going on strike

Somebody wasn't prepared today in Civ Pro.

Not me, mind you. Ever since my last conversation with Prof. Civ Pro, I have briefed each case extremely thoroughly. I've done web searches to see if there have been relevant articles published about the case. I've checked commercial outlines to see if I understood it correctly. I've looked up the case in Glannon to read what he has to add. I've rehearsed questions in my head. In short, I have been utterly prepared to feel that Socratic love.

However, Prof. Civ Pro is playing hard to get. I have not been called on, despite these heroic and totally unmaintainable efforts. No, I am not feeling any love at all. He hasn't even looked at me as he skims over the class for a victim.

Harrumph, I say. I am declaring a cessation to any further excessive case reading. If he calls on me, I'm secretly going to say to myself, "You had your chance, buddy!"

That'll sure show him.

true wuv

Unfortunately for my husband, I declared my love for the coffee man this morning.

Lacking coffee in my apartment this morning, I stumbled downstairs to the very nice little café nearby. Mr. Coffee Man made me my usual latte with a minimum of conversation, but with a friendly and sympathetic smile.

He put the steaming latte down and took my money. I smelled it, and my brain cells did their little happy-happy-caffeine-is-coming dance, and I exclaimed with feeling, "Lovely! Thank you very much!"

At least, that's what I intended to say. But after the words left my mouth, the man in line behind me gave me a really funny look and edged away slightly. Mr. Coffee Man, on the other hand, smiled broadly at me, carefully picked up my latte, tenderly wrapped it in two little cardboard latte holders, and handed it to me.

I had said, "Love you! Thank you very much!"

Thankfully, I wasn't called on in Civ Pro today. God knows what I would have said to Prof. Civ Pro.

an open letter

Dear Mister Multi-Colored Leather Pants,

In hindsight, I must admit the first mistake was mine. In the scramble for seats on the first day, I noticed your crisp linen suit and shockingly red tie, and thought to myself, "Hm. He's probably annoying. I shouldn't sit near him." Then years of training in social correctness jumped in, I mentally corrected myself for my narrowmindedness, and I sat down near you.

Alas, my atavistic instinct that the annoyingly-dressed are annoying in person proved to be prescient.

Mister MCLP, allow me get to the meat of the matter. I am sure that you are a skilled air drum player. I am sure you are the Keith Moon of air drumming, the air drummer all those other air drummers secretly envy. Perhaps even Prof. Civ Pro appreciates having a sharp staccato sotto voce to accompany his discussion of Hanson v. Denckla.

Sadly, however, I am old and crabby. I do not find my learning is enhanced with a backbeat. And, just a hunch, but I'm betting that those other students don't really appreciate it when you drum faster if they don't have the answer fast enough. Really, I can't say for sure. What do you say we both think about that for a little bit?

And finally, really just a little small note in closing, if you don't stop humming the Oompa Loompa Song, I'm afraid I will not be able to guarantee any continued sane behavior on my part.

Hugs.

T.

my day is coming

As much as I am enjoying civil procedure, Prof. Civ Pro himself can still strike steely fear into my heart.

I went to his office hours today because I had a question about in personam jurisdiction. He was very gracious and he answered my question clearly and directly.

While I was packing up to leave, Prof. Civ Pro asked about my background. I think he was just making polite conversation, but I briefly explained to him my software engineering background.

When he heard what I had been doing before law school, he perked up.

"Really?" he asked me.

"Really," I said, "that's what I did."

"Ah," he said, smiling broadly, "you're really going to like one of the upcoming cases."

"Mmmmmhph. Um, yeah," I replied, trying for as non-committal an answer as I could muster.

"Yes," he said, "I think you'll definitely like it." He smiled at me. "Now, how do you pronounce your name again?"

Eeeeeeeek.

voted most popular

I've noticed that Volkwagen comes up relatively frequently in my classes. I just finished reading my second case involving Volkswagen, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson. This one was for Civil Procedure, and involved a lawsuit filed in Oklahoma in 1980 which tested the extent of personal jurisdiction.

