We bought a new skillet the other day. It came complete with an instruction manual. Note that it's not an electric skillet. It's just … a metal pan with a handle.

The directions say to temper it before use. It's not cast iron. Just aluminum. With some kind of non-stick stuff to be sure. But… It also has a lengthy single-spaced explanation of how to use a skillet to cook food, how to use the skillet handle, how to clean a skillet and a FAQ section. (Q. If the cookware is accidentally overheated, will there be hazardous fumes? A. We don't really want to commit ourselves to an answer here because the answer really is 'no' but our lawyers have indicated we can't say that. So just use the damned cookware in a well-ventilated area and things will be fine.)

Then it explains the "limited lifetime warranty." As far as I can tell, this means "the law of every state is different but we are going to move heaven and earth to avoid doing anything if the cookware is damaged. So if you feel like litigating until your grandchildren have kids, go ahead and file a claim."

Finally, in an over-abundance of caution, the instructions indicate that if you really are too stupid to be allowed to cook, it is possible you might super-heat the skillet to the point where there could be a teensy problem.

Caution: Cooking at ultra high settings can cause emission of fumes from the non-stick interior that could be dangerous for certain animals with very sensitive respiratory systems, such as birds. Birds should not be kept in the kitchen.

Good to know.

The NPR website has posted a rather interesting article explaining why vegetarians are incorrect about human evolution, diet and nutrition. Click here to read the article.

We all know people who are just perfect little Christmas whores. They bake cookies by the car load. They make eggnog by the 65-gallon carboy. They wrap their packages in home made papers decorated using home-carved stampers dipped in home made dyes. They make half of their gifts. The other half come completely disassembled and they have no trouble at all with "some assembly required."

We all hate these people. At least *I* do.

A recent newspaper article outlined the touching cookie party/cookie exchange of one family's group of neurotic over-achieving women. (As opposed to the neurotic over-achieving men who do the same sorts of things.) Anyhow--here is a link to the stirring saga of The Christmas Cookie party by Martha Stupid.

The US Military began tracking the progress of Santa Claus on December 24, 1955. A local newspaper advertisement telling children to "call Santa" mistakenly carried the telephone number for the CONAD (Continental Air Defense Command) Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. On Christmas Eve of that year, a little girl telephoned to ask "Where's Santa?" Col. Harry Shoup was on duty that night. Rather than hanging up or redirecting her call, he explained that CONAD was "tracking Santa" and gave the child "Santa's present location." Col. Shoup and his operators fielded numerous calls that night and all of the children were provided information on Santa's progress.

This began a CONAD tradition that was carried on by NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) when it was formed in 1958. Today, NORAD uses satellite systems, high-powered radar and jet fighters to "track Santa" as he makes his Yuletide journey around the world. On Christmas Eve, hundreds of volunteers staff telephone hotlines and computer sites to respond to calls and emails from children (and adults) from around the world. Live updates, in seven languages, are posted on the NORAD Tracks Santa Web Site. If you want to follow Santa and his sleigh on Christmas Eve, go to the Official NORAD Tracks Santa website. The Countdown to Santa's liftoff has begun!

It is so fascinating to watch corporate America latch onto the concept of "going green." It's the justification for everything from hotels refusing to change the linens every day (to save water) to grocery stores charging for bags (so we don't waste scarce resource when bags can be recycled). It's the excuse for cheapening both goods and services across the board. "You don't want us to stay brown do you?" Frankly… yes. Yes I do. Because corporations are merely eliminating services and cheapening the product, saving money and then charging us more for the inferior goods under the guise of "going green."

Well, I've decided to "go green" myself.

From now on I will cut the ends off all tubes and extract the remaining product with a scraper and store it in a little container so I can get all of it and actually use it up. We all have a zillion little containers. If you've purchased the stupid bottles and jars you need to satisfy the airlines and TASA, you have a zillion and 12 of them! So scrape the stuff out of your tubes, put the product into a clean jar… and Save the Whales!!!

Actually, I've done this for years. But that was because I was cheap. Now I'm doing it because I've gone green.

If you cut off the end of your hand lotion tube and scrape out the product into a jar, I guarantee that you will get enough to last at least 2 more weeks even if you slather it on.

