Christian Privity, Sucka'

So I've been spending several hours trying to come up with a joke about horizontal and vertical privity that does not include a reference to the Aristocrats or outhouses, but it's pretty difficult.

Instead, let's follow-up my earlier rant about "Christian" Christians in connection with the idea.

Horizontal privity means the relationship between two people on essentially an equal footing. So if two NCAA basketball teams are playing against one another, they are agreeing that at the end of the game one of them will be the winner and the other the loser. That is a horizontal relationship.

Vertical privity would exist between each of the teams and the NCAA commission which administers the rules and is in charge of both teams.

So now consider that viral message I was talking about. The Christian (Gabe) was sending to the Friend (Steve) a message about how awesome Sweet Jesus Jones is. Gabe thinks he's figured out what Jesus Jones wants and thinks is awesome. He's pretty sure he's got his vertical privity relationship figured out.

At this point, Gabe tries to tell Steve about STEVE'S vertical relationship w/ Jesus Jones. However, Gabe does not have privity to that relationship. All that Gabe has in relation to Steve is horizontal privity with him. He cannot know exactly how Steve's vertical privity w/ Jesus Jones works, because he is a jive turkey and human (and also a honkey).

So Steve is being told the wrong thing. He is being told that if he rejects Gabe's horizontal privity, he will be rejecting his own, totally unrelated, vertical privity w/ Sweet Jesus Jones, which is just a bunch of sucker trash.

So my recommendation for all you folk out there is to tell the Gabes of the world to suck it. Then, you know he ain't gonna lay no more big rap up on you, man.

Sides, jive ass dude don't got no brains anyhow.

Jesus Jones v. Lucifer Williams. This Sunday, sunday, sunday!

Hey everybody! It's time for yet another edition of Dumb Quotes from the internet. I've considered labeling this "DQFTI," but worried that people would think it was some kind of ice cream reference.

Today we have the following Jesus fwd type quote. I really hate these, because I find very little more repulsive than forcing people to spam others by appealing to their religious nature. Also, they tend to be remarkably ill informed. Let's get to it.

The Greatest Man in History Jesus had no servants, yet they called Him Master.
Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher.
Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer.
He had no army, yet kings feared Him.
He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world.
He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him.
He was buried in a tomb,yet He lives today.
I feel honored to serve such a Leader who loves us!
If you believe in God and in Jesus Christ His Son . Write this on 10 peoples walls or just ignore but remember that Jesus said ... "If you deny me before man, I will deny youbefore my Father in Heaven

First off, I'm not sure how much I'd agree w/ "greatest man in history," but I'm sure that's just a matter of opinion. As such, I'll leave it alone. The problem I have is that this title was capitalized. What, grammatically speaking, does this mean? Are Jesus's initials GMITJ? Is that his official title? Greatest Man in History Jesus? Sounds vaguely like a basketball player. Or a WWE wrestler.

Greatest Man in History Jesus Jones! Coming to you live, from Renne Arena!!!! Watch him take down the Great Impaler, Red, Red, Lucifer Williams!!!

Seriously, though, I personally think Jesus would be irritated in being called the greatest man in history (especially in being given such a title), because that was exactly the opposite of his point. He was a normal man with normal failings. He had a great burden to bear and carried a message of hope, but he remained an ordinary man.

"he had no servants" also has to be wrong. Hell, someone brought his group wine at the last supper. That person was.... A SERVANT. Beyond all that, "master" and "teacher" were pretty interchangeable at the time. I'd be hesitant about reading too much into it.

"He had no degree." I'm almost entirely certain this is wrong too. Now, I don't imagine that Jesus went to University, partially because none were exactly handy, but the fact of the matter is that he'd risen pretty high in the ranks of the Jewish priest-type hierarchy. I'd guess he was a fairly well versed individual for the time and could probably hold his own among modern day theologians. Further, as I understand it, people in his position at the time were often called teacher.

I'm granting the "he had no medicines, yet they called him Healer," because, as long as we're going with the same source (i.e. the bible), a pretty big tenant of his being the Messiah was his being able to bring people back from the dead (also, leprosy).

"He had no armies, yet kings feared him" shouldn't count, in my opinion. Herrod didn't like threats to his power. It isn't like Herrod feared Jesus specifically. He just didn't like the idea of a Messiah trying to change the current regime. Plus, Jesus was a baby. Anyone who is scared of a baby is dumb.

"He conquered the world." Eh. Last I checked, there were a remarkable number of people and religions that do not follow Christ. Like Islam. The Hindus. Taoists. Shintoists. Native American spirit people. Oh, and Jews. I'm pretty sure that accounts for at least 2 of the 5 billion people in the world and one HECK of the land mass. Also, I think I'd be way more willing to give Rome, Constantine, and Paul more credit than Jesus, in terms of simple number of converts.

