, and be merry, for law school can be a very taxing experience. No hassles, no worries, no problems.
We all need to relax. Put away the books for a few moments. Time will slow down to a near perfect stop. All of this will be possible in study carrel 3-31, the Shangri-La of Green Hall. All I have to do is find it, walk in and take possession in Fee Simple Absolute for eternity(My former Property professor says the three most romantic words are fee simple absolute). I can just imagine it right now...
Damn. Time to get back to reality. Most likely, I'll get one of those pseudo-cubicles that all the 2Ls and 3Ls get. It's too bad reality won't be close to what I imagined, at least with respect to study carrel 3-31. However, while I'm studying or if I'm bored, I'll imagine I'm in the mythical 3-31 of my dreams. It will make the experience much more pleasant.
That's all for now.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
What's In A Name?
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the website where I put the "Un" back in "unusual," "unbelievable," and especially "unstable." Unlike some people, I don't mind the negative and/or creepy connotations that the words carry. If you've read some of my posts or if you know me in real life, then you probably know what I'm talking about. If not, then you should read my posts. Hey, what can I say?
There's at least one good thing about law school. I have a block of time where I can post stuff to this blog. And it's not during class! I can make an attempt to pay attention during class. Not that it was a problem or anything. Today's post is about names and nicknames, well, my name and the nicknames based upon my last name. I'll take several detours and sidetrips along the way. Maybe "several" isn't the correct word. And by sidetrips, I mean mental mind-screws. It should be an interesting trip, none the less.
Names are important as they possess literal meaning and emotional impact. As an example, look at the quote I have at the top of my post. One must realize that a thing can be refeered by words that have a very different emotional impact. It is true that the fragrance of roses would remain the same, no matter what name a person might assign them. If one, however, were to refer to roses as "sewer-weeds" or "red stink-flowers," the attitude towards roses would change. Anyways...
For some reason, people mess up my last name, which consists of two letters. That's not a weird typo. My last name? Un. Just like the prefix and the abbreviation for the United Nations. The number one question people ask me? "You sure that's your last name?" Yes, that is my last name. I'm sure that I know my own last name and how to spell it. If I didn't know how to spell my last name, that will be a very sad day in my life. The number two question? "Is that an abbreviation?" No, it isn't an abbreviation.
A little explanation. Excuse me while I go on a brief trip into the realm of linguistics. Koreans don't have long last names or first names or middle names for that matter. Most, if not all Korean names consist of three syllables total. One for the first name, one for the last name, and one for the middle name. Each syllable will come in four forms: vowel, vowel-consonant, consonant-vowel, or, not too surprisingly, consonant-vowel-consonant. It's unlikely that a Korean last name will have more than five letters when transliterated into an English equivalent.
A note on pronunciation. I tell people to pronounce my last name like the prefix. If I were being strict on the actual pronunciation of my last name, it would be pronounced with a schwa sound as the "o" in "lemon." But, due to the caught/cot merger predominant in most areas west of the Appalachians, it's much easier to have people to pronounce it like the prefix. It's one of the more fascinating topics in linguistics and the study of what exactly is American English. Well...I've gotten this out of my system.
To show how often people mess up my name, I'll give several examples.
I used to go to and used to win prizes at math contests. Invariably, someone would misspell my last name, despite writing my name on the registration form, sign-up sheep, my nametag, on multiple answer sheets, a scantron, and God knows what else. One would think that with all this redundacy, they would get my last name spelled right. But no, they got my name spelled wrong. So I told them they got my last name spelled wrong. I even wrote out my name on a piece of paper. Did they get it right? Guess. No, they got it wrong! So they just gave me a new backing for the ribbon and I wrote out my name. Their response? "Oh, so THAT'S how you spell your name! It was that simple!" Yes, it was that simple. So simple that after I spelled out my name multiple times, you still couldn't get it right the first time!
I don't like getting any sort of ID card, especially one that has my name on it. During middle school and high school, I got an ID card. In order to pick it up, one had to tell them your grade and name. I would tell the person that my name was James Un and I was in grade X. Did they get my name right and give me the right ID card? No. For some weird reason, they would say that my ID card wasn't there. Oddly enough, they were looking in the wrong grade. After I told them this, they would apologize and look in the right grade. After searching, they would say I didn't exist there. At this point, I would get annoyed, as I knew I existed. So, they would ask me to spell my name. I would spell it very carefully. They still would get it wrong. I would be confused with a person like "Jeff Young," who would be an Asian guy, but who would look nothing like me. I then would write my last name out. They still would get it wrong! I would search through the cards myself and guess what? I found my card! In the "U" section, just where it should have been and where it was all this time. Their excuse? "I didn't think that was your last name." WHAT THE...? You didn't THINK that was MY LAST NAME? Well, that IS my last name! You didn't THINK I would know MY OWN NAME and you would ASSIGN me one that YOU THOUGHT fit me better and I WOULDN'T NOTICE? Arrgh!
OK. Let's move onto a different subject. The Manhattan Dynamic Duo--Megan and Bridget--and their female friends, would play what I call "The Un Name Game." They would hyphenate their last name to my last name and see what came up. It was Bridget, or it was Megan, or maybe they came up with it at the same time, who noticed that when Bridget hyphenated her last name to mine, it was Un-Fair. They got a really big kick out of this. Megan was quite disappointed that, sadly, there would never be any Un-Fairs any time soon. I don't know. Maybe it is a good thing that there are no Un-Fairs. Could you imagine all the problems and confusion that would arise from that last name? Then again, I kinda like it. I do have a strange sense of humor and it does have a nice ring to it. If there are any females with the last name of Fair out there...
Because of my last name, people would ask me if I liked 7-Up. Remember the old 7-Up ads that used to run on television? The one before "Make 7-Up yours." I would respond that I prefered Pepsi, and they would say, "Why not? 7-Up is the Un-Cola." Then they would laugh at this oh-so-witty joke. So many freaking people would go through this song and dance. Yeah. It kind of makes me long for the old days when people called me "Human Encyclopedia." Then again, some people do call me that. Or "crazy" or "weird." Anyways...
Ah...I think I've typed enough for now. Well, at least enough stuff about my name. A little trip to "Expensive and Possibly Useless Information Town" and a detour to "Why do people think I don't know my name?" City. Next stop...who knows.
That's all for now.
By any other name would smell as sweet.
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the website where I put the "Un" back in "unusual," "unbelievable," and especially "unstable." Unlike some people, I don't mind the negative and/or creepy connotations that the words carry. If you've read some of my posts or if you know me in real life, then you probably know what I'm talking about. If not, then you should read my posts. Hey, what can I say?
There's at least one good thing about law school. I have a block of time where I can post stuff to this blog. And it's not during class! I can make an attempt to pay attention during class. Not that it was a problem or anything. Today's post is about names and nicknames, well, my name and the nicknames based upon my last name. I'll take several detours and sidetrips along the way. Maybe "several" isn't the correct word. And by sidetrips, I mean mental mind-screws. It should be an interesting trip, none the less.
Names are important as they possess literal meaning and emotional impact. As an example, look at the quote I have at the top of my post. One must realize that a thing can be refeered by words that have a very different emotional impact. It is true that the fragrance of roses would remain the same, no matter what name a person might assign them. If one, however, were to refer to roses as "sewer-weeds" or "red stink-flowers," the attitude towards roses would change. Anyways...
For some reason, people mess up my last name, which consists of two letters. That's not a weird typo. My last name? Un. Just like the prefix and the abbreviation for the United Nations. The number one question people ask me? "You sure that's your last name?" Yes, that is my last name. I'm sure that I know my own last name and how to spell it. If I didn't know how to spell my last name, that will be a very sad day in my life. The number two question? "Is that an abbreviation?" No, it isn't an abbreviation.
