Marshmallow Massacre?

            Back before Christmas, I had planned to give each of the young nieces and nephews and other similarly-aged children marshmallow shooters as gifts. 

            Actually I’m not certain about the exact name of these plastic toys that propel marshmallows across rooms and open fields.  Whatever the name, though, the toys promote active play as well as safe play, and the ones I found weren’t expensive, making this a pretty easy decision.

            And then came the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut.  

            With that horrendous tragedy, I simply couldn’t bring myself to purchase and then give to little children anything weapon-like.  So much for those marshmallow blasters. 

            Did I think those marshmallows would hurt anyone?  No.  Did I think there would be a marshmallow massacre?  No.  There was just something symbolic about giving a Christmas gift that had anything to do with shooting, even if only marshmallows, so close in time to the Sandy Hook killings.

            Am I moving more toward gun control?  No, unless it’s for parents having more control over the guns in their own homes (and control over the use of video games, television, etc.)  And, no, I’m not trying to outlaw marshmallow blasters either. 

            What we need is to have our elected officials place mental health issues on the front burner.  Period.

Lawyers and Insurance Companies!

(The following is reprinted from The Azar Newsletter, an e-publication of long-time friend Joe Azar.)

Don't know if it is true, but it's a great story of don't-get-mad-get-even.

BEST TRUE LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR, DECADE, AND POSSIBLY THE CENTURY



. . . .A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, fire.

Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars, the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company.



In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost 'in a series of small fires.' The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

The lawyer sued - and WON! (Stay with me.)

Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable 'fire' and was obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars that perished in the 'fires'.

NOW FOR THE BEST PART...

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine. 

(You reckon there was a politician involved in this whole thing???  Just askin'.)

`        `             `                  `               `

Whew! I am SO Relieved!

Is that a sigh of relief throughout the world?  It should be; the SC Supreme Court has made a momentous decision:

"The court was asked to determine what the Legislature meant by the term 'on the first page of the contract' in Section 15-48-10(a) of the S.C. Uniform Arbitration Act (2005). The court held that the term means the page preceding all other pages in the contract.     Richland Horizontal v. Sky Green Holdings, No. 4795"

 
All of these years -- and now, I finally know what the front page is!
 
(Yes, there was a reason this was an issue but the synopsis just hit me as hilarious, like what a news flash.)
 
 
-                            -                               -                                 -

It's About Balance and Drawing Lines

WARNING: This is a serious message, not my usual light-hearted scribbling.

Freedom of speech is awfully important to us, isn’t it? In fact, we hold dear all of our basic freedoms, liberties and rights.

Having the right to do something, though, doesn’t mean that “something” should be done.

For example, in our country, individuals have the right to burn “Old Glory,” our flag, the piece of cloth that is a symbol of our wonderful country. That doesn’t mean people ought to burn the flag, however.

Our citizens have the right to burn the Bible – or the Koran or any other book. Again, recognizing the right to carry out these activities doesn’t mean agreeing that it should be done or that we shouldn’t be repulsed when such takes place.


People have the right to demonstrate and picket, whether they are promoting something or protesting against it.

Yes, we have wonderful freedoms in this country as long as we don’t do harm to others and infringe on their rights.

But, just where do we draw the lines? It’s the figurative locations of those lines that concern me. What has brought up the concern this time?

It’s the Westboro Church members who protested with signs near the funeral of 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green. Those church members have the right to speak their minds, both with words and with signs.

But what about the rights of family members during such unimaginable times of grief and sorrow? Not just Christina’s family but also the families of our military heroes who have given their lives? Where are their rights to privacy?



Do we take away the free speech rights of picketers? Or do we allow the demonstrations but instead restrict the time and place?

For example, should we allow them to march with signs but not within an hour prior to a funeral service until an hour after the service? Do we restrict them to an area outside close proximity to the funeral service and burial site?

This is another time when I have questions but no perfect answers.

What do YOU think?