"He committed no crime." Really? Rome found him guilty of a crime. So did the Jewish leaders of the area. I'm pretty sure that we, as Americans who believe in the rule of law, ought to consider that enough. Sure, sometimes its possible for people who are innocent of crimes to be found guilty and killed (like what happens in America), but we should try to be consistent on this front.

"yet he lives today." Uh. I guess this is accurate, as long as you are REALLY willing to stretch the meaning of the word "lives."

"Leader" should not be capitalized. I won't even make a joke out of it. It's just stupidity based upon the mistaken belief that over-capitalization makes you sound more holy.

The last line is REALLY poor grammar, so let's fix that, before proceeding.

If you believe in God and in Jesus Christ, His Son, write this on 10 people's walls or just ignore it, but remember that Jesus said, "If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my Father in Heaven."

There, now we've fixed the grammar problems. Time to fix the idiot problems.

Who is really being denied in this post? Is a person denying Jesus if he elects not to spam at least ten people with incorrect and poorly understood drivel? I think not.

Here's what I think. I think a lot of people have a really high opinion of themselves and their own ability to understand God. Some might call it pride. I call it stupidity. So they write their uninformed messages like the one above and send them out to everyone they know, because they want to show everybody how remarkably holy they are compared to all of their heath friends (pride... pride... pride... pride). The friends, then, have to make a really difficult decision. Do I forward this idiocy to keep my soul clean, or do I reject God?

The thing is, the decision really isn't anywhere near that hard. The real decision is whether to reject a person's interpretation of God that was faulty from the moment this person decided that God wanted his message sent by viral email.

Statute of Hanna Barbara Limitations

Our very pretty professor seems to be sick; I've handed in a note so that I don't have to talk today; and contracts 2 was cancelled for no obvious reason.

This is a GREAT monday!

Today in Civ Pro we are discussing how rule 15c of the federal rules of civil procedure allows people to evade the statute of limitations and amend complaints to add new parties and new complaints as long as they relate back to the original complaint.

Consider this in Hanna Barbara terms.

Suppose the Flintstones were suing Yogi Bear in Birdman Court for pickinik basket stealing (theft). Then, we find out (thanks to the combined teamwork of scooby-doo and johnny bravo) that Kaboobie from Shazzan was the actual thief. Blossom of the PowerPuff girls nabs Kaboobie on trumped up charges, and, while Kaboobie is in jail, the Flintstones amend their mistaken complaint transfering the complaint against Yogi to a complaint against Kaboobie.

However, two weeks before amending their complaint, the statute of limitations had passed. Rule 15c would require that Kaboobie should have known that the Flintstones would have filed the complaint against him, but they happened to make a mistake.

At this point Secret Squirrel, Ubble Ubble, and Baba Looey all got together, did a bunch of meth and crack, and killed everyone involved. It turns out that the Jetsons were distant descendants of the Flintstones (which shouldn't surprise anyone), so they ceased to exist. Hadji from Johnny Quest became outraged at the horror that had been perpetuated, both to the timeline and to his good buddy Kaboobie, and so he began a quest of his own to track down and murder Secret Squirrel, Ubble Ubble, and Baba Looey.

It was at this time that Huckleberry Hound arrived on the scene, told everyone to calm down, brought the dead people back to life, and then convinced everyone to "go gay."

In the end everyone was happy, including Yogi, who actually HAD stolen the pickinik basket, and not including the Jetsons, who were still doomed to never being born thanks to Huckleberry Hounds efforts and the fact that George could never catch a break.

The end.

...

What was I talking about?

Law tests are not like life

It turns out, the kind of personality that excellently answers a law exam is not the kind of personality that I like. Allow me to set the scene. There we are, just about ready to go, when...

Carpool friend #1: Hey, random person (we'll call this random person Gretel), what did you think of Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe?

Gretel: Well... (insert 25 minute retrospective of the firm, kansas city firms, kansas city, going to school at an ivy league school, kc high schools, kc expectations that everyone knows what - specific to KC - juco and pembroke hill mean, the joys of living in denver, gretel's life from birth to that moment, and various classes held in common with Carpool Friend #1)

Carpool friend #1: Oh.

Gretel: Exactly... (insert another 12 minute diatribe on the difference between big firms, little firms, and firms of a size somewhere in between)

Carpool friend #1: Uh

Gretel: And then! (Insert a continuation of this diatribe, until...)

Carpool friend #2: I HAVE TO LEAVE NOW!!!

Yeah. So a rule, for all you HTGBWET fans: If a person asks you what you thought of something, you say, "It was pretty cool" or "It really sucked." If your response takes more than 18 words, you should probably go take a nap somewhere.

Physical Revocation

Wills may be revoked by physically destroying them using such methods as burning and tearing.

