I hope they serve beer in hell by Tucker Max

One of my best friends gave me this book as a going away present because he thought it fit me to a "T". Basically it a guy with little to no limits in regards to his behavior. Why he was reminded of me escapes me. Part of the reason for the choice is because it chronicles the author's supposed life in law school at Duke University. I was eager to get some ideas of how to get through law school without trying, instead I got an entraining, but disposable, set of drinking tales. While it does cover it, I am sure Mr. Max would agree with something I am oft to say "You have not lived until you get blown by a Thai ladyboy in a alley behind Soi Cowboy for 10 bucks".

Needless to say for those of you who know me well these days, this was like crack cocaine for me. It basically encouraged me to get rid of whatever limits I had left and just be entirely honest. I do not know if doing so would work out as well as outlined in Mr. Max's yarns.

Really the best writing in the book was the short dedication written to me by my friend. Since I am trying to keep things anonymous here, thanks Bro. D I hope you can make it down here sometime.

New City

I am not to positive on this city at the moment. I was expecting a big bustling city, not as big as where I came from for sure, but still something more than this. The city seems almost deserted. Even during rush hour the streets are pretty free of traffic. I do not know if it says something about density, urban decay, or just the meager amount of the city I have seen so far.

The city seems pretty segregated actually, and there have been comments by a few to reinforce this. I found it amusing and a bit disappointing to have one of the real estate agents talk about how a place we were going to see "seems unsafe", but its not. It is on "the border" of the "traditional university housing area". The place just needs somebody to understand its an "urban environment". Then as if I was some idiot she had to hit me over the head with "you just need to be comfortable with being one of the few white people in the area". Revolting

I have narrowed down my housing to two places. One is a small one bedroom almost literally next to campus. The problem is the building is very old, has settled, and the floor has a slight slant to it. It feels like you are on a ship. The other is a roommate situation, with a female roommate, and to make it worse she is red hot. Most men would not think this is a problem, however for me the two times I have done this I have ended up sleeping with my female roommate. I do not think I want that distraction and drama my first year of school. What saves her is she is actually a third year student, so she might be able to help if I have any problems academically, not to mention the traditional asset of knowing a local in a very strange city.

I think I will call her today.

Would you hit it?

Today was a good-bye lunch I was actually glad I was having. This one is my regular Friday lunch with a girl from the office. I guess I am sort of paid to talk to her, so I agreed to a weekly lunch outside of class.

The complication here is she has a crush on me, and has played these lunches for all their worth in her little way. She normally dresses to impress on Fridays, and wears a tad more make-up. She then acts pretty much like a school girl for the hour we have together.

Yeah it sounds ideal to some, until you look at the package: Late 30's or early 40's, built like a telephone pole, and about as tall as a fence post. Never have been tempted to stick my pen in that company ink.

Thank god there are no more lunches with her!

History of American Law pg314-406

Yikes, its been almost a hundred pages since I collected my thoughts

p 314 (con't)

Something struck me with the quotation of the NY legislature setting aside the "Adirondack Park" about "a future timber supply". I wonder why he does not connect this, and other legislation, about the worries in Europe at the time about timber being a strategic resource.

p 320

Odd he does not spend much time on the legalities of sharecropping. Particularly so as in a later chapter about Jim Crow laws, and other southern laws regarding blacks and labor.

p 322

In a case of history repeating itself, the author discusses of the public pressure to supply cheap mortgage money and other government initiated land buying tools. Which then lead to the bubble bursting, and finally pressure for forgiveness or foreclosure delays. All this in the days leading up to the Civil War (not that they are linked necessarily, just a time reference).

p 330

Odd how he switches to using "she" to refer to people in general. I wonder why?

p 331

He talks of the general trend for federal control (initially in welfare law), and implies that it is inevitable as the economy gets bigger. Why? Is not the power-grid more or less privately ran and state regulated? What about water? The national interstate highway system was a government project, but control (not funding) is under state power. Even the educational system is largely local, despite his claim of government control starting in the 1960s (although successive laws have further weakened this). In short, I think this argument, as presented, on the inevitability of federal control is weak.

p 338

Harkening back to an earlier point, he mentions that Railroad were, at least somewhat, in favor of regulation so as to eliminate competition and supply a steady return. Again, when it comes to business regulation (or "conservation" as he talked much earlier), sometimes it does not favor the "little people", despite the wishes or protestations of proponents.

p 356 and p 369

Something here the author does not link, and I wonder if it was part of the argument in court.

In McDonald v. Mass. Gen. Hospital (120 Mass. 432 (1876)) a man sued because an employed Harvard med student for not setting a broken thighbone correctly. The court refused saying the burden of selecting a proper and competent agent for the medical work was placed on the patient.

