Turtles all the way down

Monty Python has posted their catalog on YouTube. Right. Now to sell that 14-DVD collection…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Monty Python launches YouTube Channel, tells users to stop stealing
• Monty Python’s YouTube Channel
• Monty Python finally does something with this YouTube stuff - VIDEOS

The furnace needed cleaning, the driveway needed lifting, my wife’s car needed new tires, I needed glasses, and now the hot water heater may need replacing. There goes a couple thousand dollars in two weeks.

I just completed the first round of my Moot Court contest. At the time of this writing, I’ll know in about an hour whether it is also my last.

At this point I’m somewhat ambivalent about continuing. I would like to be invited on to continue, however given the amount of time it would require, it would be okay if I don’t make the cut. After all, then my semester would be down to two classes and Law Review, which would be a much more reasonable workload.

Another factor is that I’m pretty happy with my performance in the first round. I’m satisfied that I did about as well as I expected myself to do. I was far from perfect, made mistakes, and learned a bit about myself.

I’m not a natural public speaker. I’m a decent, but I lack the polish that natural speakers seem to have. I tend to stammer a bit, stumble getting points out clearly, and my word choice is frequently questionable. However I felt that for at least this round, the logic and structure of my arguments were pretty good.

As I get to know my topic better, my presentation gets slicker and I’ll make bolder statements. Once I’ve internalize my argument, I can argue on autopilot more easily, and think ahead to the next issue.

Moot Court oral presentations appear to be scored differently than real-world court presentations. Most of the skills tested are similar, but Moot Court judges have a checklist of items they are looking for. As far as I can tell this checklist includes: solid intro with a roadmap, not looking at your notes during the roadmap, answering the judge’s questions in a ridiculously direct fashion, clearly signaling transitions from point to point, being concise and not opening new issues on rebuttal, having a calm but asserting tone, being conversational, and probably a handful of other things I’ve missed.

But the judges don’t seem to be as concerned with logic and reasoning. One fellow student gave a virtually incomprehensible argument with some highly circular logic. None of the judges even mentioned it, but instead nitpicked the student’s use of singulars versus plurals.

Regardless, this is a fund exercise and despite the painful aspects of it, I think that Moot Court is going a long way to hone my advocacy skills.

Updated: In later rounds, the judging was based much more on the strength of the arguments rather than the mechanics.

I’ve suspected this for a few years, but the proof seems to be rolling in. For the record, I have not been doing any stretching before exercising in several years, and have seen no ill effects.

If you’re like most of us, you were taught the importance of warm-up exercises back in grade school, and you’ve likely continued with pretty much the same routine ever since. Science, however, has moved on. Researchers now believe that some of the more entrenched elements of many athletes’ warm-up regimens are not only a waste of time but actually bad for you. The old presumption that holding a stretch for 20 to 30 seconds — known as static stretching — primes muscles for a workout is dead wrong. It actually weakens them. In a recent study conducted at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, athletes generated less force from their leg muscles after static stretching than they did after not stretching at all. Other studies have found that this stretching decreases muscle strength by as much as 30 percent. Also, stretching one leg’s muscles can reduce strength in the other leg as well, probably because the central nervous system rebels against the movements.

I’m thrilled about Obama’s win.

For the first time in a long time we have a leader teed up who has a good chance of taking the country in a positive direction. This positive direction may not be a popular direction or a painless direction, but I believe that Obama has the smarts and the strength to make the right choices.

I’ve supported Obama for a long time though I had my doubts that he’d make it this far. I felt as if the political process was so broken that a high quality candidate would have too much of an uphill battle to be elected president. I’m glad I was wrong.

When I read both of Obama’s autobiographical books, I found myself agreeing with him on policy and issues almost across the board. That wasn’t the case for Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. Obama’s humility and ability to cast issues in moderate terms and his willingness to compromise sets him apart.

Additionally, it doesn’t hurt that he’s a brilliant individual. While raw brain power doesn’t necessarily make for a good leader in and of itself, when all other factors are the same, I’ll prefer a smart person over a not-so-smart person.

Having said that, I am not certain what Obama will be able to accomplish as president. His potential is so enormous he may only be able to disappoint. If he manages to get us out of Iraq in a reasonable fashion, stop the bleeding in the economy and restore other country’s goodwill towards the United States, then I will be satisfied.

But for the next few weeks I’ll enjoy this good feeling.

Related articles by Zemanta

• President Barack Obama
• Barack Obama Our New US President says ‘The Change Has Came to America and YES WE CAN ” in 1st Speech after being Elected as 44th US President
• Barack Obama will Be The 44th President Of the United States
• Obama - The Next Great Leader

Yes, thank you. Now I know who to NOT to vote for.

Especially those of you who use meaningless fear-mongering political cliches. I was undecided on most state and local candidates this year, but I am keeping track of everyone who robocalls me. And I am voting for your opponents.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Direct Mail, Robocalls Don’t Work
• Video: Attacks on ACORN are part of a long-running right-wing campaign of voter suppression.

Many people prefix their job description on Linkedin.com or on similar sites with the word “experienced.”

Don’t.

I have taken “experienced” to read “unemployed” because it seems that the vast majority of “experienced” people are looking for jobs…and are not presently working.

Additionally, just saying that you are experienced doesn’t buy you much in the job hunt. You resume should speak for itself in that regard.

While I sympathize with the many unemployed people I know, especially in today’s soft job market, I encourage all of you to find a better adjective.

This small rip is a giant tear in my corner of the world.

Can’t read my law school email from work.

Can’t access the databases and document management system at work from school or home - very little off-site work can get done.

Let’s hope for a quick resolution.

It finally has happened — a major daily newspaper switching to a pure online format.

The Christian Science Monitor plans major changes in April 2009 that are expected to make it the first newspaper with a national audience to shift from a daily print format to an online publication that is updated continuously each day.

It was inevitable and only a matter of time. Aside from a fairly large number of people that still prefer their news in print, I can think of so many reasons why online news works better. You don’t get lost in endless ads trying to find content. You can subscribe to the topics and areas you’re most interested in. You can read it anytime and anywhere without carrying it around. You don’t have to worry about recycling piles of read newspapers. It will be easier for the newspapers to individually target advertising.

I could go on.

This move was likely driven by a combination of economics and user preference. The newspapers that master online presence will survive. Those that don’t will not.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Wow! Christian Science Monitor ends weekday editions
• The Christian Science Monitor Stops Its Print Edition
• 100 years old newspaper going weekly; will focus more on website

For moot court we argue both on-brief and off-brief. On-brief is arguing the side that you for which you wrote your brief. Off-brief is the other side. At first blush, on-brief arguing is easier because you know the arguments better. After all, you wrote a detailed brief containing them.

However, as I put together my off-brief argument, I’m finding issues that I thought were clearly in favor of one side are not so locked down. If you look at the case or policy issues from one angle or the other your entire perspective of the case can change. Or, maybe on one side you argue based on the letter of the law and on the other side you argue that the facts don’t support application of the law.

Regardless, I’ll do my first off-brief session this week on my First Amendment issue. It won’t be pretty but I think I’ve at least got something to say.

One of the difficulties I’m finding with both sides is that I just don’t yet have a strong general legal background. Thus, while arguing the details of a particular First Amendment theory, I often miss the big picture (e.g., the First Amendment fundamentally exists to protect the speech of everyone, even jackasses).