Face cream does even better. Clean out the contents of the tube with a clean popsicle stick or a tiny silicone scraper (from the kitchen) and you probably will get enough out of that tube to last an extra THREE weeks.

This works with prescription ointments, wasabi, shampoo, almond paste and anything else that comes in a tube. They put this stuff in tubes and not in jars so that you pay for X number of grams or ounces but only get X minus Y to really use. (I know that looks like algebra, but think about it and it will make sense anyhow.)

You can save money, help deal with the current Depression (yes it’s a "depression," no its not a "recession" or an "economic downturn") AND you can help screw over the corporations that are trying to cheat you! Not a bad result for merely cutting the ends off a tube!

Talk like a Pirate Day is all well and good, but cannot begin to compare with Pretend to be a Time Traveler Day which falls on December 8th. I missed it in 2008, but am looking forward to 2009's event. This guy made a video of his 2007 expedition and it's one of the better things I've seen at Youtube (not that it begins to compare with Viking Kittens, of course). The music is really good too.

June 21st if Steampunk Pretend to be a Time Traveler Day. We really need to think of something special to do about that!

…and the staff had gathered to discuss the misprinted calendars.

I purchased my 2008 calendar the other day. I like to buy them early so I get one with the correct scenes. (It's not all that easy to find calendars with Roman temples on them and they tend to sell out quickly.)

On the back of the calendar, in prominent lettering, the following disclaimer appears:

We have made every effort to ensure that the information within this calendar is accurate; however, we cannot be held liable for any errors, inaccuracies or omissions.

For years, people have been whining at me that lawyers and their disclaimers are completely out of control. I'm beginning to agree with that sentiment.

One of my co-workers—let's call her "Zoe" since her name is nothing like that—has elevated cheapness to an art form.

This will sound like I'm making it up but I'm not. Zoe lies in wait for the vending machine guy to come and restock and remove items that are too stale to be in a vending machine any longer. Which is pretty stale really. Then she asks him if there is anything he is throwing away. If he says "yes," she asks if she can have it. He usually gives her something.

Her husband complained recently about some hotdogs that gave him indigestion. Nobody else in her family had any problems. But she returned the hotdogs to the store and asked for her money back. After getting the refund, she asked what the clerk was going to do with the meat. She was told the hotdogs would be thrown out. So Zoe asked to have them back. She kept the refund though.

Apparently cheapness is now a recognized social philosophy with a name: the "Freegan" movement. Freegans do not believe in paying for things. They believe in getting things for free, even if it means scrounging dairy products from a dumpster. The Freegans have their own website. (I'd really like to know how they get free webspace for it since it doesn't appear to be at Geocities or anything like that.)

To learn more about the Freegans, you can access their website here: http://freegan.info/

People hate lawyers. I hate lawyers too (even though I am one and sleep with one on a regular basis).* Why do people hate lawyers?

There are a number of reasons that I can think of offhand (and probably a zillion others that haven't occurred to me yet).

(1) On the whole, lawyers are pushy bastards. It's not their fault really, it's what they get paid to be. But its also what they are by temperament. If you don't have a spinal reflex to be pushy and disputatious on behalf of a client, a point of view or a legal position—don't go to law school. You'll be REALLY unhappy with your life. (Unless you want to go into tax law, and then we're talking about an entirely different range of personality defects. Or bankruptcy. Those dudes are scary.**)

(2) Lawyers are pedantic about their pissy-assed terminology. I've personally sat through more than one debate over whether a comma after (as opposed to before) the "and" changed the meaning of the document. I've also dealt with the question of whether "or" really means "in the alternative" or whether it means "maybe" or whether it means "and." Lawyers routinely quarrel over whether a "disjunctive" means the same thing as a "conjunctive." However, "and" does not mean "or" except in Massachusetts where the rule appears to be that "and" does, in fact, mean "or."

(3) Lawyers are arrogant. This is the reason I avoid bar association functions. You haven't lived until you've sat at dinner listening to two ostensibly adult people play one upsmanship games that get down to the nitty gritty of who has more change in his pocket and whose sportscar will go faster above the legal speed limit. (I don't fault lawyers for claiming that their offspring are brilliant and that their kid plays soccer/basketball/field hockey/football/ice hockey/the trombone/computer games and/or Jeopardy better than any other child who has ever lived on planet Earth. That goes with being a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle… whatever.)

