remembering what he was taught, he pretended he was rock, curling up with his head down. He received a certificate Monday from his school commending him for bravery and following the safety lessons.

But no more. Members of the organization are offended that the school superintendent would prevent them from using a pitbull in these classes, out of concern for the children’s safety. According to the Association’s president,

we feel that we need to take a stand. We should not be condemning a dog just because of its breed.

This is misguided in more ways I can count. Putting aside the fact that this particular dog isn’t “condemned”, I say, of course we should make smart decisions about animals we expose other peoples’ children to. The superintendent is thinking about the children’s safety first and foremost. And so should the Humane Association.

Pit bulls banned from Oregon school district

1. The Indiana Ice hockey team and United States Hockey League sponsor a nearly-impossible-to-win $50,000 “hit the puck into the hole” contest.

2. Instead of putting prize money aside, they purchased insurance in case someone actually manages to win the prize.

3. A 73-year-old hockey fan is brought down to the ice and put into position alongside the mascot, who goes first. The fan vows to donate any winnings to charity. He then successfully hits the puck into the incredibly small hole on the opposite side of the rink. Click to watch:

4. The team’s insurance company denied the team’s claim because they did not position the fan in a certain location — contracted for between the team and its insurer. Specifically: they’d only cover contestants standing behind the red line.

5. The hockey team’s owners and the USHL throw their hands up: “Sorry! The insurance company won’t pay. There’s nothing more we can do.  No prize for you.”

6. The team doesn’t seem too upset about this: They refuse to name their insurance company, and also refuse to pay the promised prize money in full. Instead, “they plan to make a donation of an undisclosed amount.”

This story does appear to support the claim that wealthy corporations can break the rules that we as individuals cannot.

“I ghost-wrote letters to the editor for the McCain campaign”

“You can be whoever you want to be,” says an inviting Phil Tuchman. “You can be a beggar or a millionaire. A mom or a husband. Whatever. You decide!”

The assignment is simple: We are going to write letters to the editor and we are allowed to make up whatever we want — as long as it adds to the campaign. After today we are supposed to use our free moments at home to create a flow of fictional fan mail for McCain. “Your letters,” says Phil Tuchman, “will be sent to our campaign offices in battle states. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Virginia. New Hampshire. There we’ll place them in local newspapers.”

Phil bends over my computer screen and reads. This takes a while. I am expecting roars of laughter or to be kicked out. Then he says drily: “I like that. It appeals to the hearts of people. Can you write more letters?”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/24/mccain_letters/index.html

Here’s a story about a cafe owner going berserk over a customer ordering a “double espresso poured over ice.”  It turns out this is a way for people to save money / rip-off a cafe on the purchase of a latte.  For example, by ordering espresso+ice and then filling up with “free” milk at the condiment bar, one can save a buck or two on the cost of the drink.

I’m so clueless … err, I mean ethical … I had no idea.

There’s a whole slew of interesting ethical questions here.  But then I was shocked to realize that I might be one of them: I like a lot of milk/creamer in my coffee.  Up to and including making it a full-on cafe au lait.  I frequently pour out a half-inch or more of my coffee (even after I ask for “room”) to be able to put more milk in.

I had never thought twice about it.  But sometimes I’d wonder why they never really give me “room” when I ask for “room”!  Hmm.  Am I violating some kind of implicit contract between the establishment and myself? If so, then what should I be ordering?  “Cafe au lait” usually is not what I’m going for.  What’s half-way betwen that and black coffee?  Is a “latte” what I’m describing?

I’ve always intentionally avoided learning all of the froo-froo names of the various coffee drinks.  “A man’s drink has a name which is a list of its ingredients”, you know.  Maybe it’s time I start — for all I know, I’ve been drinking back-alley lattes for years.

I attempted to find out how “lawyers” figures in there, and only found one small mention of the ironic (or not) inclusion, and no conclusive information.

St. Genesius info:

Wikipedia

Saints Preserved

Randy Cohen, in The Ethicist, says “It is not.” A related issue is, what criteria can doctors use to choose their patients? He sums up by writing, “The right to our day in court should be among the inviolable.” The article is good food for thought:

New York Times Magazine / The Ethicist: Doctor, Bully

I once prosecuted a murder case against a pro se defendant. His first, counseled, conviction was reversed because the judge wouldn’t let him represent himself and I handled the retrial.

The result of the trial I prosecuted him in was the same — guilty. I did not think he did a bad job, given the situation, although a lawyer would have done better for him obviously. There were numerous eyewitnesses along with a confession he made, and testimony from his first trial, about his having shot several people, so it was hardly a whodunit. . . .

The biggest mistakes he made were not technical legal ones; they were mistakes in knowing what was important in the trial. The shooting arose out of some personal spat with his ex and her new boyfriend. He kept wanting to explore details of the relationships; in his mind, he was showing he was “right” or more moral in various relationship disputes, but to the jurors he was either wasting their time on irrelevant matters, or worse, proving that these disputes added up to enough reason for him to want to kill someone. That misdirected focus is why even an educated person, including a lawyer, should usually not represent themselves in a trial.

http://volokh.com/posts/1206745056.shtml

When a lawyer testifies as an expert witness on a party’s behalf, is an attorney-client relationship created? [...] The lawyer would have to serve as an objective witness and even provide opinions adverse to the party that calls her “if frankness so dictates,” the panel said.

Further, the lawyer as an expert would be subject to deposition by the opposing party, where any communications between the expert, the retaining law firm, and the client would generally be discoverable.

The panel decides no, there is no attorney-client relationship created, but:

…a lawyer serving as an expert witness remains subject to the rules that govern lawyers generally. The lawyer could not, for example, testify falsely. Further, she could not take on a new client in a matter adverse to the party for whom she is serving as an expert.

(Emphasis added.)