Other methods of Will revocation:

incinerating

vibrating to fragments

burying in the walls of Jericho

flushing

shaming it to an early death

laying a beat down on it in an exciting game of basketball or chess

leaving it in your jeans while you wash them

leaving it in your jeans while you take a crazy person shower

assumpsit

laying a really solid stink on it, so no one will want to approach

living in a lawless society

offending the will of Poseidon

and, finally, saying, "Talk to the hand."

a list

As a law student, it is, of course, important to recognize that the rest of my life will consist of writing hundreds and hundreds of stilted, poorly worded, boring statements of veiled anger and rage. That said, I think it's time to consider the beginning of this trend.

This semester I will be writing:

a demand letter

two memos asking for or defending against summary judgment

two defenses for stupid parking tickets

a ten page paper on why I'm good at dissecting legal discussion for the sake of getting to say that I am a member of a law journal, because that is JJUUSSSSTTTT GREATTTTTT

120 blog posts

a second edition of my story

a defense of sex trips in asia

a revocation of my previous statement

bath salts

eggs

cheese

butter

a quart of milk

ascension into heaven

a song about singing

quantum physics

KU biases

or get your degree

Sexual Easements

In my continuing quest to develop a more legally minded blog, I present the following idea:

Let's say there's a nasty break-up in some sort of developing world in which women (or for you left-wingers out there, men) are considered property. Now let's say the dominant individual sells the servient individual, is it possible for the dominant individual to maintain a sexual easement and then SELL or testate that sexual easement to an uninvolved individual?

There are two methods in which I see this as being, at least conceptually, possible. The two rules of law we need to consider are Easement by Necessity and Easement by Implication. Let's consider each one.

Necessity:

1. Original unity of ownership:

I think we can all agree that at one time, in owning the servient individual, the dominant individual owned the sexual rights in addition to all other rights.

2. Necessity NOW, not a mere convenience

Here things get a little tricky. Unless we're talking some kind of "deepthroat" rule, or perhaps a lack of fertile men or women, it seems pretty unlikely that a necessity can be proven. And even in the second case, SOME other fertile individual of the opposite sex would destroy the necessity possibility. Othen v. Rosier. 226 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1950).

3. Necessity existed at the time of severence.

I figure this one is also tricky and depends on how poor the dominant individual was. If the dominant individual had only one husband or wife, then I don't see a problem claiming necessity at time of severance. That said, it's possible that the dominant individual still had other viable sexual options.

Implication

1. Unity of ownership

Still no problem.

2. Apparent and continuous quasi-easement

If the dominant individual maintained an open sexual relationship with the servient individual (maybe some threeway action? Sweet), and that open relationship was somehow sold to the next dominant individual, then this category may well be satisfied.

2.a.

It's worth pointing out that the new owner of the servient individual would have to KNOW about the open relationship, thereby eliminating the bona fide purchaser issue.

3. Necessity at the time of severance.

See above.

So there you go. My conclusion, based upon our limited set of facts, is that an Easement by Implication would be the new Dominant individual's best hope, as an Easement of sexual Necessity would be very difficult to prove, unless we lived in some sort of post-apocalyptic world.

Note: It is worth pointing out that easements of this time are only applicable to real property (i.e. land). Take that as you will.

Common law application of the contracts II syllabus

A common law application of the Contracts II Syllabus

Sec 1-103: Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Syllabus, the principles of class and education, including the rules of conduct and the honor code relative to capacity to learn, professor and student, class participation, lying, cheating, not paying attention, checking email, gunning, internet shopping, pre-emptive attacks, or other class or nonclass action shall supplement this provision.

John Doe v Ware. 9 K.U.L.S. 37, 38 (Feb. 2007).

Um. Right. I'll just answer my own question.

From these two rules we can learn that:

While syllabus Sec. 2-104 specifically states that participation is a part of our grade, if we clearly have no idea what's going on, the common law rule of letting the professor do our work for us takes effect.

Thank you common law.

Connections, Broadening, and Growth

So I just finished reading a blog post by someone else that was really boring and sucked in virtually every way that a few paragraphs of rambling prose can suck. It was so awful, that I figured ANYTHING I wrote down would be better and more awesome than the drivel that I have just been forced (by myself) to read.

That being said, here we are! Welcome to some drivel by NJ.

So I've reached that point in my new experience where I am starting to make connections. Let me clarify. When I start something completely new, I tend to suck at it. At one time, I thought this was because I was lazy (e.g. freshman year of high school, freshman year of college, my first year at Montana State), but the fact that my worst grades always seem to coincide with my first years in an entirely new environment lead me to believe that maybe something else is happen.

This thought occurred to me a few weeks ago. I figured I'd mention the oddity to my mom. The response I got was, at least a little, unexpected.

