Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Coatesie's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Tuesday, March 8th, 2011
11:11 pm	Writer's Block: Toys in the attic Did you have a favorite toy as a child that you took with you everywhere? If so, what was it and what happened to it? View 1461 Answers The Pillsbury Doughboy! I loved him so much I think he's still kicking around in my parents' basement because my mother knows how upset I'd be if she ever got rid of my Doughboy. I have lots of other Doughboy stuff, but I really took that one everywhere (this was the 1983 cloth model). (Comment on this)
Thursday, January 13th, 2011
3:10 pm	"DEBATES" by D.J. Coates (After Joyce Kilmer and Judge J.H. Gillis) I thought that I would never helm A debate as ugly as an elm A debate that faces each new day With every speech in disarray A debate that makes me think of trees Suffering from some Dutch disease A debate in which I give you twenty And afterwards think that is plenty. Judges are usually fools like me And you've made me want to destroy a tree. (Comment on this)
Sunday, December 26th, 2010
3:49 am	I decided to shield my friends from having to read my last entry because it contains a lot of very obscene language and quite explicit sexual references. If you want to see it, let me know, but I can almost guarantee that you won't like it. I'm quietly yours... Current Mood: aggravated (Comment on this)
Monday, November 1st, 2010
10:59 pm	Let's actually do the poem... Because every attempt at making a judicial rule has been stupid. "TREES" by Joyce Kilmer I think that I shall never see A poem as lovely as a tree. A tree whose hungry mouth is prest Against earth's sweet flowing breast A tree that looks at God all day, And lifts her leafy arms to pray, A tree that may in Summer wear, A nest of robins in her hair; Upon whose bosom Snow has lain; Who intimately lives with rain. Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree. That's all I have to say. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, October 19th, 2010
11:31 pm	I spent the .last four hours doing this and I don't even get a grade But I want to preserve it for posterity ISSUES PRESENTED: I. Whether the covenant between IdeaSystems and Smith is enforceable as a matter of Minnesota law; II. Assuming that the covenant is enforceable, whether Smith’s posts on Facebook “solicit” employees within the meaning of the covenant. FACTS: (OMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF SPACE) ANALYSIS: I. Is the non-compete agreement between Smith and IdeaSystems enforceable as a matter of Minnesota law? A. Minnesota courts generally apply a four-part test to assessing the enforceability of non-compete clauses in contracts. Bennett v. Storz Broad. Co., 134 N.W.2d 892, 898 (Minn. 1965). Accord Ikon Office Solutions v. Dale, 170 F.Supp.2d 892, 892 (D.Minn. 2001); Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch, 502 N.W.2d 796, 799 (Minn.App. 1993). B. The four-part test is as follows: Whether the covenant is: [1.} Designed to protect the employer against the deflection of trade or customers by the employee by means of the opportunity which the employment has given him;[2.] or to protect the legitimate interest of the business or professional man about to employ another under circumstances where the employee is given access to the employer's patronage, customers, clients, or trade secrets. [3.][And]… for a just and honest purpose, for the protection of a legitimate interest of the party in whose favor it is imposed, [4.] [And] reasonable as between the parties, and not injurious to the public. Bennett, 134 N.W.2d at 898. 1. Is the covenant designed to protect the employer? Yes. The covenant is designed to prevent Smith from soliciting those already in the firm’s employ. See Webb Pub. Co. v. Fosshage, 426 N.W.2d 445 (Minn.App. 1988) (holding that attempts to solicit business from former clients in violation of a covenant not to compete are enjoinable as a violation of a former employer’s interests). 2. Are the interests sought to be protected by the employer legitimate? Yes. Defection by employees to competitors is a legitimate concern. See Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 356 (Minn. 1998) (holding that a non-compete clause barring an employee from accepting employment with a competitor is enforceable). 3. Is the purpose of IdeaSystems in seeking enforcement of the clause just and honest? Yes. See section 1B2, supra. 4. Is the non-compete clause reasonable and not injurious to the public? That depends. Public policy in Minnesota discourages the use of non-compete clauses. Bennett, 134 N.W.2d at 898. Non-compete clauses injure the public because they interfere with the ability of the party bound by them to earn a living. Id. See also Jim W. Miller Const., Inc. v. Schaffer, 298 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1980) (invalidating a non-compete clause that prohibited plaintiff from engaging in construction business within 100 miles of defendant’s headquarters as excessive and against public policy). The 18-month time limit imposed by IdeaSoft in the covenant with Smith may be problematic. It is quite possible that a reasonable court would void the entirety of the covenant because the time clause violates public policy. Compare Dean Van Holt Consulting Assoc. v. Overholt, 395 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. 