Later in the book the author discusses that Mass. set up a State Board of Charities 1863, which Mass. Gen. fell under to my understanding. Couldn't McDonald argue that that the states regulation of such facilities made it impossible for him to select an proper and competent agent as all such were certified and overseen by the state, thereby receiving implicit certification of them being proper and competent?

p 397

In a short discussion of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton (122 US 347 (1887)), it discusses that a Indiana statute on the prompt delivery of a telegraph was a violation of the commerce clause of the constitution (interstate commerce). Yet, was this not really a simply tort case? The author mentions the idea of statutory liability existing by this time period, why was that implied? How did a matter for Indiana courts make it to the federal docket?

History of American Law pg267-314

Finally I past the half-way point in this beast. Just a few observations:

p269

I wonder if this is another tip to de mode of academia, or something else. The author writes and quotes Edwin Corwin in "The Twilight of the Supreme Court" (1934) p78:

Far more controversial were cases [between cicra 1850-1900] that seemed to have a sinister goal: to "annex the principles of laissez faire capitalism to the Constitution and put them beyond the reach of state legislative power"

I am too jaded with ivory tower spew to comment on the "sinister" snipe. What bothers me is really Corwin's quote and his citation. A "goal" means something strove for, so, according to the argument, they court was trying to "annex" principles that were not already there.

However, was this the case? Most of the Supreme Court decisions in regard to commerce before this period were all about laissez faire capitalism. Gibbons v. Ogden maintained competition in interstate ferry routes. McCulloch v. Maryland encouraging banking competition, and knocking down state laws giving a virtual monopoly to banks chartered in that state. Those are just two cases that immediately spring to mind.

p299

This is just too funny. In regards to the pedantic nature of appeals courts in the latter half of the century:

Harwell, the defendant in a Texas case decided in 1886, had been arrested and convicted for receiving stolen cattle. The Texas court reversed, because, among other things, the jury found the defendant 'guity' instead of 'guilty' . In 1877, the same court reversed a conviction beacuse the jury carelessly wrote "We, the jury, the defendant guilty," leaving out the world 'find'. The same court, however, magnanimously upheld a conviction of 'guily' in 1879, proving that a 't' was less crucial than an 'l' in the law of Texas.

p314

Earlier in the chapter the author briefly discusses the development of the adverse possession doctrine in the US. The doctrine could be colloquially called "squatter's rights" to land. The period of time varied state to state, but essentially if you lived, maintained, and paid taxes on a piece of land for a certain number of years, it was yours.

The author then goes on to argue that the government sold/gave land as soon as possible to grow the economy. Given the former, I am not so sure. Did the government simply short-circuit the doctrine of adverse possession by laws like the Homestead Act of 1962. Or more, conspiratorially, done so as to quickly transfer choice lands to certain groups so as to avoid the doctrine.

p314

Just a passing observation as it contradicts some pop-history as taught to me in High School. Teddy Roosevelt is always lauded as the great land conservationist. Yet Yellowstone was set aside under Ulysses S. Grant. Vast lands were set aside by Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland. Finally between two Cleveland's two terms Chester Arthur signed into law a conservation bill giving the President the right to set-aside lands for conservation. It seems that Roosevelt only continued the 30 year trend, not nobly went against the tide.

History of American Law pg226-267

Only forty pages yesterday, but really beginning to enjoy this book. Largely because of my interest in history in general I suppose. I keep wanting to pick up this book to finish it at the exclusion of all else, even my regular work.

Out of the forty, two observations:

p. 241

It was somewhat fortuitous that I read this just after reading "One L" by Turow. Both this section and Turow discuss the curriculum of Harvard Law School (the former in its infancy, the later more modern times). At its founding it seems the school cared little for politics and policy, based on Turow I surmise Harvard seems to be little concerned with anything but politics and policy.

p. 263

Once again the author makes a bizarre freudian reference to "sexual paranoia" in regard to racial laws. This time in the context of Chinese immigration. The author is about to be come a parody of himself on this matter it seems.

Sinking In

Over the weekend I took a farewell tour to say bye to some friends. At first I was excited to see them, and tell them of my latest project to attend law school. They largely shared my enthusiasm. As the weekend wore on however, it hit me. There is a chance I might never see these friends again. In the past I was comforted by the fact they are only a brief flight away, and a flight that I could take at the drop of a hat. At law school they would be too far and too expensive to see. My one thick tether to them has broken.

I have never been a real social person, which may surprise some of you. Yet the past five years of my life have brought me so many friends. Friends that I feel closer to than many previous friends. Even more bittersweet is the fact that I have friends literally around the globe now, a thought unfathomable to me growing-up. It pains me to flirt with the thought that as I enter this phase of my life they may phase out.