Archive for April, 2007

Go See Hot Fuzz NOW!

Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Dear Internet, go out and see the movie Hot Fuzz at your next pos­si­ble option. Every moment that you delay going to see Hot Fuzz increases the extent of the dis­ser­vice that you are per­pe­trat­ing against your­self. Hot Fuzz is the best, fun­ni­est, most enter­tain­ing movie that I have seen in a very long time. Hot Fuzz is a buddy cop movie by the guys who made Shaun of the Dead and it man­ages to com­bine all the best ele­ments of, make fun of and pay homage to all the good action and police movies of the past. I was totally engaged and laugh­ing for nearly every minute of the entirety of this movie.

Bottom line, if you haven’t seen Hot Fuzz yet, you should be check­ing movie list­ings right now and get­ting your­self to the next avail­able show­ing. No hyper­bole, this is the best movie that I have seen in a very, very long time (and I have seen some pretty good movies recently). Don’t delay, don’t wait for the DVD, just go see this movie now, right NOW!.

A Bit Withdrawn

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

I have just ten­dered my with­drawal from law school. The short of why is that it is just not me; the long of why is long and I might get into it later, or I might not. I will be mov­ing back to Massachusetts in short order and, from there, I will fig­ure out what next for my life.

Whilst, on one hand, com­ing to law school was a mis­take, on the other, it has pro­vided me with inter­est­ing expe­ri­ences and a deeper under­stand­ing of my per­sonal tastes. I have also made good friends here that I hope not to lose con­tact with sim­ply because I am leav­ing the geo­graph­i­cal area. I will greatly miss the peo­ple that I am leav­ing behind but I will not miss attend­ing law school or pay­ing for law school. Perhaps it is best for me to say that going to law school was a mis­take, but a mis­take that I do not regret making.

George: 1, Hennepin County: 0.4

Tuesday, April 17th, 2007

Or, if you pre­fer, how I got a park­ing ticket reduced from $35 to $14:

So, about a week and a half ago I got a ticket for park­ing my car within 30 feet of a stop sign. I was, in fact, parked about 2 feet from the stop sign. I was, of course, unaware of the law, which is not an excuse for break­ing it. In my neigh­bor­hood, some stop signs are marked no park­ing within 30 feet but oth­ers are not. I fig­ured the lack of posted signs might be some­thing that I could use; due process and all.

Being a law stu­dent, I have access to var­i­ous elec­tronic legal resources so I set about explor­ing Minnesota case law to see if I might have a valid argu­ment. Eventually, I found a case with a fact pat­tern much like mine; some guy was parked in one spot for more than two hours in vio­la­tion of a Minneapolis ordi­nance even though there was no mark­ing. Unfortunately, for me, the guy in the case I found lost. Then, at the end of the opin­ion, I found this:

Finally, it is defendant’s posi­tion that the enforce­ment of the ordi­nance is uncon­sti­tu­tional because of the fail­ure to post signs which indi­cate the time lim­i­ta­tions in par­tic­u­lar zones, more espe­cially the restric­tions gov­ern­ing the area in which he was parked. It appears that in some parts of the city the 2-hour lim­i­ta­tion is posted and in oth­ers it is not, a sit­u­a­tion which, defen­dant asserts, uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally mis­leads the pub­lic. In the absence of an express pro­vi­sion in a statute or ordi­nance requir­ing post­ing, we are of the opin­ion that the neces­sity for such notice is a mat­ter of admin­is­tra­tive or leg­isla­tive judg­ment with which the courts will not con­cern them­selves, notwith­stand­ing the public’s acknowl­edged habit of rely­ing on signs of this char­ac­ter in actual practice.

State v. Perry, 269 Minn 204, 208 (1964).

In there, near the end, there was one glim­mer of hope, specif­i­cally “notwith­stand­ing…”, which said to me that if I could show a pub­lic habit of park­ing close to unmarked stop signs but not oth­ers, I might have a chance. I fig­ured it at a really long shot but one that would be fun to try argu­ing in court. Over the course of the fol­low­ing week, I noticed quite a few cars parked just as would help my case.

Finally, today, I got around to going down to the Hennepin County Government Center to argue with a hear­ing offi­cer. After an inter­minable wait time, as is cus­tom­ary with gov­ern­ment offices but could be avoided by mak­ing an appoint­ment, I got to speak with a hear­ing officer.

Hearing Officer: The ticket says you were two feet from the stop sign.