The first case was for Property. We read Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., which was a dispute over the domain http://www.vw.net.

I've never read any cases involving Volkswagen as a defendant in criminal law, which is probably a very good development as far as they are concerned, but in one case it was specifically mentioned that the defendants were hiding in a VW bus.

Volkswagen now is the only corporation that has had the honor of being mentioned in three of my classes. They win my most recently created prize, the 'Most Popular Corporation In Law School' award. Lucky them!

kind bunnies

The stressbunnies have started hopping madly. We haven't even reached the middle of the semester, but tensions in the school have started rising. One poor kid even dropped out, which is too bad, because I think she would have made an excellent lawyer.

A few of the students who sit near me were going to review some material on Friday afternoon. They asked me if I wanted to join, which was nice of them, but I had other plans.

Stressbunny #1, curious about what could be more interesting than a Friday afternoon study group, asked me what I was doing.

"Oh," I replied nonchalantly, "I'm going to go see the Dead tonight."

There was a shocked silence as the gathered stressbunnies absorbed that.

Stressbunny #2, bless his heart, protested, "But you're not that old!"

I replied, honestly, that it was my husband who was the big fan, but I always thought the concerts were a lot of fun.

Again, there was a slight pause. Then Stressbunny #1 asked dubiously, "How old is he?"

I explained that he wasn't that old, but that he had got into the Dead as a teenager, when they were already well-established. The concerts are trips down memory lane for us. My husband accompanied me on my nostalgic-oh-Lord-did-I-really-dress-like-that trip to see The Cure, and I go with him to see the Dead, even after St. Jerry moved on to that great big VW bus in the sky.

The stressbunnies registered this, and then Stressbunny #2, trying enthusiastically to bridge the generation gap, nodded knowingly.

"I see," he said sagely. "It's like my little sister. She was born in 1989, but she totally loves 80s music!"

I gravely acknowledged that yes, it might be like that.

technology is bad, bad, bad

In all my classes other than legal writing and research, the time just flies by. I look up, and suddenly class is over. In legal writing and research, however, I watch the individual drops of condensation form on the water bottle I must keep next to me to stay awake.

I should explain what makes this class so amazingly difficult to get through. It's not the material itself. Legal writing and research are good skills to learn.

No, what kills me are the absurd limitations that are placed on us. We are not allowed to use well-established technical solutions to legal research questions. No, if we so much as touch a computer for our research, we become candidates for expulsion.

The full horror of this restriction didn't become apparent until a few days ago. Our classroom darkened and the instructor placed slides on the overhead that were photocopied index pages from various books. I realized, as he droned on about index page after index page, that what I could undoubtedly do in seconds on the computer was going to take me hours of manual labor. I'm a software engineer, and this is my water torture.

My instructor claimed, "You won't understand how the computer works if you don't do it the hard way first."

I muttered, "Try me.", under my breath, but luckily for me he didn't hear.

What else is this but a data indexing and layout problem? We have a lot of data, which includes the statutes, the cases, and persuasive commentary. Then we have methods by which we have to index into that data. How on earth does it matter whether I index by computer or by book? That isn't key to understanding the underlying schema of the data itself. What I have to understand, and what is important to know, is how all this legal data is interrelated, not the methods that I use to get to it.

I'm surprised they don't insist we write our legal memos with quill pens and candlelight.

stormy weather

Yikes.

You folks in Virginia and North Carolina, you take care of yourselves.

preacher man

Civil procedure, which was my most feared class at the beginning of the semester, is quickly turning into my favorite class. Granted, the order of that list changes more frequently than Ben and J. Lo's wedding date, but civil procedure has had a good solid run for the past few days, which is more than one can say for poor Ben and Jennifer.

The rise to the top was propelled by Prof. Civ Pro himself. Don't get me wrong; I will still never be late to that class or be unprepared, and I only ask a question if I am very, very sure it is a good question. But he's civil (har, har) when he's pressing for an answer, and, more importantly, I always learn something from the exchanges he has with the students.