In fairness, lawyers do have to have a very hefty helping of self-esteem. On an almost daily basis they go into court and get told by judges, court clerks, and miscellaneous people hanging around the court house that they are wrong and deserve to be shot/hung/hauled up on charges/disbarred/found in contempt/tarred and feathered and/or clocked upside the head with a gavel (or stapler). And that's just the court people. The other lawyers get REALLY nasty.

(4) Lawyers say they will do things and never do them. This one isn't universally true, although it might be true from time to time. The problem is that most people encounter a lawyer in one of two very stressful and involuntary situations: as a participant in a divorce action or as a criminal defendant.

A divorce participant expects his or her lawyer to take the other party to the cleaners, deprive them of their entire life savings as well as any opportunity to acquire more life savings, block any and all opportunities to visit with the children, and punish them on the general theory that they deserve it. (A divorce is an incredibly stressful situation, even if it is what is laughingly referred to as an "amicable" divorce. It's not a joking matter, and I'm sure I'd be the same in such a situation. My mother certainly was. Learn from the best, I always say!)

A criminal defendant, on the other hand, is invariably innocent and should never have been arrested. Criminal defendants believe that the ONLY possible reason for a conviction is that counsel was ineffective. The typical assertion goes like this: "I wasn't there and didn't do it. If I was there, I was only an innocent bystander. I didn’t' do anything! If I was there and did something, it was an accident. But if it wasn't an accident, it definitely was self-defense. But really, I wasn't there. I have an alibi. Only I don't remember her last name or where she lives. I think her first name was Brandi. Or Sharee. Maybe it was Taquila?" (I know you think I'm exaggerating, but I actually see this sort of thing all the time. Well, okay, only some of the time. Oh, maybe not the Brandi/Sharee/Taquila thing, but I did see that twice and it wasn't even the same defendant. Brandi/Sharee/Taquila must get around.)

(5) Lawyers want to get rich. I really have no response to that claim. What is there to say? Lawyers are SO unlike professional football players and other sports figures who perform their valorous deeds for free.

(6) Lawyers treat everything like it’s a game. No they don't. They treat everything as a WAR. A war they intend to WIN. Both sides in any courtroom battle (note the word "battle") are there to WIN. Compare lawyers to the much admired sports figures, who just go to the field to "play"—pansies that they are!

You know why they got rid of trial by wager of battle? The lawyers were scarier and more ferocious than the paid champions. Lawyers don't only like to WIN… they think WINNING is all there is. But it's not a game. It's a war. Even the terminology say so. Courtroom tactics… law office logistics… trial strategy.

(7) Lawyers set things up so you have to hire a lawyer to understand the law. *doh* Like you think car manufacturers don't manufacture cars to you have to hire a professional to repair the vehicle? That's the real reason they use all those computer chips nowadays.

(8) Lawyers are easily bored. I'm bored writing this. And I'm going to stop now.
_____

* We are married so we are supposed to sleep together.

** The lawyer with whom I sleep does bankruptcy, so I'm entitled to say that from first hand experience.

The professor who taught my criminal law class had a few simple precepts that I have since concluded express Universal Truth. Things like "don't piss off the trial judge, he's the one who's going to sentence you." And the corollary rule, "don't piss off the investigating police officers—they have guns." Obvious points one might think, but you'd be amazed at how many people go out of their way to insult the trial judge and irritate investigating officers.

We all thought the professor was being overly-cynical when he explained to us that some people are too stupid to be free and no matter WHAT is done to try to help them out, they won't cooperate because they can't. (A friend of mine who is a PD says this is because the average person who commits crimes does not have a grasp on cause and effect. Not complicated cause and effect mind you. Even concepts like gravity seem to elude them. They also appear to believe that "the right to remain silent" pertains to communications with defense counsel, but does not apply to conversations with police officers.) Both the professor and my PD friend have concluded that, for the most part, criminals are not apprehended by dogged police work or brilliant forensic investigation and crime-scene reconstruction. The typical case is solved because the perpetrator is too stupid to be free. After almost twenty years in the business, I'd have to say … I agree.