Me: Yeah.

HO: You’re not dis­put­ing that?

Me: Nope.

HO: *per­plexed*

Me: Well, see, in State v. Perry, the Minnesota Supreme Court…

HO: Stop! I’m not a lawyer. I don’t want to hear this. If you want to prac­tice, I’m more than happy to set up a court date for you.

Me: Ok.

HO: I can also change this ticket down to $14.

Me think­ing to myself: My case is weak and get­ting it dragged down to $14 is suf­fi­cient to prove that I can play the sys­tem. That and, more impor­tantly, since I’ll be done with term and back in Massachusetts in about a month, set­ting up a court date would likely be a huge pain in the neck.

Me: I can do that.

HO prob­a­bly think­ing to him­self: That saves us lit­i­ga­tion costs.

End result: I save $21 and score a moral victory.

Dinosaur Comics Helped me Find my Philosophy

Saturday, April 14th, 2007

Dinosaur Panpsychism Explanation I was read­ing Dinosaur Comics, as it is con­sis­tently one of the best comics on the Internet, and T-Rex was explain­ing panpsy­chism. Upon read­ing the first panel (included on the right for copy­right vio­la­tion pur­poses), I found myself think­ing that panpsy­chism sounded an awful lot like my per­sonal phi­los­o­phy of the uni­verse. Poking around wikipedia a bit more, as one is oft want to do, I came across a few other philo­soph­i­cal ideas. I don’t quite accept panpsy­chism, pre­fer­ring the very sim­i­lar hylopathism.

I feel safe describ­ing my per­sonal phi­los­o­phy of the uni­verse as hylopathism with weak emer­gence and an accep­tance of the pathetic fal­lacy. Putting this in sim­pler terms, I believe that every­thing in the uni­verse, from the small­est sub­atomic par­ti­cle to the largest galaxy, is sen­tient, aware of and expe­ri­enc­ing exis­tence in its own way (hylopathism). All sen­tience and aware­ness within so-called higher beings emerges from and may be reduced to the con­stituent sen­tience of lower beings (weak emer­gence). I not only accept but revel in the attri­bu­tion of human char­ac­ter­is­tics and emo­tions onto the inan­i­mate; a small part of me is sad­dened when a rock is split in two because the atoms on the new sur­faces have had their friends torn from them (pathetic fallacy).

I feel that the exten­sion of hylopathism with weak emer­gence is much the same as strong panpsy­chism. The sin­gle mind that unites all things is sim­ply an emer­gent entity com­posed of its sub-entities. To get exis­ten­tial for just a moment, we are all, one and the same within the all-being but, at the same, each our sep­a­rate indi­vid­ual selves; our liver is at once the same entity as our heart and at the same a totally sep­a­rate entity. Have you ever con­sid­ered the sen­tient nature of your liver? How about the sen­tient nature of one of your brain cells? How about the sen­tient nature of one of the hydro­gen ions released into your stom­ach acid? Hydrogen ions are very lonely crea­tures, a sin­gle pro­ton try­ing as hard as it can to find a friend to share elec­trons with (lone­li­ness is the pathetic fal­lacy sneak­ing in).

There you have it, I believe in hylopathism with weak emergence.

Dear Fishy Agents

Monday, April 9th, 2007

Today’s cod­word is halibut.

If you please

Thursday, April 5th, 2007

The mock­ing­bird flies south on Tuesdays.

Have you found the pat­tern yet?

A Not So Pale Lager and A Hefty Tripel

Thursday, April 5th, 2007

It’s time for a beer update. Before I go any­where, I should like to note that I am a beer brewer and not a beer judge so my descrip­tive ter­mi­nol­ogy may not be offi­cial or even accu­rate. Now, let’s talk about vic­tory; vic­tory and beer.

I cracked open the first bot­tle of my, sup­posed to be pale, lager last Saturday to mixed feel­ings of joy and dis­ap­point­ment. Upon pour­ing the beer from bot­tle to glass, it was imme­di­ately obvi­ous that my attempt at mak­ing a pale lager did not come out very pale. My goal was to pro­duce a very pale lager of 2 – 4SRM but the result is far closer to 8-12SRM. Accepting that the color might be off but it might still taste like a Pale Lager, I moved on to tast­ing. Upon tast­ing the lager, it was clear that I had not accom­plished the crisp, clear pale lager style but man­aged a heav­ier, hop­pier style of lager. Although the beer is in no way pale, it is nonethe­less very good; it is an accept­able mis­take. I believe that my mis­take prob­a­bly arose from two prob­lems: my malts were too dark and my lager­ing was not cold enough. I like the beer and I fig­ure it makes for a valiant first attempt at a lager but I will be try­ing again to see if I can man­age a pale lager at some point in the future.