Prof. Civ Pro doesn't use a microphone, unlike the other professors. While he's teaching he strides back and forth across the classroom, shaking his fists to emphasize a particularily important point. He doesn't just teach civil procedure, he preaches the gospel of civil procedure. Points that he wants to make are repeated, like the minister testifying before his parishioners. We, his flock, are called to bear witness to the subtlety and beauty of the civil justice system.

My notes sure bear witness to his passion for the subject. I'm not normally given to exclamation points or excessive capitalization, particularly in my own notes, but my notes for this class are littered with both. ("The obligation which is sued upon here arose from activities in the state of WA!!! For those reasons it is FAIR and REASONABLE to require the company to defend in WA.")

I can't say that I ever used exclamation points while in engineering school.

technical issues, etc.

Just a little bit of housekeeping here.

First of all, a cheery wave to all folks who have found my blog and linked to it. I don't get the referrer logs from AOL so I don't generally know when people are linking to me unless I do a Google search on myself. That's always entertaining, but, not unlike my predilection for very fine, very dark chocolate, probably not something that I will regularly engage in. So I'm not ignoring you folks, I just don't know about you. Drop me a note and say hi. :) [this screenname at aol.com]

Also, it has become very clear to me that I have utterly forgotten the art of quotation marks. Mea culpa.

yin and yang

So far, I'm really liking law school. I love the classes that count, even civil procedure. It is thoroughly enjoyable work. I even like my homework. I don't mind doing the reading, I love digging into the details of the cases, and I have yet to be bored by it. Sometimes it's hard, but it is a good sort of hard, a challenge rather than a burden.

It stands to reason, therefore, that I find something I dislike intensely. I suppose it's just impossible to go to school and like every single class you take.

Notice that above I qualified the classes I love as those courses that count. That's because there is one course, legal writing and research, that doesn't count. I will receive a grade for the course, but it doesn't go into my GPA calculation.

Things got off to a bad start in the first day. We went around the room, giving our biographies. Of course by then all of us knew each other, so it was really just for the instructor's benefit.

When I gave my bio, I ended with me quitting my job in June.

LWR instructor, laughing knowingly: You mean you were laid off.

Me: Uh, no. [Ed.: And so what if I had been? I know lots of good people who have been laid off. What business is it of his?]

LWR instructor, clearly skeptical: Oh, really?

Me: Um, yeah, I'm pretty sure I quit.

LWR instructor: doesn't say anything further, but arches his eyebrows at me.

We go around the room, and we get to my friend S.

S.: I worked as a software engineer...

LWR instructor, sarcastically: So I suppose you quit too.

S., startled: Uh, yes.

LWR instructor, pointedly: All my software engineer clients were laid off, and I find they're totally unrealistic about what the law means and what it can do for you.

Nice guy, eh?

Things have not improved in this class. I absolutely hate it. I resent the homework and I spend as little time on the class as I can possibly get away with.

However, every single time I get frustrated with it, which is more or less every time I think of it, I follow up that frustrated thought with a little chant:

"It doesn't count. It doesn't count. It doesn't count. It DOES NOT count."

wild animal kingdom

The cats are displeased with this law school schedule. It is disrupting the natural order of things.

First, I should explain a little about how rank works in our household. My cats are not what one would call liberated feminists. No, my husband, as the only unneutered male in the household, is unquestionably alpha. Regardless of the fact that I was the one who wanted a cat in the first place, regardless of how often I feed them or change their litter, the cats feel that my husband has the required equipment for alpha status and I, merely his alpha female, do not.

When I was home every single night, I was accepted as the highest ranking female partner of the man who is truly the cat's meow. They might squabble amongst themselves for rank order after me, but my position was unassailable.

