Skip to main content

If

I had a crazy trip to Minnesota in the latter half of last week.  My law school sent two moot court teams, and we competed.  Moot court is where you get up in front of a 3-judge panel and argue a contentious, current legal issue for an hour (each team puts up two people, and each of those gets a quarter hour).  I like to compare it to being like doing a comedic set, except you have to be respectful to the hecklers who are constantly attempting to throw you off your game.

To make a long story short, we lost every match.  The first one was actually against our other team, and basically both sides had their worst arguments of the competition.  We lost to them, but it seemed pretty close to a tie (which would have meant they won, anyway, based off a written portion of the competition).  The next two arguments we thought we had destroyed the other teams -- our coach sent a text out saying we had just "pummelled" one of the other teams ... yet we lost both times, somehow.  Our final tally: 0 - 3.  What we feel our REAL tally should be:  2 - 0 - 1.

But, that is beside the point.  The point was that I still had a great time.  After picking up my bruised ego (which is pretty resilient, me being arrogant and all), my team and I went around Minneapolis and got to know the small sub-section that we could walk to.  There was a great restaurant named "Spill the Wine" that had the most excellent wine, and the manager/owner/server/whatever there was awesome.

So, as I was thinking through the events of the week, Rudyard Kipling's old poem "If" kept going through my head.  I am including the link to it because it is worth reading again, if you never have.

One caveat:  A former female friend of mine (still female, as far as I know -- the former attaches to the "friend" part) threw a fit when I sent this to her during a rough time because she thought Rudyard Kipling was a misogynist and that this poem is sexist.  So, first ... get a life (which was my original response, and thus the "former").  Second ... the perspective is from a father to his son.  The fact that it ends with "you'll be a man, my son" is thus not sexist.

Anyway, read and enjoy.  I think this is a good goal, a philsophical asymptote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%E2%80%94

muse on,
 B

http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano
Post a Comment
Read more

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik
Post a Comment
Read more

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno
2 comments
Read more