~                    ~                  ~                   ~

Trivia and This 'n That

Here are the TOP TEN in February's DO YOU KNOW trivia so far.  Congratulations - and thanks - to all who play, whether you play daily or occasionally! 

Rank    Player          Points

1. wavemama          106

2. skullfullamush       85

3. DyreStraits          78

4. sally                     75

5. gardener              72

6. 3M                      65

7. jinxedu                 64

8. Papabear             60

9. par2323              59

10. Meme               55

As a side note, I haven't quit playing DO YOU KNOW trivia and I haven't quit writing on this blog, at least not permanently.  I'm in the final two weeks of concentrated study (a/k/a stupor) preparing for the SC bar exam. 
 
 In the meantime, if you've seen any of the recent interviews with SC's First Lady, Jenny Sanford, I'd love for you to share your thoughts, comments and reactions here.

Exam Time - Ugh!

Tomorrow morning I'll be taking the MPRE - Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam.  It's a legal ethics exam and required for admittance to the bar. 

I've been studying a lot, which is why I haven't posted much lately. 

We have to pay rather hefty fees to take the exam.  Once the fee is paid and the future lawyer has registered for the exam, a "ticket" for admission is e-mailed to each hope-to-be attorney. 

When I received mine, I decided to save it on the computer instead of printing it right then.  That's because I knew if I printed it several weeks ahead of time, I'd certainly lose it before exam time.  Know what I mean???

So, here it is around 8 pm on Friday, just about 12 hours before exam time.  I just printed out my ticket. 

It's a good thing I didn't wait until tomorrow morning to print it.  I thought I was taking the exam at a site in Charleston - just about 30 minutes from my house.   No, I have to drive two hours to a different location in the morning for the exam! 

Looking at this new information (to me) in a positive light, at least I will have two hours to listen to lectures on CDs while driving!

Gov. Mark Sanford: Number One Songs, Then & Now

When Mark and Jenny Sanford got married on Nov. 4, 1989, the number one song in the U.S. was “Listen to Your Heart” by Roxette.

Sometime later – about 12 or so years later – the heart he was listening to was saying "Argentina." And, as far as we can tell – and based on what the SC governor says – his heart is still in Argentina.

Where his heart is, though, is not the concern of our state’s citizens. Where his head is – now that is of concern to the citizenry.

Based on his actions, his heart and his head - and all of the rest of him - have been in Argentina lately.

His personal life is his business. We’ve never had a perfect elected official and we never will. We elect them, imperfections and all.

But when we elect our officials, while we may not expect perfection, we most certainly expect them to carry out the duties of their respective offices.

That is where Mark Sanford failed the state of South Carolina.

His betrayal of his wife, his absence from his four sons on Father’s Day – those are not impeachable offenses, although they most likely brought to a standstill his presidential ambitions.

His failures as husband and father are the business of the Sanford family. His failure as governor is of public concern, and rightly so.

Some officials claim that Sanford is so head-over-heels “ga-ga” in love with his Argentinean soul mate that he is not thinking clearly and can’t effectively govern even with his return to the state. A few are suggesting a chemical imbalance and mental instability, among other things.

Does being “ga-ga” in love mean the governor is incapacitated to the extent that he cannot effectively govern? I don’t know.

But he was definitely incapacitated geographically and unable to govern when he left the country for five days, slipping away from his own security and making himself unreachable by any living soul in the United States. There is reason to question his judgment, his decision-making skills, his concern for the state.

Some pundits say, “Oh, well, there was no emergency, so everything is okay.”
That there was no actual emergency does not excuse Sanford.

South Carolina has faced emergencies before: several hurricanes over the years, riots, the recent Myrtle Beach wildfires, for example. Anything could happen without notice: a train derailment, an airplane crash, a disease outbreak.

Maybe Sanford, who still declares that Maria in Argentina is his soul-mate, is thinking about that famous line from the movie Love Story: “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”

He might do better to quote Marlon Brando in the 1954 movie On the Waterfront: "I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it."