However, my oldest female cat, a rescued street cat of indeterminate age, has decided that my periodic absences are an indication that I have resigned from the alpha female position. Her adored alpha needs a female with a little more stability. I am clearly too flaky for the job. She accordingly moved onto my pillow two nights ago, when I was up at my apartment, taking my nighttime position next to my husband. The next morning, at first light of dawn, she lovingly groomed his hand until he woke up.

Minus the fact that cat tongue on one's hand at dawn is a remarkably startling way to wake up, this situation was acceptable while I was at school. The bed is big enough that both the new alpha female and my husband had plenty of room.

Last night I returned home, disrupting the new order. At bedtime, the new alpha female was waiting on my pillow. The rank issue had to be settled. So I tried to move her over. She protested loudly. I pushed her away. She swatted at me. I picked her up, and dropped her on the floor. She angrily jumped back up on the bed, tail swishing madly. The younger cats watched in fascinated silence, reordering the pack in their heads. This was going to be an epic battle.

And it was. My competitor beat a tactical retreat while we were falling asleep, but made her move later, slipping between me and my husband in the bed. I rolled over, got a face full of cat fur, and groggily tossed her off the bed. She again retreated, and again returned.

We finally threw all cats out of the bedroom early in the morning and closed the door. Opposable thumbs always win.

it's an addiction

The funny thing about starting a law blog is that it sucks you into the law blogger world inexorably. You just can't help it. I was deliberately not reading a lot of blogs. It can take up a huge amount of time, and I was going to be busy. As much as I liked reading everybody's stories, I knew I couldn't possibly keep up and keep up on my classes at the same time.

JCA, over at Sua Sponte, was the first blog I ever found. I deliberately didn't look at all the other blogs on her long list of entries because I didn't want to discover more blogs. JCA is a terrific writer, however, and I thought, hey, one blog can't hurt me.

Then JCA, an unknowing but nonetheless powerful enabler, quoted a particularly funny entry from Bekah over at Mixtape Marathon, and that got me hooked. Now I must check in on Bekah's world every day.

Then a so-called "friend" of mine (temptress!) found both Dylan and Biting Tongue. Both are 1L's and former techies going through law school. I started reading their blogs and now I can't stop.

I can't even remember how I found Ambivalent Imbroglio. Classic blackout behavior there, but regardless of how he got there, Mr. AmbImb is now on my daily reading list.

Then Beanie over at Screaming Bean posted to my blog, and I found a law student totally after my own heart and I was really happy about it, and I must check in every day.

Last night was clearly the act of an addict. While procrastinating terribly on my criminal law reading, I did what I promised I would never do, and started clicking on random blogs on JCA's list. Bad move. The first blog I clicked on was Waddling Thunder over at Harvard, and bam! an hour at least was spent reading his archives.

Always-on Internet is a terrible, terrible thing for a gifted procrastinator such as myself, especially when I'm entering such a verbose and chatty field. My hit ratio on the law blogs is 100% now; I've started reading every single one I clicked on. This is not a good sign for my future efficient use of time.

Take this post, for example. I really should be reading right now.

i clearly desire more excitement in my life

This morning, I woke up ready to go and hit the books for my legal writing course. I had finished my reading for today late last night, and was going to spend today in the library, until my criminal law course began this afternoon. It's Friday, I'm going home today, and I just wanted to get through today.

I was puttering around my little room, getting ready, when fortune smiled at me. Actually, it didn't just smile at me, it laughed, giggled, and gave me a big hug. How, you say? Just a single little action: I decided to check my schedule to confirm that my criminal law course this afternoon ended when I thought it did.

That's when the true horror of the moment sank in. Inexplicably, and entirely unlike me, I had forgotten about civil procedure today. Not only had I forgotten the class, but I hadn't done the reading, I hadn't reviewed my notes from the previous class, I hadn't briefed the two cases we were responsible for, and the class began in exactly 34 minutes. And it's Prof. Civ Pro's class, where he pauses if you're late and the Socratic method really is something to be fearful of.