A little explanation. Excuse me while I go on a brief trip into the realm of linguistics. Koreans don't have long last names or first names or middle names for that matter. Most, if not all Korean names consist of three syllables total. One for the first name, one for the last name, and one for the middle name. Each syllable will come in four forms: vowel, vowel-consonant, consonant-vowel, or, not too surprisingly, consonant-vowel-consonant. It's unlikely that a Korean last name will have more than five letters when transliterated into an English equivalent.
A note on pronunciation. I tell people to pronounce my last name like the prefix. If I were being strict on the actual pronunciation of my last name, it would be pronounced with a schwa sound as the "o" in "lemon." But, due to the caught/cot merger predominant in most areas west of the Appalachians, it's much easier to have people to pronounce it like the prefix. It's one of the more fascinating topics in linguistics and the study of what exactly is American English. Well...I've gotten this out of my system.
To show how often people mess up my name, I'll give several examples.
I used to go to and used to win prizes at math contests. Invariably, someone would misspell my last name, despite writing my name on the registration form, sign-up sheep, my nametag, on multiple answer sheets, a scantron, and God knows what else. One would think that with all this redundacy, they would get my last name spelled right. But no, they got my name spelled wrong. So I told them they got my last name spelled wrong. I even wrote out my name on a piece of paper. Did they get it right? Guess. No, they got it wrong! So they just gave me a new backing for the ribbon and I wrote out my name. Their response? "Oh, so THAT'S how you spell your name! It was that simple!" Yes, it was that simple. So simple that after I spelled out my name multiple times, you still couldn't get it right the first time!
I don't like getting any sort of ID card, especially one that has my name on it. During middle school and high school, I got an ID card. In order to pick it up, one had to tell them your grade and name. I would tell the person that my name was James Un and I was in grade X. Did they get my name right and give me the right ID card? No. For some weird reason, they would say that my ID card wasn't there. Oddly enough, they were looking in the wrong grade. After I told them this, they would apologize and look in the right grade. After searching, they would say I didn't exist there. At this point, I would get annoyed, as I knew I existed. So, they would ask me to spell my name. I would spell it very carefully. They still would get it wrong. I would be confused with a person like "Jeff Young," who would be an Asian guy, but who would look nothing like me. I then would write my last name out. They still would get it wrong! I would search through the cards myself and guess what? I found my card! In the "U" section, just where it should have been and where it was all this time. Their excuse? "I didn't think that was your last name." WHAT THE...? You didn't THINK that was MY LAST NAME? Well, that IS my last name! You didn't THINK I would know MY OWN NAME and you would ASSIGN me one that YOU THOUGHT fit me better and I WOULDN'T NOTICE? Arrgh!
OK. Let's move onto a different subject. The Manhattan Dynamic Duo--Megan and Bridget--and their female friends, would play what I call "The Un Name Game." They would hyphenate their last name to my last name and see what came up. It was Bridget, or it was Megan, or maybe they came up with it at the same time, who noticed that when Bridget hyphenated her last name to mine, it was Un-Fair. They got a really big kick out of this. Megan was quite disappointed that, sadly, there would never be any Un-Fairs any time soon. I don't know. Maybe it is a good thing that there are no Un-Fairs. Could you imagine all the problems and confusion that would arise from that last name? Then again, I kinda like it. I do have a strange sense of humor and it does have a nice ring to it. If there are any females with the last name of Fair out there...
Because of my last name, people would ask me if I liked 7-Up. Remember the old 7-Up ads that used to run on television? The one before "Make 7-Up yours." I would respond that I prefered Pepsi, and they would say, "Why not? 7-Up is the Un-Cola." Then they would laugh at this oh-so-witty joke. So many freaking people would go through this song and dance. Yeah. It kind of makes me long for the old days when people called me "Human Encyclopedia." Then again, some people do call me that. Or "crazy" or "weird." Anyways...
Ah...I think I've typed enough for now. Well, at least enough stuff about my name. A little trip to "Expensive and Possibly Useless Information Town" and a detour to "Why do people think I don't know my name?" City. Next stop...who knows.
That's all for now.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Who's Your Daddy?
"You are not the father!"
-Maury Povich
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the official site for all things Un. This site is guaranteed to contain 100% unadulterated, all-natural Un without the usual fillers of inferior products.
I'm a man of extremes or I have enjoy a wide variety of things. For instance, I enjoy listening to classical music, but I also enjoy listening to classic rock. I enjoy reading books on particle physics, but I also enjoy reading humorous books on not-so-bright criminals. I enjoy watching shows on...public television...like Nova and Battlefield Britain. On the other end of the TV spectrum, I enjoy watching daytime talkshows.
I enjoy watching daytime talk shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch. I'm not very current with teleision tastes. I've only seen two or three episodes of Desparate Housewives and maybe an episode or two of any reality television show, even American Idol. I've always wondered why I enjoy watching daytime talk shows. It might be becasue they're entertaining. Or it's cheap therapy, reminding you that your life can't be as strange or as bad as theirs. Or maybe because it reminds me of my former life in Manhattan, KS. Anyways...
My life before I moved to Lawrence was a live version of Jerry Springer, but without Steve the security guard and the rest of Jerry's Kids. Now that I think about it, I should also include sex with family members. Trailer park? Yes. Located right by the ubiquitous Walmart? Yes. Drug dealers? Yes. Drunk people? Yes. Illegal immigrants? Most likely yes. A girl who got child support from five guys who might be the father? Yes. A mother/daughter prostitution team? Hell yes. I could go on with more details, but this should be sufficient to portray what was going on where I used to live.
As much as I enjoy Jerry Springer, I enjoy Maury Povich much more. It's because of the paternity test shows. You know those shows. The ones where they bring out a girl who claims "This guy is the father and I never had sex with anyone else" or they had sex with multiple people (sometimes four or five or even more) and they want to know who the father of their child is. It's quite enjoyable to hear Maury Povitch say, "You are not the father!" I don't know. I shouldn't feel enjoyment at this, but I can't help it.
Which brings me to the topic of this blog. The phrase "Who's your daddy?" People use it for some strange reason, particularly when having sex. I don't know of anyone in real life who uses that phrase. Supposedly, some people actually use this phrase. Then again, I haven't asked anyone and I doubt that I will any time soon. Well, at least people use it in television shows and movies.
The guy asks, "Who's your daddy?" The girl responds, "You are! You are!" Supposedly, this is a sign of satisfaction with the act of intercourse. It sounds incestual when a person responds with "You are! You are!" It ruins the mood. In my opinion, there are sexier phrases to use and "Who's you daddy" isn't one of them. Unless of course, both of you like that phrase. Why, I'm not exactly sure. Even then, you can come up with something a lot better.
This is not based upon actual, personal experience. It's based upon mental thought. It's how many people come up with great ideas. Einstein came up with his ideas on relativity with his elaborate thought experiments. Good 'ol imagination. Not that this is going to win me a Nobel Prize or anything.
Just think about it. No, really. Just think about it for a few seconds. Yeah. The mental picture wasn't all that good. The sex was so good, you're her father. Or that's what the answer implies. Um, that is, if you're taking it literally, which most people don't. It's not what most people are thinking about at that particular moment. Well, at least most people don't. Some people think about housework or what they're going to do the next day. It's odd how the mind wanders off on other things. I'm guilty of that. But even then, it sounds creepy. Now that I think about it, maybe you shouldn't think about it. Too late.
Now that I've got you shuddering or wanting to take a shower or wondering what the hell goes on in my mind or a combination of all three, let's move on with this topic.
The phrase has the meaning of domination or respect, when fathers actually got respect from others. If you beat someone, like really beat someone, you might say, "Who's your daddy" while miming spanking motions. This is the most canonical use of this phrase. When done properly, it can be humiliating to the person who got beat, or if you prefer, got their proverbial ass whooped. However, some people just can't do this properly. When they do this, they look funny. One might be mistakenly identified as a boy band backup dancer reject. Um...that came out sounding wrong. I have no knowledge about boybands or being a backup dancer for a boyband. They're better off saying "I won" and leaving it at this.