On Tuesday, as a birth­day present for myself, I finally tapped my tripel ale keg. Filling a glass, I was greeted with noth­ing less than a com­plete ful­fill­ment of my hopes and aspi­ra­tions. The beer is clear of any haze and has a very nice amber color, give or take, about 15SRM. There is a very pleas­ant aroma, some­what fruity and almost candy-like. Upon tast­ing, I knew that I had met and exceeded my expec­ta­tions; the fla­vor is that of a Belgian white beer, smooth, fruity and with a low bit­ter­ness, but has the strong malt over­tones of a bar­ley­wine or con­ven­tional tripel ale. The malty char­ac­ter is more sub­dued and less over pow­er­ing than that of most bar­ley­wines or tripels I have encoun­tered, which suits my pref­er­ences. The beer’s alco­hol con­tent of about 9 – 12% is very well masked by the fla­vors of the beer and puts it slightly out of the stan­dard range of a tripel ale, into that of bar­ley­wines and quadru­pel ales. This beer is, in my opin­ion, a phe­nom­e­nal sip­ping beer, with a heck of a kick to it; it’s eas­ily one of the best tripel or quadru­pel style ales I’ve ever had. I will def­i­nitely be keep­ing this recipe and hope­fully I’ll have ample oppor­tu­nity to use it again in the future.

I ate a live duckling

Monday, April 2nd, 2007

As I’ve noted a few times before, when I remem­ber my dreams, they tend to be quite vivid, if not lucid. My dream of Saturday night was no dif­fer­ent and it was odd enough that I still recall it and want to men­tion it.

<dream>I found myself sit­ting in an eatery of sorts, enjoy­ing break­fast, an omelet if I recall cor­rectly. Part way through my meal, I noticed a fluffy thing in my mouth, pulled it out and fig­ured it must have been a hair. After fin­ish­ing my meal, my wait­ress came over apol­o­giz­ing pro­fusely about some­thing. Normally, a wait­ress apol­o­giz­ing as emphat­i­cally as she was with­out spec­i­fy­ing why would prob­a­bly frighten me but I wasn’t very per­turbed this time around. After calmly inquir­ing into what the prob­lem was, I was informed that a whole live duck­ling had acci­den­tally made its way into my food. The wait­ress con­tin­ued apol­o­giz­ing and asked what she could do to make it up to me. I still wasn’t ter­ri­bly per­turbed by the affair so I said that I’d take the cost of my meal as rec­om­pense and be done with the mat­ter. It took a lit­tle bit of con­vinc­ing the wait­ress that I really didn’t mind very much and the cost of my meal was suf­fi­cient but then I went along my way. Shortly there­after, I coughed and a whole bunch of soft, under­de­vel­oped, duck­ling feath­ers came out. Some nearby chil­dren laughed at me but I shrugged it off. Then, I coughed again and out popped a whole live duck­ling. Now, let me tell you, cough­ing up a live duck­ling is a very bizarre experience.</dream>

Let’s Talk Voltron

Sunday, April 1st, 2007

Ok, Internet, I know we’ve been doing a poor job stay­ing in touch with each other lately and I don’t really feel like point­ing fin­gers, so let’s put that behind us. After all, right now, I have some­thing impor­tant that I want to talk about: Voltron. In my ran­dom being up late, eat­ing a snack and watch­ing some tele­vi­sion, I hap­pened to par­take in a rerun of Voltron on Adult Swim. This rerun led me to a cou­ple of real­iza­tions, which I would like to share with you. Realization 1: the Power Rangers were the biggest ripoff of Voltron any­one could have pos­si­bly per­pe­trated; seri­ously, Power Rangers would have been more aptly titled Voltron: The Live Action Series. Realization 2: Voltron was a ter­ri­ble show; don’t get me wrong, The Transformers was only 90% as glo­ri­ous rewatch­ing it in my 20s as it was before I was 10 but Voltron, rewatched in my 20s, is ter­ri­ble. Internet, if you have fond mem­o­ries of Voltron, please, take my advice don’t ever watch it again; let your fond mem­o­ries remain unclouded for the prod­uct itself will fail to deliver.