My heartrate immediately jumped up by about twenty percent, and I scrambled into action. I had already put my computer in my bag, so I pulled it out, sat down on the floor of my room, and read. Or more specifically, I skimmed, looking for legal phrases that might sound viable if I got called on. I actually did brief the two cases, though they were undoubtedly two of the most questionable briefs in the class.

Then, with seven minutes remaining until class began, and my apartment a ten minute walk from class, I took off. I flew down the stairs of the building, ran full speed down to the school, up the stairs (no time to wait for the elevator), and down the hallway to my classroom.

My hair was wet because I hadn't yet had time to dry it, my shirt was soaked with sweat because it's hot here today, I was out of breath from the run, I had no makeup on, and I hadn't had any coffee yet, but I managed to slip into class with twelve seconds to spare.

And then, fortune smiled again, and I was not called on. I think my heartrate finally dropped back to normal by the end of the class.

I am truly happy that it is Friday.

giving thanks

Today in criminal law, we discussed the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling in Kansas v. Hendricks.

Hendricks was a serial child molester, a man who abused children for at least thirty years and who freely admitted that if he was released, he would abuse again. He himself said that the only way his abuse would stop would be if he died.

The problem was that he had served his time. This country has a long and great tradition of preventing double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same offense), and Hendricks had been already punished for his crimes.

The state of Kansas, understandably concerned about his upcoming release, passed a law that kept Hendricks in jail under civil detention. Hendricks sued, alleging double jeopardy as well as violation of due process and ex post facto.

The Supreme Court, in a controversial decision written by Justice Thomas, ruled that detaining Hendricks was not a violation of his constitutional rights. It's a complicated decision, but more or less the Court held that the state has a right to use civil detention to imprison people who have a "mental abnormality", who show a likelihood of committing crimes again, and whom the state deems dangerous.

It's easy to see this decision as a slippery-slope sort of argument, regardless of which side you stand on. Those who opposed the decision saw it as one step towards the Minority Report, where we lock up those who have not committed any crimes because they might commit a crime in the future. Those who supported it saw a troubling acceptance of child molestation and an appalling lack of consideration for his victims. Debate certainly raged in the classroom when the professor asked us what we thought.

It is a deeply troubling case. I don't know what the right answer is. But, on this eve of September 11th, I do know that I am extrodinarily fortunate to live in a time and in a place where the rights of both the most contemptible of criminals and the most innocent of victims are considered to be a matter of serious consideration, worthy of public discussion and continued debate. For that, and for many other things, I am grateful.

amazing what a few words can do

As some of you may have been able to tell from the tenor of my posts yesterday, I did not have what I would call a Good Law School Day. I was frustrated with my inability to intuitively grasp these concepts, and while I like most of the students in my class, there were a few people yesterday who really got on my nerves.

Today I expected much of the same, except worse because Tuesdays are my long days and I woke up tired from studying late last night. It's grey and dismal out, I tripped on the steps as I walked into the building, and then I almost missed the elevator.

However, at the last minute, one of the men in my section already in the elevator saw me running and held it for me. That already brightened my day. But then -- and I can't stop grinning about this whole episode -- he said to me, "You're in my section, right?". And I said I was.

"You know, I always love what you have to say. Some people just talk and talk, but I always listen to what you're saying and think, man, how did she come up with that? That's a great point."

I immediately turned bright red, but stammered out, quite honestly, "Thank you!! That is the nicest thing anybody has ever said to me in law school!"

The other woman in the elevator, who isn't in my section at all, gave me a big smile.

He then got a crease of concern in his forehead and continued, "That is you I'm thinking about, right? Sitting down in front, second row, 3 in from left?".

I agreed that was where I sat. (Can you imagine how awful it would have been if it hadn't been me he was talking about?)

"Yes," he continued, "I just wanted to tell you that." And he smiled at me.

So here is to N., who made my day and quite possibly my week. And, in honor of N., I have decided that I am going to find another student, whom I think makes really good contributions, and tell her that as well.

is it just coincidence?