Then again, when taken in the sexual connotation, it can be appropriately freaky. As long as you don't think about the creepy incestual connotations. It has to do with how you say it. Like many things in life and in law, it all depends on how you say it.
If you do it with a Barry White/Shaft baritone with the right amount of sexiness, it sound good, really good. Then again, Barry White can say anything and make it sound sexy. Nearly everything. Certain languages, no matter how hard you try, sound like you're retching into an airsickness bag. I can think of a few languages off the top of my head. Certain words sound weird too.
A good way to get a quick laugh. Say "Who's your daddy" while sounding like you've inhaled helium or like a chipmunk (a la Alvin and the Chipmunks). However, some might find it, none the less, creepy or scary. Especially if you do it while miming spanking motions. I should know. I've done it before. That's another story. Another digression.
If you haven't questioned my sanity earlier before this post, maybe this post has got a seed of doubt in your head. I'm gonna mess with your mind a whole lot more. One more question before I end. Who's your daddy?
That's all for now.
-Maury Povich
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the official site for all things Un. This site is guaranteed to contain 100% unadulterated, all-natural Un without the usual fillers of inferior products.
I'm a man of extremes or I have enjoy a wide variety of things. For instance, I enjoy listening to classical music, but I also enjoy listening to classic rock. I enjoy reading books on particle physics, but I also enjoy reading humorous books on not-so-bright criminals. I enjoy watching shows on...public television...like Nova and Battlefield Britain. On the other end of the TV spectrum, I enjoy watching daytime talkshows.
I enjoy watching daytime talk shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch. I'm not very current with teleision tastes. I've only seen two or three episodes of Desparate Housewives and maybe an episode or two of any reality television show, even American Idol. I've always wondered why I enjoy watching daytime talk shows. It might be becasue they're entertaining. Or it's cheap therapy, reminding you that your life can't be as strange or as bad as theirs. Or maybe because it reminds me of my former life in Manhattan, KS. Anyways...
My life before I moved to Lawrence was a live version of Jerry Springer, but without Steve the security guard and the rest of Jerry's Kids. Now that I think about it, I should also include sex with family members. Trailer park? Yes. Located right by the ubiquitous Walmart? Yes. Drug dealers? Yes. Drunk people? Yes. Illegal immigrants? Most likely yes. A girl who got child support from five guys who might be the father? Yes. A mother/daughter prostitution team? Hell yes. I could go on with more details, but this should be sufficient to portray what was going on where I used to live.
As much as I enjoy Jerry Springer, I enjoy Maury Povich much more. It's because of the paternity test shows. You know those shows. The ones where they bring out a girl who claims "This guy is the father and I never had sex with anyone else" or they had sex with multiple people (sometimes four or five or even more) and they want to know who the father of their child is. It's quite enjoyable to hear Maury Povitch say, "You are not the father!" I don't know. I shouldn't feel enjoyment at this, but I can't help it.
Which brings me to the topic of this blog. The phrase "Who's your daddy?" People use it for some strange reason, particularly when having sex. I don't know of anyone in real life who uses that phrase. Supposedly, some people actually use this phrase. Then again, I haven't asked anyone and I doubt that I will any time soon. Well, at least people use it in television shows and movies.
The guy asks, "Who's your daddy?" The girl responds, "You are! You are!" Supposedly, this is a sign of satisfaction with the act of intercourse. It sounds incestual when a person responds with "You are! You are!" It ruins the mood. In my opinion, there are sexier phrases to use and "Who's you daddy" isn't one of them. Unless of course, both of you like that phrase. Why, I'm not exactly sure. Even then, you can come up with something a lot better.
This is not based upon actual, personal experience. It's based upon mental thought. It's how many people come up with great ideas. Einstein came up with his ideas on relativity with his elaborate thought experiments. Good 'ol imagination. Not that this is going to win me a Nobel Prize or anything.
Just think about it. No, really. Just think about it for a few seconds. Yeah. The mental picture wasn't all that good. The sex was so good, you're her father. Or that's what the answer implies. Um, that is, if you're taking it literally, which most people don't. It's not what most people are thinking about at that particular moment. Well, at least most people don't. Some people think about housework or what they're going to do the next day. It's odd how the mind wanders off on other things. I'm guilty of that. But even then, it sounds creepy. Now that I think about it, maybe you shouldn't think about it. Too late.
Now that I've got you shuddering or wanting to take a shower or wondering what the hell goes on in my mind or a combination of all three, let's move on with this topic.
The phrase has the meaning of domination or respect, when fathers actually got respect from others. If you beat someone, like really beat someone, you might say, "Who's your daddy" while miming spanking motions. This is the most canonical use of this phrase. When done properly, it can be humiliating to the person who got beat, or if you prefer, got their proverbial ass whooped. However, some people just can't do this properly. When they do this, they look funny. One might be mistakenly identified as a boy band backup dancer reject. Um...that came out sounding wrong. I have no knowledge about boybands or being a backup dancer for a boyband. They're better off saying "I won" and leaving it at this.
Then again, when taken in the sexual connotation, it can be appropriately freaky. As long as you don't think about the creepy incestual connotations. It has to do with how you say it. Like many things in life and in law, it all depends on how you say it.
If you do it with a Barry White/Shaft baritone with the right amount of sexiness, it sound good, really good. Then again, Barry White can say anything and make it sound sexy. Nearly everything. Certain languages, no matter how hard you try, sound like you're retching into an airsickness bag. I can think of a few languages off the top of my head. Certain words sound weird too.
A good way to get a quick laugh. Say "Who's your daddy" while sounding like you've inhaled helium or like a chipmunk (a la Alvin and the Chipmunks). However, some might find it, none the less, creepy or scary. Especially if you do it while miming spanking motions. I should know. I've done it before. That's another story. Another digression.
If you haven't questioned my sanity earlier before this post, maybe this post has got a seed of doubt in your head. I'm gonna mess with your mind a whole lot more. One more question before I end. Who's your daddy?
That's all for now.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Never Has So Much Has Been Charged For So Little
Greetings and welcome back to the Un-Zone, the site guaranteed to be 100% all-natural Un, without the usual filler of inferior sites. Unlike the Food and Drug Administration, I can be sure of the final test results. It's Un-tested, Un-approved.
Just as I predicted, the Constitutional Law supplement arrived today. It might have arrived on Friday afternoon, but that is highly unlikely. Then again, I only had classes in the morning and I didn't check to see if it was there. OK, let's rephrase that. I know that the supplement was available today.
Surprisingly, the supplement wasn't as big or as think as I thought it would be--only 72 pages long and the size of an oversized paperback novel. I'm glad that it isn't as big or as thick as I expected it to be, but the price is way too high for such a paltry book. Yeah, I gripe a lot. I gripe about how thick and heavy the books are. If they aren't big, then they cost too much. Or they are big and they cost too much. Maybe you'll understand why I think it cost too much.
The cost of this "textbook," if you can designate it in such a manner was nearly $30. Now, for something containing 72 pages, this is an exorbitant amount. I'm not too sure about what materials and costs go into printing a book these days, but I'm very sure there isn't any gold, platinum, or any other rare materials in the ink, glue, paper, or binding. I doubt it would have cost the book publisher that much money to insert the supplementary material into the already oversized textbook. Then again, the material in the supplement was relevant, but came out later than the publishing date.
I should read the supplement to see what exactly is in there. If it turns out to be publishing errors...then then should pay more attention on quality control. If they need 72 pages to list the errors they made, that doesn't speak too highly of the company. Wait...I read their Civil Procedure textbook and that wasn't well written either. I digress.