Or perhaps he should just go by the title of this week’s Billboard chart-topper. It’s by The Black Eyed Peas: "The E.N.D."

No iPod in Austria

Three years ago this month, I was getting ready to live in a dorm for almost six weeks. At the age of 56! In Austria.

I was to study International Commercial Arbitration at Johannes Kepler Universitat in Linz, Austria.

No, this wasn’t an Elderhostel group.

We were law students from Georgia State University, Charleston School of Law, Rutgers University, Mercer University, the University of South Carolina and Seattle University School of Law.

There were over 50 of us and 95% were in their 20s. I was the oldest in the group, without any doubt or question.

In advance of our trip, we each received a list of suggested items to take with us. One was an iPod.


I mentioned that list to my son, Tree.


He said, “Mom, do NOT buy an iPod. Do NOT. You are too old for an iPod. You would look silly with an iPod.”

Okay, so I’m out of the tune with the modern world. I did not get an iPod.


Ah, the realities of life brought to us by our children.

(These are pictures of Tree when he graduated from George Washington School of Law.)

You Have to Ask the Right Question!

Sometimes, you just need to ask the right question.

Several years ago, I was presiding over a hearing in a courtroom, when I apparently asked the witness the wrong question.

After getting his name, age and address, I queried: “Marital status?”
He just gave me a blank look. Then he said, “Ma’am?”

So, to further explain my question, I asked, “Married? Separated? Divorced?” I was just trying to let him know what “marital status” meant.

After thinking just a minute, the man replied, “I guess we’re separated. She’s dead.”

Well, yes, that would indeed be a separation. The man must have thought he had to choose one of the three options I had given him, and I failed to name every single possibility in the world.

Yep, sometimes getting the right answer means asking the right question.

Back-to-School for Seniors

Going back to school after decades is a real experience - in many ways.


I started law school two months before turning 55 and graduated at the age of 57.


Although it is strongly recommended that students not work while attending law school, especially during the first year, I didn't have that luxury. My classes were night, late afternoon and Saturday ones.


People often ask what it was like being an older or non-traditional student.


Well, here's what I noticed as the biggest difference. With those evening sessions, my classmates couldn't wait to get out of class to have a beer.

I couldn't wait to get out of class to go to the bathroom!


It's an age thing!

WARNING: Don't Read If You Adore Courtroom TV!!

WARNING: Don’t read this if you just absolutely adore - and believe in – those TV shows that take place in a courtroom as a real-life TV judge pronounces judgments.

Quite often when I’m working at the computer, I have a TV on for the sake of background noise. If one of those court shows comes on, I usually change the channel. That’s how much they get on my nerves.

Well, today the remote wasn’t nearby, and I was either working too hard, concentrating too much or just too lazy to get up to find the remote or to change the channel.

Having served in a judicial capacity for 12 years, I’m totally amazed these judges keep straight faces when listening to some of the cases.

Today, a man and woman were seeking a divorce. The first red flag, at least to me, was that they became high school “sweethearts” because she was attracted to the electronic monitoring device he was wearing!

Don’t get me wrong. I know that lots of people make mistakes in high school and then go on to lead productive lives and become upstanding citizens. Forgiveness and rehabilitation are wonderful things. But to be attracted to someone because he’s wearing a monitoring device from the prison system? No, I don’t get that.

They decided to get married when she was pregnant with their second child, I believe.

At some point, he apparently went back to prison. Once out, he told her he wanted an “open marriage.” Why, you ask. Well, it seems that she became more interested in females for her sexual relationships while he was “away.” For him, I guess that’s a pretty good reason for wanting an open marriage – if you want a marriage at all!

He called her a tri-sexual. When asked what that meant, he answered that she would TRY anything!

Finally, he admitted to his own share of problems. When asked if he was receiving counseling or talking to someone, he said he was; he was talking to himself!

They got their divorce.

Sounds like a pretty easy decision to me!