This evening I was struggling through the infamous Pennoyer v. Neff, a case that is the bane of many a first year civil procedure student. I had put on several CD's, among them Talisman's hauntingly beautiful album Tonic Rhythms.

I was about to give up my ability to understand Pennoyer v. Neff. At that moment, as I sat there, about to close the casebook, Talisman's poignant tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr., Keep Your Eyes On The Prize, wafted through the speakers:

keep your eyes on the prize

don't be dismayed

deep in your heart,

you must believe,

everything is going to be all right,

everything is going to be all right some day.

The timing was impeccable.

i'm just here to help, ma'am

Fellow law students, I present to you today a wee little test. We're all friends here, and there is no need for pressure. You won't even be graded on this. Simply consider this little hypothetical:

If you were presented with the following question, which of the following sample answers is closest to the answer that you would choose?

Professor: What is the weather outside today?

Answer A: I have no idea, but I know the weather in Paris today is sunny, clear, and warm. It rained overnight. Additionally, Paris is a lovely city with many fine cultural activities that one may engage in. Why, in fact, when I was traveling in Paris this summer, I met up with this totally hot Parisian chick and we went back to her apartment in the 4th Arrondissement, and it was raining, y'know? Did I mention she was hot?

Answer B: Well, it depends on what you mean by 'weather.' If we assume a climatological frame of reference, this so-called weather may in fact be interpreted to be an aggregation of relevant drops of moisture. That is, however, not enough to constitute a definition of weather for our purposes therefore we do not, in fact, have any weather outside today.

Answer C: Well, I don't see why you're even asking, because the weather is like totally a stinking tool of the oppressive patriarchy. Weather is unjust and causes devastation to those who need it the least. I think we can all agree that weather should be banned.

Answer D: It's hot out.

Gentle students, the correct answer to this test is D. I realize this may be difficult to understand, but sometimes economy in one's words is a helpful characteristic. If you answered A, B, or C, perhaps you should reconsider your decision to raise your hand in answer to every single question.

Thank you very much.

i hate bad movies

One thing I've noticed about this split schedule is that I've become very protective of my time off. Law school is managable, and I'm enjoying it quite a bit, but I do not suffer disruptions to my time with my husband lightly. I don't get to see him as often as I'd like, and as a result I do not want to waste the time I do have with him.

Which brings me to Face/Off. Wanting a quiet weekend at home, on Saturday night we stayed in to watch a movie.

First, you should know that we rarely stop a movie in mid-showing. I even sat all the way through Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which should tell you something.

However, as Face/Off plodded on, the extrodinarily dubious plot only marginally saved by the skill of Nicolas Cage and, I suppose, John Travolta, I found myself growing more and more resentful of the film. The plot became clear extremely early on, and in case we didn't get it, Travolta kept on doing those creepy "I'm wiping your face off with my hand" gestures to his wife and kid. (Eww.) And did they really have to name the two bad guy brothers Castor and Pollux, and in case anybody still didn't get it, give them the last name Troy? The whole movie, as much as I was able to stand, felt like a soppy love letter to a pretentious first-year film student. (Look! The colors get darker when a character is unhappy! Castor Troy is happy now, so the background is white!)

Finally, after about an hour, we stopped the DVD. We were bored, and I was resentful of the time that had been eaten up.

It's not like I don't like a good action flick, either. But the whole point of thrillers is that they are supposed to be a little thrilling, right?

i'm not in kansas anymore

Today in property we were discussing the labor theory of property creation. The general idea is that you can take something out of the commons and make it your own if you a) possess it, and b) put investment into it. Obviously, it's not that easy, but that's the broad concept.

We also discussed the ownership of ideas. Ideas are considered to be in the commons. You can copy anybody's idea, do whatever you like with it, if it's not explictly protected by some specific legal mechanism such as a patent or a trademark. (I think.)

At the break, my seatmates and I were sitting around and talking about the labor theory and ideas. The conversation was going along quite well, the normal sort of jubilent 1L we-don't-know-what-we-are-talking-about-but-this-is-fun conversation. That is, until my contribution:

"Do you think that if Linus Torvalds went super-renegade against open-source code some day he could claim that his labor and investment made Linux his?"