Your ordinary paperback book doesn't cost this much. Thirty dollars for a hardback book is reasonable. Most of the paperbacks I buy don't cost more than $15. Then again, I like the Half Price Bookstore. And Borders has a wonderful selection for under $15 and they are much more interesting that what you will find in any law school textbook. Yeah, I know. Law school textbooks weren't intended to be interesting, but it would make the experience less boring.
Yes, this is a law school textbook, but I doubt it justifies charging law school students so much money for so little a book. Hell, I could have just photocopied it for $14.40 on the Xerox machine. But that would be a possible violation of copyright laws. I should just grin and bear it. At least my credit card company will be happy to note my newest purchase. And I thought filling my gas tank would cost me an arm and a leg....
That's all for now.
Just as I predicted, the Constitutional Law supplement arrived today. It might have arrived on Friday afternoon, but that is highly unlikely. Then again, I only had classes in the morning and I didn't check to see if it was there. OK, let's rephrase that. I know that the supplement was available today.
Surprisingly, the supplement wasn't as big or as think as I thought it would be--only 72 pages long and the size of an oversized paperback novel. I'm glad that it isn't as big or as thick as I expected it to be, but the price is way too high for such a paltry book. Yeah, I gripe a lot. I gripe about how thick and heavy the books are. If they aren't big, then they cost too much. Or they are big and they cost too much. Maybe you'll understand why I think it cost too much.
The cost of this "textbook," if you can designate it in such a manner was nearly $30. Now, for something containing 72 pages, this is an exorbitant amount. I'm not too sure about what materials and costs go into printing a book these days, but I'm very sure there isn't any gold, platinum, or any other rare materials in the ink, glue, paper, or binding. I doubt it would have cost the book publisher that much money to insert the supplementary material into the already oversized textbook. Then again, the material in the supplement was relevant, but came out later than the publishing date.
I should read the supplement to see what exactly is in there. If it turns out to be publishing errors...then then should pay more attention on quality control. If they need 72 pages to list the errors they made, that doesn't speak too highly of the company. Wait...I read their Civil Procedure textbook and that wasn't well written either. I digress.
Your ordinary paperback book doesn't cost this much. Thirty dollars for a hardback book is reasonable. Most of the paperbacks I buy don't cost more than $15. Then again, I like the Half Price Bookstore. And Borders has a wonderful selection for under $15 and they are much more interesting that what you will find in any law school textbook. Yeah, I know. Law school textbooks weren't intended to be interesting, but it would make the experience less boring.
Yes, this is a law school textbook, but I doubt it justifies charging law school students so much money for so little a book. Hell, I could have just photocopied it for $14.40 on the Xerox machine. But that would be a possible violation of copyright laws. I should just grin and bear it. At least my credit card company will be happy to note my newest purchase. And I thought filling my gas tank would cost me an arm and a leg....
That's all for now.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Textbooks
Greetings and welcome from The Un-Zone, a website that provides 100% of the recommended daily allowance of Un. All the addictive powers of illegal drugs but without the symptoms of withdrawl, the nasty side-effects, and the danger of overdose. That and it's much cheaper to get your fix.
It's August and it's time to go back to school. Actually, I've just started on Thursday and it hasn't been too bad. I'm a 2L, which means I'm done with the drudgery of the 1L year. This affords one advantage. Instead of the law school picking which classes will bore me during the school year, I get the chance to choose the classes. Woohoo! I make my own decisions like a real adult! If I select a class that turns out to be an experience from hell, it's my fault. Please excuse me while I relish this brief moment of jaded sarcasm about law school.
After a year of law school, you learn many useful lessons. Most are applicable to the real world, oddly enough. I had the honor to learn this. All while paying large sums of money for this experience. One can understand why many law school students and professors enjoy the numerous social events that law schools host. One can freely gripe about many things while imbibing large amounts of alcohol. One can do this during their own free time, particularly on Thursday nights, as most students only have one class on Friday. This is an interesting phenomenom. Why this is so, I'm not sure. Anyways...
Law school students enjoy complaining about many things. The cost of tuition. The classes at the law school. The lack of free beer flowing from water fountains. Yeah, beer does play a large part in the social life of law school students. Oh, and students complain about the textbooks.
I'm going to be blatantly obvious. Textbooks cost alot. This semester, I've spent about $600 for textbooks, and I still am not done. One of the books hasn't arrived yet. Anytime you ask the bookstore if a book has arrived yet, they'll generally respond with the phrase, "It should arrive tomorrow." Translated, this means "It won't be here until next week." It's true. When referring to textbooks, "tomorrow" translates to "next week". Sooner or later, the bookstore will admit the book will arrive "next week" and not "tomorrow". While in college, at least the bookstore gave an expected date of arrival, like the week of August 22 or something like that. Then again, it was generally next week.
A sample conversation:
Clerk: I'm sorry. This book hasn't arrived yet. It should be here tomorrow.
Me: OK. I'll come back tomorrow.
The NEXT day...
Me: Has it finally arrived yet?
Clerk: No, it hasn't. It should have been here today. It should arrive tomorrow.
Me: What? You said it would arrive today.
Clerk: Sorry. Come back tomorrow.
Me: OK.
The NEXT day...
Me: It it here?
Clerk: No, it hasn't.
Me: What?
Clerk: It should have arrived today. It should be here next week. Come back and try again on Monday.
Me: OK...
Hopefully on Monday and not another day...
Me: Is it here?
Clerk: Yes, it finally arrived. Your total will be a large amount for a poorly written, hard to understand, thick book that you won't be able to sell back to us. If you do manage to accomplish this Syssiphean task, it will be for a pittiance.
Me: What? That much? Damn.
Have you ever seen a law school textbook? They're referred to as a casebook, as the majority of the content are cases. However, for the sake of clarity, I will refer to them as textbooks, as most people know what a textbook is. Usually, they're published by a Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis subsidiary. They're thick and heavy. Most weigh five, ten pounds and number over a thousand pages. You could use them as weights and get well-toned arms, as carrying a large number of them can be tiring.If you open one to any random page, the text will be written in English, but will read like a foreign language. Writers for textbooks, for some reason, can't write a sentence without adding in numerous subordinate clauses, parentheticals, and other grammatical devices. It's obvious from their writing style that they haven't taken a legal writing course like Lawyering. Oh, and they can't use simple words. Yes, it is a legal textbook, but some common English would be nice. I won't subject you to the torture of a sample of actual text from a textbook. Or to the statutes they pepper the books with. My God. Reading them can be a painful experience.
Even lawyers who read the textbooks and teach from them complain that they're poorly written and hard to understand. Most professors have fun pointing out the errors. Which is why these heavy textbooks have supplements. Mainly to state stuff that didn't fit into the main text but the author thought was important to know. One would think a textbook this thick would have enough information for a semester long class. Oh no. These supplements are also badly written and badly edited. And it adds an extra $30 to the bill. Yeah. Which brings me to the legal guides like Gilberts and LegalLines. An extra $30 so you can actually understand what's written in the textbook. They actually explain the law in understandable English. But they're as thick as the textbooks they explain. It's an endless cycle of books and more books.
By the end of my law school career, I'll have an impressive collection of thick, heavy, and hopefully, easier to understand law school textbooks. Until then, it's time for me to go read another one so I'll be ready for class. That and I'll be hoping that the book I need will be there on Monday.
That's all for now.
It's August and it's time to go back to school. Actually, I've just started on Thursday and it hasn't been too bad. I'm a 2L, which means I'm done with the drudgery of the 1L year. This affords one advantage. Instead of the law school picking which classes will bore me during the school year, I get the chance to choose the classes. Woohoo! I make my own decisions like a real adult! If I select a class that turns out to be an experience from hell, it's my fault. Please excuse me while I relish this brief moment of jaded sarcasm about law school.