I once handled a case in which the perpetrator started telling people that he really needed to kill his estranged wife. He felt that her demands for child support and equitable distribution were out of line. Naturally, he did not want to hire a divorce attorney. He concluded that self-help would be a better strategy. After weeks of sulky semi-threats, he bought a hand gun. And told all his friends that he had obtained the weapon for the purpose of killing his wife. He also told her (on more than one occasion) that he intended to kill her. Late one afternoon, he showed up at the tavern where she worked and aimed his gun at her. She leaped over the bar and ran out the door, across the street and into the neighboring fire hall. It was shift change time at the fire hall. And there had been a city-wide safety meeting there that day. So, aside from two shifts worth of firefighters, many police officers, shift commanders, the police chief, the fire chief all were milling around the place. The guy followed his wife, blasting away as she dodged around trucks, people and various types of emergency gear. He managed to hit her in several vital organs before five firefighters tackled and sat on him. Despite the immediate treatment she received from several EMT crews, the woman expired. Police officers were summoned from the local police station and the man was arrested after the firefighters permitted him to stand up and be handcuffed.

The guy's defense was as follows: "I wasn't there and didn't do it. This is a case of mistaken identity and I have an alibi. But if it turns out that I was there, I didn't do anything—I was a mere bystander. However, if I was there and did something, it clearly was self defense." (I know you think I'm making that up, but I'm not.) There were around eighty witnesses to the shooting, one way or another. Only about five or six of them testified because the assistant district attorney concluded that eighty police officers and firefighters and bar patrons would be overkill. The jury found the guy guilty of first degree murder, despite his claim that it was a sudden heat of passion sort of killing (which he didn't commit because he wasn't there). Verdict: too stupid to be free.

Then there was the guy who decided to break into a woman's trailer and rob her. He telephoned first to make sure she wasn't home. He used his home telephone. She had caller ID. And she was home, she just didn't feel like answering the telephone. He broke into the trailer, she observed him, he punched her in the face and ran away. The victim knew his name because they lived in the same trailer park. It had snowed that day and he left tracks from his trailer to hers—and back again. The police arrested him and the woman identified him at trial. The jury found him guilty of burglary and simple assault. Verdict: way too stupid to be free.


Paris Hilton is a socialite whose claim to fame appears to stem from the fact that daddy is very rich and she made a notorious sex-video that led to a staring role in some television series called The Simple Life: Skank Edition. I'm being too harsh. She is a very talented actress. Her performance as "Paige Edwards" in House of Wax earned her the Teen Choice Award for "Best Scream" of 2005 and copped her a nomination for " Breakout Performance – Female." Apparently all this success went to her head. In March of 2006, Brian Quintana was granted a restraining order against her based on her harassment and constant threats. Ms. Hilton has been directed to keep a minimum distance of 100 yards away from Mr. Quintana unless they are attending the same party. At parties, she only has to maintain a distance of 25 feet.

Moving onward and upward, in September 2006, Ms. Hilton pled nolo contendere (although she probably did it in English and not Latin) to a charge of reckless driving (alcohol-related). The trial court imposed a fine and 36 months of probation. During her plea hearing, she admitted she knew she had been driving without a license. In March of 2007, she was charged with violating the terms of her probation on more than one occasion by speeding, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program. (During one incident, she was caught driving 70 miles an hour in a 35 mile an hour zone—with her headlights turned off. No doubt so that police officers wouldn't notice her.) She showed up more than 15 minutes late for her probation violation hearing. (Judges do not like that, if you were wondering.) Her defense was focused on a claim that she did not actually read the probation acknowledgment she had signed. ("I just sign what people tell me to sign. I'm a very busy person.") She also blamed her publicist—not defense counsel—for failing to properly explain to her how probation works. The trial judge found that Ms. Hilton had indeed violated the terms of the order of probation and sentenced her to serve 45 days in the county jail. She's filed an appeal. And it IS California, so she might get away with her probation violations. But my verdict is still "too stupid to be free."