I giggle, because I think the idea of Linus Torvalds as a Linux-killing super-villain is very, very funny.

The others do not giggle. No, instead, an awkward silence ensues. Everybody looks at me. I blush madly, because I blush at the slightest provocation.

My neighbor C. asks, "What's open-source?"

So, in the minute before class began again, I briefly tried to explain Linus and Linux and the open-source movement. A. doubtfully suggested that she thought she might have heard of it. C. thought he knew what open-source was now that I mentioned it. I think they were being polite.

Lesson learned: Don't make dorky engineering jokes in law school.

law

One newly discovered and much appreciated advantage of law school over engineering school: you can do your homework in the bathtub.

I resemble a mottled pinkish raisin now, but nonetheless Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson bows b

beer bashes live again

My law school had a beer bash today!

This was very nostalgic for me. I remember the halcyon days of engineering, when beer bashes were a frequent part of a regular work day, and we weren't old enough to realize we'd still have to do the work we missed while attending the beer bash. (bummer, that.) It was a sunny day, the baby lawyers were happy, and all was well.

So there I am, chatting with a youngish looking student, a very nice guy, and at some point his age comes out. He is 20. As in Two-Oh, born in 1983.

I guess it had never occurred to me that there might be people in law school who can't legally drink. I would have thought, given the sloshy reputation of the profession, that being at least of legal drinking age would be some sort of requirement.

Nice guy though, even though I now feel only slightly younger than the Himalayas.

crime and punishment, california-style

Today in criminal law we discussed the California 'Three Strikes And You're Out' law. As you probably know, it's a very controversial statute, and there has been thoughtful and impassioned discussion both for and against it since the initiative passed.

I understood how it generally worked prior to class, but today I learned a subtlety of the law I hadn't previously realized: the California law has a very weird order of operations. The law states that after two serious felonies (serious felonies being a specific class of crimes), any felony conviction can trigger the three strikes law, thus guaranteeing a prison term of 25 years to life.

That means that you could have the following situation: Criminal Unlucky commits two burglaries, then commits a theft. Criminal Lucky commits a burglary, a theft, and then a burglary. (Under California law, burglary is considered a serious felony, while theft is just a regular felony.)

In my sample situation, Criminal Unlucky will trigger the three strikes law, but Criminal Lucky won't. These guys committed the exact same crimes! Yet they'd get very different sentences.

Regardless of whether three strikes in general is a good idea or a bad idea, that disparity doesn't seem right.

relaxation by the numbers

Without further delay, I present to you the numerical assessment of my river trip:

Number of hours spent in car ride to and from river: 16
Percentage of those hours my poor husband spent listening to me explain federal
subject matter jurisdiction: 25% (I think he wins an award for that.)
Number people on the trip: 20
Percentage of my siblings who came along: 100%
Number of times my boat capsized accidently: 1
Number of times my boat capsized on purpose: 3
Percentage of capize events helpfully encouraged by younger siblings: 100%
Number of times my boat was rammed by kayak piloted by younger sister: 2
Number of nights spent on the river: 2
Number of mornings in which my morning coffee was heavily flavored with Bailey's Irish Cream: 2
Number of spots that I have poison oak: 4
Percentage of those spots which don't normally see the light of day: 75%
Number of hours spent sober: I don't remember, which is probably a bad sign.
Number of river-rafting golden retrievers on our trip: 1
Number of river-rafting golden retrievers our golden retriever met, causing intense golden retriever happiness and dance: 1
Number of waterfalls we swam in: 1
Number of times solicitous brother carried inebriated sister on a hike from a waterfall: 1
Number of law books I brought on the river: 0 (yeah!)
Number of cases I told people about: 1 (really! I was able to keep it to the shipwreck/cannibalism case I mentioned below. It seemed topical.)

And finally, number of people who asked me about my tan in class this morning: 4