After a year of law school, you learn many useful lessons. Most are applicable to the real world, oddly enough. I had the honor to learn this. All while paying large sums of money for this experience. One can understand why many law school students and professors enjoy the numerous social events that law schools host. One can freely gripe about many things while imbibing large amounts of alcohol. One can do this during their own free time, particularly on Thursday nights, as most students only have one class on Friday. This is an interesting phenomenom. Why this is so, I'm not sure. Anyways...
Law school students enjoy complaining about many things. The cost of tuition. The classes at the law school. The lack of free beer flowing from water fountains. Yeah, beer does play a large part in the social life of law school students. Oh, and students complain about the textbooks.
I'm going to be blatantly obvious. Textbooks cost alot. This semester, I've spent about $600 for textbooks, and I still am not done. One of the books hasn't arrived yet. Anytime you ask the bookstore if a book has arrived yet, they'll generally respond with the phrase, "It should arrive tomorrow." Translated, this means "It won't be here until next week." It's true. When referring to textbooks, "tomorrow" translates to "next week". Sooner or later, the bookstore will admit the book will arrive "next week" and not "tomorrow". While in college, at least the bookstore gave an expected date of arrival, like the week of August 22 or something like that. Then again, it was generally next week.
A sample conversation:
Clerk: I'm sorry. This book hasn't arrived yet. It should be here tomorrow.
Me: OK. I'll come back tomorrow.
The NEXT day...
Me: Has it finally arrived yet?
Clerk: No, it hasn't. It should have been here today. It should arrive tomorrow.
Me: What? You said it would arrive today.
Clerk: Sorry. Come back tomorrow.
Me:
The NEXT day...
Me: It it here?
Clerk: No, it hasn't.
Me: What?
Clerk: It should have arrived today. It should be here next week. Come back and try again on Monday.
Me: OK...
Hopefully on Monday and not another day...
Me: Is it here?
Clerk: Yes, it finally arrived. Your total will be a large amount for a poorly written, hard to understand, thick book that you won't be able to sell back to us. If you do manage to accomplish this Syssiphean task, it will be for a pittiance.
Me: What? That much? Damn.
Have you ever seen a law school textbook? They're referred to as a casebook, as the majority of the content are cases. However, for the sake of clarity, I will refer to them as textbooks, as most people know what a textbook is. Usually, they're published by a Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis subsidiary. They're thick and heavy. Most weigh five, ten pounds and number over a thousand pages. You could use them as weights and get well-toned arms, as carrying a large number of them can be tiring.If you open one to any random page, the text will be written in English, but will read like a foreign language. Writers for textbooks, for some reason, can't write a sentence without adding in numerous subordinate clauses, parentheticals, and other grammatical devices. It's obvious from their writing style that they haven't taken a legal writing course like Lawyering. Oh, and they can't use simple words. Yes, it is a legal textbook, but some common English would be nice. I won't subject you to the torture of a sample of actual text from a textbook. Or to the statutes they pepper the books with. My God. Reading them can be a painful experience.
Even lawyers who read the textbooks and teach from them complain that they're poorly written and hard to understand. Most professors have fun pointing out the errors. Which is why these heavy textbooks have supplements. Mainly to state stuff that didn't fit into the main text but the author thought was important to know. One would think a textbook this thick would have enough information for a semester long class. Oh no. These supplements are also badly written and badly edited. And it adds an extra $30 to the bill. Yeah. Which brings me to the legal guides like Gilberts and LegalLines. An extra $30 so you can actually understand what's written in the textbook. They actually explain the law in understandable English. But they're as thick as the textbooks they explain. It's an endless cycle of books and more books.
By the end of my law school career, I'll have an impressive collection of thick, heavy, and hopefully, easier to understand law school textbooks. Until then, it's time for me to go read another one so I'll be ready for class. That and I'll be hoping that the book I need will be there on Monday.
That's all for now.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Office Supply Mayhem
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, one of those weird sites on the Internet that makes you wonder if it was all a hallucinogen-induced dream or an actual site. Just kidding. The stuff I post on here isn't that strange. I can think of many sites that are much more stranger. Anyways...
Remember the show MacGyver? That was a really great show. Who wouldn't want to be MacGyver? Unless you were the bad guys. Then you wanted to kill him or run away. He could get out of any situation with some science, a paperclip, and lots of ingenuity. For a person who didn't resort to violence that often or guns (only one time in the pilor episode), he sure did know how to make lots of things go boom. A true nice guy, he got the girl and did it with style.
After seeing the show, it got me wondering what could you really do with seemingly ordinary stuff. So I would imagine and experiment with various items I found around the house. Sometimes, I would just draw stuff that seemed really cool at the time. Alas, none of them worked that well or they were just the wishful thinking of a quasi-mad genius child. I still wonder. Can you turn seemingly innocent items like paperclips into something useful or possibly dangerous?
Apparently, you can. With ingenuity, much pain, and lots of tape, one can turn rulers into a crossbow. Or a highlighter into...well...something that defies description. I'm not exactly sure when you would be able to use these implements. Or why you would want to use them in the first place. Or what sort of strange mind would come up with this stuff and actually build it.
Even then, one must admire the ingenuity and craftmanship that went into building some of these...um...projects. I can't think of a better word to describe what these people have built. It's the best eupehmism I can think of at this moment. Anything else would sound inadequate.
As interesting as I find these projects, personally, I would not attempt to build them. I'm way too clumsy and I lack adequate hand-eye coordination. Considering that all of the projects actually work and that most of them involve things that could injure, maim, and poke eyes out, combining my clumsiness and sharp objects would make for a painful situation. I'm reminded of my days in Computer Science and I had to build a circuit board for a class. I learned that soldering irons are very hot. Solder is hot. Yeah, and I have cut myself numerous times with sharp objects too many times.
Some readers of this blog and those who have visited the site might be tempted to build these things. I'm hoping that you all are well-informed, rational people with lots of common sense. Please use it. You would be crazy to attempt to build them. They can cause injury to self and to others. You'd be better off building models or something. Yeah, and if you do attempt to build them, I hope you have good insurance 'cause you'll probably need it.
That's all for now.
Office Bricolage
http://www.bleacheatingfreaks.com/
Remember the show MacGyver? That was a really great show. Who wouldn't want to be MacGyver? Unless you were the bad guys. Then you wanted to kill him or run away. He could get out of any situation with some science, a paperclip, and lots of ingenuity. For a person who didn't resort to violence that often or guns (only one time in the pilor episode), he sure did know how to make lots of things go boom. A true nice guy, he got the girl and did it with style.
After seeing the show, it got me wondering what could you really do with seemingly ordinary stuff. So I would imagine and experiment with various items I found around the house. Sometimes, I would just draw stuff that seemed really cool at the time. Alas, none of them worked that well or they were just the wishful thinking of a quasi-mad genius child. I still wonder. Can you turn seemingly innocent items like paperclips into something useful or possibly dangerous?
Apparently, you can. With ingenuity, much pain, and lots of tape, one can turn rulers into a crossbow. Or a highlighter into...well...something that defies description. I'm not exactly sure when you would be able to use these implements. Or why you would want to use them in the first place. Or what sort of strange mind would come up with this stuff and actually build it.
Even then, one must admire the ingenuity and craftmanship that went into building some of these...um...projects. I can't think of a better word to describe what these people have built. It's the best eupehmism I can think of at this moment. Anything else would sound inadequate.
As interesting as I find these projects, personally, I would not attempt to build them. I'm way too clumsy and I lack adequate hand-eye coordination. Considering that all of the projects actually work and that most of them involve things that could injure, maim, and poke eyes out, combining my clumsiness and sharp objects would make for a painful situation. I'm reminded of my days in Computer Science and I had to build a circuit board for a class. I learned that soldering irons are very hot. Solder is hot. Yeah, and I have cut myself numerous times with sharp objects too many times.
Some readers of this blog and those who have visited the site might be tempted to build these things. I'm hoping that you all are well-informed, rational people with lots of common sense. Please use it. You would be crazy to attempt to build them. They can cause injury to self and to others. You'd be better off building models or something. Yeah, and if you do attempt to build them, I hope you have good insurance 'cause you'll probably need it.