She has the same problems! And my mom may be a lot of things, but lazy sho' ain't one of'm. Ring another one up for nature, please (as opposed to nurture, that is)!

Anyway, let me return to what I was saying. I've reached that point in my experience in which I am starting to make connections. In class, the professor might state some facts and my brain tries to use previous learnings to guess at the applicable law. I instantly turn to contracts in property class. I contemplate professional responsibility in business associations. All those things I had a tenuous grasp on only a few months before (and, judging by my grades in December, only a few weeks before) are suddenly starting to spring to life.

It's an exciting feeling. So I have a question for everyone. Does anyone else recognize this experience? In your own lives, have you had a transitory period in which you went from a know-nothing to a know-it-all? Have you ever lamented that you only start to really figure out the fundamentals of a topic after you've conceptualized the big picture, yet you cannot conceptualize the big picture until you've figured out the fundamentals?

That's just a thought of mine.

And one more thing...

THE IPHONE!!!

Just kidding. Anyone else see one of those Apple press conferences? They just aren't as impressive as I feel led to believe.

Seriously, though, it's time for another HTGBWET, specifically number 287. Today's topic: Try not to cut corners.

The previous statement actually makes sense, if you give it a chance. Think of it like being a natural. Some people just sort of know. Some people just know that men and women are really pretty much the same. Some people know that everyone is nervous and uncomfortable. Some people know that irritable expressions on the faces of the opposite sex usually indicate that they are irritated with THEMSELVES. Some people know that everyone... EVERYONE... sees him or herself as the actor, rather than the character in the play that is life and love, and we all wish we knew the lines.


Some people, without ever even thinking about it, know that these things are true. Guys call them assholes. Women call them bitches. Really, it's all the same. These are the people who are born knowing.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that a person's faith lacks depth, until it has been through trials and tribulations, doubt and uncertainty. (Or maybe it was Buck Minster Fuller. I forget now.) The point is that these people will never have a problem getting a date, and that's really too bad, because these people will never need to grow and will always lack the depth that goes beyond the skin and beyond the suave.

Admittedly, some of us do need to grow, and we never do make it beyond the skin, but at least we're trying. At least an awareness exists.

And in that awareness, in that growth, in that gradual, broadening understanding do we become whole people.

The Relaxed Master of Relaxation

Today I'm feeling down. I went to the law review info session and discovered that my already only OK GPA would be counted as even lower than it currently is for Law Review purposes, because my best grades were in upper level non-core classes.

Also, I only got like 3 and 1/2 hours of sleep last night, so I'm really coping with an awful lot of suck right now.

As such, I feel like it's about time for a new HTGBWET! Today's lesson (#845): Looking Relaxed.

Not a day goes by that another person doesn't say, "Wow, NJ, you certainly look relaxed!"

To this I usually reply in some non-committal way. Being a relaxed fellow, I don't feel the need to get all up on myself.

All that said, even I lack the true relaxed skills of a relaxed master of relaxation. That being said, for all my lack of skill, I have rested upon the slight hill; I have tamed the mighty tired, old dog; I have done what few men dream of doing, because they aren't that interested. And so I figured I'd relay my knowledge.

The trick to being truly relaxed - and using that relaxation in your dealings with the opposite sex - is to convince members of the opposite sex that you COULD be on the ball and, in fact, even are on the ball when it's really necessary, but for now you are content to just play it cool.

This means, of course, that you must be a physical representation of the impossible. You have to look both incredibly involved and incredibly bored AT THE SAME TIME!

How do I do this, you ask? Consider Matthew Mcconehey..... Um, or however you pronounce his name. McConnehy? Hang on....

Ok. It's McConaughey. Seriously, someone needs to tell that guy that he's never gonna make it with a name like that.

Anyway. He is a guy who is extremely physically fit. He is a guy who LOOKS like he must work out all the time and be constantly on the move, yet his eyes are always half-lidded and he talks... real... slow. Lahk... this.

The point is, he's managed the impossible. He's a guy who looks more relaxed than anyone I've ever seen (save one), yet, at the same time, he looks ready to go!

(Specially relaxed status goes to Owen Wilson. Even more than McConaughey, he is painfully relaxed; he just happens to look less ready to go.)

My point is this: there is something about the ridiculous contrast of these two things that attracts members of the opposite sex in prodigious quantities. My theory is that it has something to do w/ evolution. Back when we were all the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel, it was handy to be relaxed and yet totally awesome.

It may also have to do with ninjas, now that I think about it, but I could be wrong.

What was I saying? Oh yeah, so here is your new assignment, should you choose to accept it. Spend the next year or so getting totally in shape. Then work your ass off to get an awesome job and millions of dollars. Finally, make your eyes look heavy, always put your feet up when you sit down, and talk slow. You'll be well on your way to getting at least one or two total babes.