Kate's room-mate Alex bumped into some guy's computer (which was sticking out into the aisle) with his book bag and damaged it. Soon after he received this email, which contains, in our friend Kim's description, "1st-year civ pro lingo."
hahahahahahahahahahaha!
-----Original Message-----
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:39 PM
To: Alex Hunt
Subject: Re: computer
Alex,
Having not heard from you or Dean Ballenger after I emailed her back about
my availability for a meeting, I can only assume that our ADR options
through her office, or the law school generally, are more or less
non-existent. Her email more or less confirms that, though she did say
she'd look into it for us.
At this point, I have reached the conclusion that waiting around for an ADR
solution to present itself is not in our best interests. I want to resolve
this matter conclusively and soon. So, I present you with the following
three options and await a response.
(1) Because the nature of a small claims proceeding is relatively
non-adversarial (each party represents himself, presents his case, and the
judge essentially acts as an arbiter between them), we could use that as a
way for us to each present our views on what happened, who's liable, and
why. I would go to the courthouse in Charlottesville on Monday, file a
warrant in debt, and mail you a copy by certified mail. The court would set
a date, and if it presented a conflict with either of our schedules (be it
an exam conflict or otherwise), either of us would ask for a continuance and
I would certainly not oppose such a request. I'm looking at this,
essentially, as a way for us to use an existing structure to resolve our
dispute in a more or less amicable way. If you'd like to pursue this
approach, please send me your mailing address here in Charlottesville, and
I'll file the necessary paperwork and keep you aware of what I'm doing by
email.
(2) Alternatively, we can choose a repair facility to estimate the cost
of repairs and split the cost evenly. Since you seem to believe that 100% of
the damage is my fault, and I believe 100% of the damage is your fault that
might not be a bad compromise. I would like to have an agreement on this
approach, should it be what you want to do, worked out between us and in
writing by the end of this week.
(3) Finally, if you are unwilling to agree to either of the other two
approaches here, please feel free to suggest some other definitive course of
action to resolve our dispute or simply continue to ignore the matter. I
will proceed by filing a warrant in debt on this coming Monday, and since
you haven't given me your address (a necessary condition of having the
normal constructive service affected), I will have to go through the extra
expense of having a process server personally serve you. Since I only know
one place you can reliably be found, in the classes we share, that would
probably be where I would suggest that they serve you. I would like to
avoid that, but I will take that route in order to avoid further delays if I
have to.
I await your response.
Sincerely,
XXX
10/27/05
Law School Gone Wrong
10/20/05
So true
My favorite discussion-board comment of the day:
Henningjohnathan, while a lot of the points you make are valid, I think you have to ask yourself "Could the time I spent writing that have been better spent going for a nice walk or eating some cake?"
from page eight of Barbelith's Infinite Crisis thread.
The thing is, once you start applying that logic, it's hard to know where to stop.
Your tax dollars at work
Exactly what you suspected was going on in New Orleans:
"Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical," [FEMA regional director Marty] Bahamonde wrote.
Less than three hours later, however, [then-FEMA chief Michael "Hell of a Job"] Brown's press secretary wrote colleagues to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. "He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes," wrote Brown aide Sharon Worthy.
"We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you."
from the AP.
10/18/05
Now We're Getting Somewhere
It's seeming more and more like this whole Plame thing is gonna reveal a lot more about what's gone on during the last 5 years than just a couple people leaking someone's name.
10/6/05
Best Slate Headline Ever
Having Trouble Deciding Whether to Read Indecision?
It's good because, you know, I am.
10/4/05
Sometimes Bloggers are so Cute
I like this guy and substantively I agree with him on this, but I do think the idea that anything of any consequence hangs on the question of whether he, Ezra Klein, liberal blogger, formally "endorses" Harriet Miers, as opposed to just saying that he's pleased about it (which he says he is) is sort of hilarious. It's as if he's imagining a news story saying "Miers Gets Klein Nod" or whatever.
How the Democrats could avoid blowing it maybe, Part Deux
Agreed, and I kinda think Social Security is key here. The point wasn't just to fend off privatization. The point was, or should have been, to so totally discredit the idea that you can use it as a campaign issue, where you continually remind people that these are the guys that wanted to take away your SS benefits. That's what the GOP would do if it were the other way around. The Dems did the first part really well, but it means little without the second. And it has the equally important benefit of establishing for the next 10 years that anyone who fucks with SS is going to pay a political price. If they don't exploit the whole sorry episode for every ounce of political advantage, they'll just have to fight the same battle again in 5 years, and ultimately they'll lose when someone comes along who's smarter about it than Bush was.
Also I wouldn't get too optimistic about taking back the Senate. They'd need to pick up 7 seats and there just aren't 7 vulnerable GOP incumbents facing re-election. Still, a couple in the Senate and a bunch in the House would be nice.
10/1/05
How the Democrats could avoid blowing it, maybe
With the Republicans falling apart, it's pretty clear that 2006 is the best opportunity the Dems are going to get for a while to take back the Senate and a good chunk of seats in the House. What they need to do that is something like the Gingrichites' 'Contract with America' -- a platform that would turn a bunch of disparate House races into a national campaign.
What should this platform contain?
1. Capitalize on W.'s record. This writes itself.
We stand for:
-- a government that's got its shit sufficiently together to help you when your entire city is getting flooded;
-- catching people who fly planes into American buildings;
-- saving Social Security (from both insolvency and privatization).
2. Take advantage of the Democrats' outsider status. Republicans run on reformist antigovernment issues even as they vastly expand programs and slush funds for their ideological and political allies. Democrats tend to get defensive about "big government," which makes them sound like the party of the status quo even when they're in the minority. They need to run on things like:
-- balancing the budget, for a return to the prosperity of the Clinton era;
-- cleaning up the cesspool of corruption that is Washington DC;
-- not wasting your tax dollars on no-bid contracts, illegal political propaganda, etc.
3. 'A smarter War on Terror.' It seems clear that Bush & Co. aim to pull substantial numbers of troops out of Iraq before the midterms, to deprive the Dems of that issue. But I think there will still be mileage in something like, 'Real homeland security, not just randomly invading countries we don't like.'
Admittedly, much of the phrasing needs to be tweaked. But that's what you have pollsters for.