That's all for now.
Office Bricolage
http://www.bleacheatingfreaks.com/
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Ghosts
Welcome to The Un-Zone, the only site that looks into the random thoughts that inhabit the mind of a strange KU law school student. Well, it's the only site that I know of. Well, there could be another site online, but I haven't seen them. I spend lots of time online, so I should know.
I like ghost stories, especially the local ones. The legendary Gateway to Hell located at Stull Cemetery. (There are two Stull cemeteries. The other church is located a few miles away. Due to vandals, trespassers, drunk people, and safety reasons, the old church was torn down. It was a landmark on Highway 40.) There's Sigman Nu's Virginia. The city of Wichita has Theorosa's Bridge. And there's a ghost inhabiting Kansas State University's old football stadium. Or so they say...
This post is about ghosts. Of course, given this topic, it would be more suitable for Halloween. However, I feel like posting this today, as it is gnawing at my mind and I have to post it. The ghosts I am going to talk about aren't the ghosts of horror movies and spooky stories, but more philosophical ones. The ghosts of reality; the ghosts of physical laws, the things we consider "real." Beware, the following may turn into one massive brain-twisting post. If you don't mind such things, read on. I ain't responsible for your future insanity.
Now what's a ghost? According to The American Heritage College Dictionary, a ghost is "The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear to living persons or to haunt former inhabitants....A returning or haunting memory or image."
Given these basic definitions, ghosts have no matter and no energy. According to the modern views of science, ghosts do not exist in the physical world. Therefore, they only exist in people's minds. For all intents and purposes, anyone who believes in their actual, physical existance are either crazy or living in a primitive state of mind.Of course, the existance of ghosts depends on the context of thought a person possesses. People in Ancient Greece and Rome were as intelligent as we were; some of notable repute, even more that most people today. And yet, they believed in polytheistic religion, spirits, and other "foolish" notions. In that context, these things were as real to them as photons, atoms, and neturons are as real to us today. In our context, ghosts exist. We believe in them so thoroughly that they are real.
What the...? You don't believe me when I say these statements? I know what you're going to say. "Ghosts don't exist. They're imaginary. They're just superstitious beliefs like black cats and stepping under ladders. They only exist in your mind. Only crazy or nutty people believe in the existence of ghosts."
OK. Now think about this. We all know that atoms exist. We've seen them. Well, not exactly. We have these electron microspcope pictures that show little bumps and we have cloud chamber pictures that show the tracks that atoms leave, but we don't have really good ones. It's akin to the Loch Ness Monster or high scool yearbook pictures. Yeah. We all have had a bad school picture one time or another in our life. Um, I digress from the topic of this post.
Now atoms. An Ancient Greek named Democritus came up with the idea of atoms. Stemming from "atomos", the Greek word for indivisible, atoms were the building blocks of all things. Differently shaped atoms made the basic elements--earth, wind, fire, water. We now look at these notions as quaint, but it was accepted for years AS fact. We now know there are over 100 elements(up to 114 at last count) that make up all matter. We all know atoms aren't the smallest particles. But for many years, this was accepted as "real." Humans supposedly removed all of the superstition of the ghost-infested past.
Fast forward several thousand years. We discovered that atoms were made of things called electrons, protons, and neutrons. This was the "new" theory. Atoms were made of these three basic particles. Now, this was expounded as "real." Experimental evidence proved the existance of these particles. None of the "unscientific" junk of the past. They replaced "ghosts" with "fact", again.
Jump ahead to now. We now "know" there are other particles. Omega particles, tau particles, Z particles, W particles, etc. They are made of tiny things called quarks that have fractional charges. You need three quarks of three different colors--red, blue, and green--to make matter. This is called the quantum chromodynamics theory or QCD theory. And there are these things called "strings" that exist in the 10th dimension. Now, THIS is the new "REAL SCIENCE" replacing all the quaint superstition of the past.
Of course, given all of this, the theory of atoms must have existed before scientists came up with atomic theory. It would be crazy to think that before someone came up with the theory, atoms didn't exist. Modern atomic theory must have existed long before someone came up with the words to descibe it. The interactions in atoms, what particles are there in atoms, the forces, everything, must have existed. But when you think about it, this is plainly contradictary. It has no mass; it has no energy; it had no mind to exist in. Given these facts, it is nonexistant. And yet, it exists. It took the mind of Democritus to find them floating in space and to write them on paper. And string theory and everything else existed, but Democritus just didn't get them. Modern atomic theory with all those quarks and God knows what else, MUST be TRUE because EVERYONE knows it is true. All of our teachers TAUGHT us it was true. That's crazy.
Why? Atomic theory exists ONLY in the minds of people. It's just a ghost that people accept as reality. It HAS to be true because everyone tells us it is true. However, when you examine the subject, all the things that we consider to be "true," what we consider to be the "way things work," are all inventions of the human mind. Then again, even the human mind is an invention of humans. Mind has no matter or energy. It can't be given a specific location like "1.59 inches above fissure X and .37 inches to the right of the Y gland." No, we just can't do that. Laws of human nature--inventions of the human mind. The rules of logic--inventions of the human mind. We really don't know what these rules are in reality, but we come up with plausible explanations given the stuff we have. They are explanations to remove the ghosts that have infected past thoughts and to install rational, modern thoughts.
We are just as ignorant as those we mock. We mock others for their beliefs in ghosts and other superstitions. We are arrogant in our belief that we're superior in thought and in everything else. Then again, they might be superior becasue they recognize that they have ghosts. We have our own ghosts, but we don't recognize their existance. They still haunt us each and every day.
Everything in our world is run by ghosts--the spirits of dead people and the returning images and memories. People know, well at least I hope they do, that killing others in general is bad. There are, of course, exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions, and so on, but you get the general point. You could trace the line of thought that influenced you back to, quite possibly, the Bible or some other book. Jesus, Muhammed, prophets, whoever you want to believe wrote that book, is talking to you. Their shaping our thoughts. Our ideas of political thought are shaped by ghosts. Common sense is shaped by ghosts and even more ghosts. When scientists and experts come up with brand new ideas based upon a better understanding of the world, we'll learn a new reality which will be a new ghost for future generations to mock as unscientific and foolish.
You know what? A hundred, maybe two hundred years from now, people will laugh at what we considered scientific. "Can you believe what they thought back then? All those silly theories about self-esteem and ego. All those foolish notions about atomic structure. All those unscientific theories about the world they had back then! You would have thought they believed ghosts existed!" And they will believe we were foolish because they'll have new fantasies to belive. Even more "scientific" and "modern" than those before. And those ghosts will become reality. And the cycle will never end.
That's all for now.
I like ghost stories, especially the local ones. The legendary Gateway to Hell located at Stull Cemetery. (There are two Stull cemeteries. The other church is located a few miles away. Due to vandals, trespassers, drunk people, and safety reasons, the old church was torn down. It was a landmark on Highway 40.) There's Sigman Nu's Virginia. The city of Wichita has Theorosa's Bridge. And there's a ghost inhabiting Kansas State University's old football stadium. Or so they say...
This post is about ghosts. Of course, given this topic, it would be more suitable for Halloween. However, I feel like posting this today, as it is gnawing at my mind and I have to post it. The ghosts I am going to talk about aren't the ghosts of horror movies and spooky stories, but more philosophical ones. The ghosts of reality; the ghosts of physical laws, the things we consider "real." Beware, the following may turn into one massive brain-twisting post. If you don't mind such things, read on. I ain't responsible for your future insanity.
Now what's a ghost? According to The American Heritage College Dictionary, a ghost is "The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear to living persons or to haunt former inhabitants....A returning or haunting memory or image."
Given these basic definitions, ghosts have no matter and no energy. According to the modern views of science, ghosts do not exist in the physical world. Therefore, they only exist in people's minds. For all intents and purposes, anyone who believes in their actual, physical existance are either crazy or living in a primitive state of mind.Of course, the existance of ghosts depends on the context of thought a person possesses. People in Ancient Greece and Rome were as intelligent as we were; some of notable repute, even more that most people today. And yet, they believed in polytheistic religion, spirits, and other "foolish" notions. In that context, these things were as real to them as photons, atoms, and neturons are as real to us today. In our context, ghosts exist. We believe in them so thoroughly that they are real.
What the...? You don't believe me when I say these statements? I know what you're going to say. "Ghosts don't exist. They're imaginary. They're just superstitious beliefs like black cats and stepping under ladders. They only exist in your mind. Only crazy or nutty people believe in the existence of ghosts."
OK. Now think about this. We all know that atoms exist. We've seen them. Well, not exactly. We have these electron microspcope pictures that show little bumps and we have cloud chamber pictures that show the tracks that atoms leave, but we don't have really good ones. It's akin to the Loch Ness Monster or high scool yearbook pictures. Yeah. We all have had a bad school picture one time or another in our life. Um, I digress from the topic of this post.
Now atoms. An Ancient Greek named Democritus came up with the idea of atoms. Stemming from "atomos", the Greek word for indivisible, atoms were the building blocks of all things. Differently shaped atoms made the basic elements--earth, wind, fire, water. We now look at these notions as quaint, but it was accepted for years AS fact. We now know there are over 100 elements(up to 114 at last count) that make up all matter. We all know atoms aren't the smallest particles. But for many years, this was accepted as "real." Humans supposedly removed all of the superstition of the ghost-infested past.
Fast forward several thousand years. We discovered that atoms were made of things called electrons, protons, and neutrons. This was the "new" theory. Atoms were made of these three basic particles. Now, this was expounded as "real." Experimental evidence proved the existance of these particles. None of the "unscientific" junk of the past. They replaced "ghosts" with "fact", again.
Jump ahead to now. We now "know" there are other particles. Omega particles, tau particles, Z particles, W particles, etc. They are made of tiny things called quarks that have fractional charges. You need three quarks of three different colors--red, blue, and green--to make matter. This is called the quantum chromodynamics theory or QCD theory. And there are these things called "strings" that exist in the 10th dimension. Now, THIS is the new "REAL SCIENCE" replacing all the quaint superstition of the past.
Of course, given all of this, the theory of atoms must have existed before scientists came up with atomic theory. It would be crazy to think that before someone came up with the theory, atoms didn't exist. Modern atomic theory must have existed long before someone came up with the words to descibe it. The interactions in atoms, what particles are there in atoms, the forces, everything, must have existed. But when you think about it, this is plainly contradictary. It has no mass; it has no energy; it had no mind to exist in. Given these facts, it is nonexistant. And yet, it exists. It took the mind of Democritus to find them floating in space and to write them on paper. And string theory and everything else existed, but Democritus just didn't get them. Modern atomic theory with all those quarks and God knows what else, MUST be TRUE because EVERYONE knows it is true. All of our teachers TAUGHT us it was true. That's crazy.
Why? Atomic theory exists ONLY in the minds of people. It's just a ghost that people accept as reality. It HAS to be true because everyone tells us it is true. However, when you examine the subject, all the things that we consider to be "true," what we consider to be the "way things work," are all inventions of the human mind. Then again, even the human mind is an invention of humans. Mind has no matter or energy. It can't be given a specific location like "1.59 inches above fissure X and .37 inches to the right of the Y gland." No, we just can't do that. Laws of human nature--inventions of the human mind. The rules of logic--inventions of the human mind. We really don't know what these rules are in reality, but we come up with plausible explanations given the stuff we have. They are explanations to remove the ghosts that have infected past thoughts and to install rational, modern thoughts.
We are just as ignorant as those we mock. We mock others for their beliefs in ghosts and other superstitions. We are arrogant in our belief that we're superior in thought and in everything else. Then again, they might be superior becasue they recognize that they have ghosts. We have our own ghosts, but we don't recognize their existance. They still haunt us each and every day.
Everything in our world is run by ghosts--the spirits of dead people and the returning images and memories. People know, well at least I hope they do, that killing others in general is bad. There are, of course, exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions, and so on, but you get the general point. You could trace the line of thought that influenced you back to, quite possibly, the Bible or some other book. Jesus, Muhammed, prophets, whoever you want to believe wrote that book, is talking to you. Their shaping our thoughts. Our ideas of political thought are shaped by ghosts. Common sense is shaped by ghosts and even more ghosts. When scientists and experts come up with brand new ideas based upon a better understanding of the world, we'll learn a new reality which will be a new ghost for future generations to mock as unscientific and foolish.
You know what? A hundred, maybe two hundred years from now, people will laugh at what we considered scientific. "Can you believe what they thought back then? All those silly theories about self-esteem and ego. All those foolish notions about atomic structure. All those unscientific theories about the world they had back then! You would have thought they believed ghosts existed!" And they will believe we were foolish because they'll have new fantasies to belive. Even more "scientific" and "modern" than those before. And those ghosts will become reality. And the cycle will never end.
That's all for now.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
The Handyman's Secret Weapon
We're going to use the handyman's secret weapon...duct tape.
-Red Green
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the Universe together.
-Carl Zwanzig
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the site for all things Un and a handy source for information relating to alien invasion plans and inevitable world domination. If you would like to know when you'll be assimilated, please check this site on a regular basis. It's now running Mind Control/Reading Language(MC/RL). After two or three visits, you'll be able to see these plans on the site. They're hidden like the word "fnord" in newspapers, magazines, news broadcasts, etc. I'm not that stupid. Like I'm going to type them and show them to anyone...
Now that you know I'm the leader of an alien invasion force, let's go on a strange and wonderful trip through the recesses of my mind. This journey will be on the Duct Tape Express. This post is all about duct tape. It is, quite possibly, one of the most useful substances ever. From taping things to patching bullet wounds to the chest, duct tape is a multi-purpose tool. You just can't leave home without it.
Patching bullet wounds to the chest? You can't use duct tape to patch a bullet wound. Or can you? If you read any EMT/first responder textbook, they tell you how to patch a sucking chest wound with duct tape and a plastic bag. Of course, calling 911 and getting the person to a hospital is the best course, but in a pinch, this might keep a person alive long enough to get them there or at least until an EMT gets there. Military medics keep several rolls of duct tape handy in their first-aid kits. If you run out of bandages or surgical tape, duct tape will work. It sticks and it is waterproof. I use it to keep Bandaids on awkward places like ankles, elbows, and fingers. Those pesky places where they seem to fall off no matter how hard you try.
Most people don't get shot in the chest. That is an extreme example on the usefulness of duct tape. There are many everyday medical uses for duct tape. For more common uses, blister prevention and emergency splints. If you are an outdoors-type of person, you get blisters on your feet from all the hiking and walking. You could buy shoe inserts or moleskin, but one of the best things to use...duct tape. Just wrap a couple layers around your heels and the balls of your feet. You'll be able to walk for miles and miles. If you already have blisters, they're painful when they pop. Use a sterilized needle to release the pus and then wrap in duct tape. Polar expeditions use this method.
Got a sprained ankle? Wrap with a towel and apply several layers of duct tape. Got a broken finger? You immobilize it with a popsicle stick, and wrap with several layers of duct tape. Cracked or bruised ribs? Wrap with duct tape. Even doctors use duct tape. It works, it's cheaper, and it's found everywhere. Surgeons know that razor blades are sharper than surgical scalpels. They have a machine called a blade cutter that cuts razor blades for surgical use. Bet you didn't know that. Duct tape is an HMO on a roll, but a whole lot cheaper. Of course, professional medical help is the best. However, if you are in the middle of nowhere and you don't have a doctor nearby, duct tape is a good thing.
The United States Army. The most advanced and well-equipped military force in the world. Multi-million, multi-billion dollar equipment loaded with computer chips, lasers, and Lord knows what else is in there. When something breaks down or doesn't work that well, what does the Army do to solve these pesky problems? They use duct tape. What? They use duct tape? It's not just any kind of duct tape, but green duct tape. Lots and lots of duct tape. It's scary to think that the Army, let alone the military would not be albe to function without a steady supply of duct tape. A list of several military uses for duct tape. Some of them, quite surprising.
1. Blindfolds, gags, and restraints. This is the classic use of duct tape. Criminals, thugs, and terrorists use this method. Of course, a military built of professional solidier can't be caught using duct tape like common criminals. Some may argue that being stuck on old methods may be detrimental as it develops into stagnancy. Yes, they have newer methods of restraint, but few things beat this classic method.
2. Grenades. If you need firepower in a small package, you can't beat a hand grenade. They're useful, as long as the arming pin isn't pulled prematurely. You have five seconds to throw it as far as you can, or you will become a human pin cushion. Those pins get snagged on clothing real easily. To solve this problem, you wrap the arming pins in a layer or two of duct tape.
3. Bullet holes. Medics using duct tape for bullet wounds, but what about shot-up equipment? Well, you patch them up with duct tape. Some soldiers call green duct tape as "100 MPH tape" because you can fix fabric wings on old planes and fly up to 100 MPH. One person writes of fixing a gas tank with duct tape and some other stuff. He managed to drive 250 miles with this jury-rigged system.
4. Biohazard suits. Remember when Homeland Security told everyone to buy duct tape? And everyone laughed. You won't be laughing after you read this. People involved with biological and chemical weapons use duct tape to prevent themselves from getting infected with deadly bacteria and viruses. The CDC uses duct tape. USAMRIID(United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases) uses duct tape. It's almost scary. To ensure a proper seal on biohazard and chemical weapons suits, they use duct tape, but a brown-colored one. You wrap several layers around the joints to make sure your suit doesn't leak. You also wrap tape around your ankle just in case. If you get a leak in the field suit, you use the duct tape wrapped around your ankle to seal the leak. After all, getting anthrax or some Level Four disease due to an improper seal would be bad and all because you didn't use enough duct tape.
That was just a short listing of what you can do with duct tape. There are many more uses for duct tape. So if you got a problem to solve or something to fix, just reach out and grab the roll of duct tape. You'll be surprised at what it can do.
That's all for now.
The Duct Tape Guys Site
http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/index1.html
Medical Uses of Duct Tape
http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/hmo/
Military Uses of Duct Tape
http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/PX/index.html
-Red Green
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the Universe together.
-Carl Zwanzig
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the site for all things Un and a handy source for information relating to alien invasion plans and inevitable world domination. If you would like to know when you'll be assimilated, please check this site on a regular basis. It's now running Mind Control/Reading Language(MC/RL). After two or three visits, you'll be able to see these plans on the site. They're hidden like the word "fnord" in newspapers, magazines, news broadcasts, etc. I'm not that stupid. Like I'm going to type them and show them to anyone...
Now that you know I'm the leader of an alien invasion force, let's go on a strange and wonderful trip through the recesses of my mind. This journey will be on the Duct Tape Express. This post is all about duct tape. It is, quite possibly, one of the most useful substances ever. From taping things to patching bullet wounds to the chest, duct tape is a multi-purpose tool. You just can't leave home without it.
Patching bullet wounds to the chest? You can't use duct tape to patch a bullet wound. Or can you? If you read any EMT/first responder textbook, they tell you how to patch a sucking chest wound with duct tape and a plastic bag. Of course, calling 911 and getting the person to a hospital is the best course, but in a pinch, this might keep a person alive long enough to get them there or at least until an EMT gets there. Military medics keep several rolls of duct tape handy in their first-aid kits. If you run out of bandages or surgical tape, duct tape will work. It sticks and it is waterproof. I use it to keep Bandaids on awkward places like ankles, elbows, and fingers. Those pesky places where they seem to fall off no matter how hard you try.
Most people don't get shot in the chest. That is an extreme example on the usefulness of duct tape. There are many everyday medical uses for duct tape. For more common uses, blister prevention and emergency splints. If you are an outdoors-type of person, you get blisters on your feet from all the hiking and walking. You could buy shoe inserts or moleskin, but one of the best things to use...duct tape. Just wrap a couple layers around your heels and the balls of your feet. You'll be able to walk for miles and miles. If you already have blisters, they're painful when they pop. Use a sterilized needle to release the pus and then wrap in duct tape. Polar expeditions use this method.
Got a sprained ankle? Wrap with a towel and apply several layers of duct tape. Got a broken finger? You immobilize it with a popsicle stick, and wrap with several layers of duct tape. Cracked or bruised ribs? Wrap with duct tape. Even doctors use duct tape. It works, it's cheaper, and it's found everywhere. Surgeons know that razor blades are sharper than surgical scalpels. They have a machine called a blade cutter that cuts razor blades for surgical use. Bet you didn't know that. Duct tape is an HMO on a roll, but a whole lot cheaper. Of course, professional medical help is the best. However, if you are in the middle of nowhere and you don't have a doctor nearby, duct tape is a good thing.
The United States Army. The most advanced and well-equipped military force in the world. Multi-million, multi-billion dollar equipment loaded with computer chips, lasers, and Lord knows what else is in there. When something breaks down or doesn't work that well, what does the Army do to solve these pesky problems? They use duct tape. What? They use duct tape? It's not just any kind of duct tape, but green duct tape. Lots and lots of duct tape. It's scary to think that the Army, let alone the military would not be albe to function without a steady supply of duct tape. A list of several military uses for duct tape. Some of them, quite surprising.
1. Blindfolds, gags, and restraints. This is the classic use of duct tape. Criminals, thugs, and terrorists use this method. Of course, a military built of professional solidier can't be caught using duct tape like common criminals. Some may argue that being stuck on old methods may be detrimental as it develops into stagnancy. Yes, they have newer methods of restraint, but few things beat this classic method.
2. Grenades. If you need firepower in a small package, you can't beat a hand grenade. They're useful, as long as the arming pin isn't pulled prematurely. You have five seconds to throw it as far as you can, or you will become a human pin cushion. Those pins get snagged on clothing real easily. To solve this problem, you wrap the arming pins in a layer or two of duct tape.
3. Bullet holes. Medics using duct tape for bullet wounds, but what about shot-up equipment? Well, you patch them up with duct tape. Some soldiers call green duct tape as "100 MPH tape" because you can fix fabric wings on old planes and fly up to 100 MPH. One person writes of fixing a gas tank with duct tape and some other stuff. He managed to drive 250 miles with this jury-rigged system.
4. Biohazard suits. Remember when Homeland Security told everyone to buy duct tape? And everyone laughed. You won't be laughing after you read this. People involved with biological and chemical weapons use duct tape to prevent themselves from getting infected with deadly bacteria and viruses. The CDC uses duct tape. USAMRIID(United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases) uses duct tape. It's almost scary. To ensure a proper seal on biohazard and chemical weapons suits, they use duct tape, but a brown-colored one. You wrap several layers around the joints to make sure your suit doesn't leak. You also wrap tape around your ankle just in case. If you get a leak in the field suit, you use the duct tape wrapped around your ankle to seal the leak. After all, getting anthrax or some Level Four disease due to an improper seal would be bad and all because you didn't use enough duct tape.
That was just a short listing of what you can do with duct tape. There are many more uses for duct tape. So if you got a problem to solve or something to fix, just reach out and grab the roll of duct tape. You'll be surprised at what it can do.
That's all for now.
The Duct Tape Guys Site
http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/index1.html
Medical Uses of Duct Tape
http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/hmo/
Military Uses of Duct Tape
http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/PX/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)