1985) (invalidating a non-compete clause that specified a three-year duration as against policy) with Klick v. Crosstown State Bank, 372 N.W.2d 85 (Minn.App. 1985) (enforcing a non-compete clause with a three-year duration). I assume that the lack of a territorial limitation is not a problem because the covenant not to solicit applies only to employees of IdeaSystems. See Dynamic Air, 502 N.W.2d at 800 (holding that a covenant not to compete which lacks a geographical limitation clause is not per se unenforceable.) Another question related to reasonability is whether there is adequate consideration to support the covenant. As a matter of policy, Minnesota courts will not enforce covenants not to compete absent adequate, independent consideration. Sanborn Mfg. Co. v. Currie, 500 N.W.2d 161, 161 (Minn.App. 1993) (holding that independent consideration is necessary to support a covenant not to compete and that mere continued employment is not adequate consideration). Accord National Recruiters, Inc. v. Cashman, 323 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1982) (reaffirming that independent consideration is necessary to support a covenant not to compete and that a mere continuation of an offer of employment is not adequate). Smith might profitably argue that the raise he was offered is not adequate independent consideration to support the non-compete clause in his contract. See Davies & Davies Agy. V. Davies, 298 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. 1980) (holding that “[C]ontinuation of employment could be used to uphold coercive agreements” which violate public policy. Id. at 130.) II. If the non-solicitation clause is valid, has Smith violated it? A. Minnesota courts strictly construe non-compete clauses because of the state’s general disfavor towards them. See, e.g., Bennett, 134 N.W.2d at 898. Ambiguous terms are construed strictly against the party drafting the offending clause. Hilligloss v. Cargill, Inc., 649 N.W.2d 142 (Minn. 2002) (ruling that ambiguous terms should be construed against the drafter of the contract). A contract is deemed ambiguous if its terms are susceptible to more than one interpretation. Dunn v. National Beverage Corp., 729 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. App. 2007). A reasonable court could find that the word “solicit” in the contract at issue is ambiguous, and thus construe it in Smith’s favor. B. In the alternative, if the term “solicit” is not deemed to be ambiguous, it must be given “fair import.” Holliston v. Ernston, 144 N.W. 415, 415 (Minn. 1913) (holding that covenants not to compete must be construed in light of fair import so as not to exceed the intent of the parties). Accord Peterson v. Johnson Nut Co., 283 N.W. 561, 565 (Minn. 1939). See Naftalin v. John Wood Co., 116 N.W.2d 91, 101-2 (Minn. 1962) (applying the fair import test to a non-compete covenant related to the sale of milk dispensers). Smith can prove that the clause is not enforceable or that he didn’t violate it. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Sunday, October 17th, 2010
10:57 pm	I have been more or less alone for a year now. I don't know if I'm strong enough to do this. Every night I return from the sub-basement alone after riding on a crowded bus full of terrorists to a freezing apartment. I try to go to bed and then I have nightmares. Anyone who wants to be the warm body I hold onto when I'm having a nightmare is welcome to make an offer here. (Comment on this)
Saturday, September 18th, 2010
3:29 pm	Now it comes... Torts is sort of easy now, and I've already got to deal with being cold-called the second day of class (which is different from civil procedure, when that happened the first day), but my favourite personal injury lawyer is right...you really do get bent up about the 14th century case with the hatchet... I de S and wife v. W de S At the Assizes, 1348 (or 1349) (coram Thorpe, C.J.) Y.B.Lib.Ass. F. 99, Pl. 60 I de S and M, his wife, complain of W de S concerning this, that the said W, in the year &c. vi et armis did make an assault upon the said M de S and beat her. And W pleaded not guilty. And it was found by the verdict of the inquest that the said W came at night to the house of the said I and sought to buy of his wine, but the door of the tavern was shut and he beat upon the door with a hatchet which he had in his hand, and the wife of the plaintiff put her head out of the window and commanded him to stop, and he saw and struck with the hatchet but did not hit the woman. Whereupon the inquest said said that it seemed to them that there was no trespass since no harm was done. THORPE, C.J. There is a harm done and a trespass for which he shall recover damages since he made an assault upon the woman, as has been found, although he did no other harm. Wherefore tax the damages, &c. And they taxed the damages at half a mark. Thorpe awarded that they should recover their damages &c., and that the other should be taken. And so note that for an assault a man should recover damages &c. And that is the easy part. I'm standing on the outside of high school cliques and trying to avoid being terrorized by professors at the same time. It's weird how high school cliques re-emerge at this point. So I incorporate by reference my previous post. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE call me or e-mail me or something. I am more or less totally alone in a really AWFUL environment and would like to know that something other than this actually exists. I'll even sweeten it...if you don't mind that I smoke in the living room and the walls don't go up the full twelve feet, you may sleep in my bed. I, however, shall sleep on the couch. And don't get me started about how The Paper Chase was right, apart from the romancing professors' daughters in the first week. (Comment on this)
Saturday, September 4th, 2010
9:24 pm	A warning to my friends I am currently enrolled in the University of Minnesota Law School, and classes start on Tuesday. You may have thought previously that I was really good at this shit, but law school is a different game. Probably you have not been expected to read something like this for the first day of class: THE CASE OF THE THORNS Y.B. 6 Ed. 4, 7a, pl. 18 (K.B. 1664) (coram Choke, C.B.) Trespass quare vi & armis clausum fregit, & herbam suam pedibus concucando consumpsit in six Acres.... I have also sit through a week of boring, repetitive lectures about how to deal with this, and I can probably sum them up in two steps: 1.) I WANT YOU TO TRY TO CONTACT ME. I WANT YOU TO CALL ME ON THE PHONE. I WANT MY INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER HUMAN BEINGS TO CONSIST OF SOMETHING OTHER THAN TALKING ABOUT TRESPASS QUARE CLAUSUM FREGIT. REALLY, I AM PRONE NEVER TO TALK TO ANYONE, BUT IT WOULD _REALLY_ HELP IF YOU WOULD CALL ME SOME TIME. MY NUMBER IS (612) 245-6093, AND YOU CAN REACH ME ANY TIME AFTER SEVEN P.M. AT NO COST TO ME. 2.) OTHER THAN THAT, DO NOT TRY TO CALL ME, AND DO NOT EXPECT ME TO RETURN YOUR PHONE CALLS. I HAVE CONTRACTS FROM 9:05 UNTIL 10:00 ON MONDAYS, AND AFTER THAT I AM FREE. OTHER THAN THAT, I AM OCCUPIED UNTIL 3:55 ON FRIDAY. I WILL GO HOME IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE LAST CLASS OF THE WEEK. BUT DO NOT EXPECT THAT I WILL AUTOMATICALLY ANSWER YOUR PHONE CALLS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE TIMES INDICATED. I WILL PROBABLY IGNORE YOUR CALLS, AND TEXT MESSAGES TOO. IF YOU NEED TO REACH ME, PLEASE KEEP TO THE SEVEN TO SEVEN RULE (19:00 TO 07:00 ARE THE HOURS WHEN I GET FREE PHONE CALLS) OR OTHERWISE YOU MAY NOT BE ANSWERED. BE PREPARED TO SEND ME A TEXT MESSAGE AND WAIT A LONG TIME FOR AN ANSWER. 3.) I WILL BE A BIT LESS THAN HUMAN ON THE PHONE. DO NOT TAKE THAT PERSONALLY. I CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT EQUIPMENT IS ALWAYS FUNCTIONING. 4.) DO SOMETHING. I WANT TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE STILL CARE ABOUT ME, HARD AS IT MAY BE. A SHORT NOTE THAT YOU STILL GIVE A SHIT MAY END UP BEING WHAT GETS ME THROUGH THE QUARTER (SEE SECTION 0, </i> FOR HOW DIFFICULT THIS WILL BE.) SO CALL TO SAY "HI." OR COME BY SOME TIME. i'M AT: (612)245-6093 1009 PARK AVE. APT. 116 MPLS MN 55404 THX. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010
12:02 am	Once upon a time... ...I was awesome. I could write a unique piece of legal scholarship in eight hours wire-to-wire. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010
12:11 am	A few kind words I am of the general opinion that "fans are slans," to wit, that people who read science fiction are smarter than the public at large. I think this is just a fact. Nonetheless, it is hard for anyone who works in the field to achieve any recognition at all. The person who coined the word "slan" to mean someone who is super-intelligent was a man named A.E. van Vogt, who wrote a bunch of influential things in the Forties and Fifties, then was forgotten, and when the Science Fiction Writers of America got around to recognizing him by giving him the Lifteime Achievement Award, he was so far gone due to Alzheimer's disease that he didn't know what was happening. This is unfortunately typical. Maybe my favorite writer in the field was a man named Alfred Bester, and I am definitely paraphrasing him to make him applicable to what is happening right now, but I think he would have approved given how the repetition of the key phrase in "Fondly Fahrenheit" is more or less the entire point of the story... And now I am here honey, warm and discreet, where the temperature of the mercury measures ninety degrees gloriously Fahrenheit. But he never got his due either. I think he died in 1974 and didn't receive an award from the SFWA until 2003, when he was retroactively honored for having written the best novel of 1953. Small consolation to him at that time...I believe his niece came to accept the award. Even people who get more than zero recognition during their lifetimes still often turn out fairly badly. I can still recall the ever-present flyleaf to one of my favorite author's books verbatim... Phillip K. Dick was born in Oakland, California, in 1928. He briefly attended the University of California but dropped out before completing any classes. He then turned his attention to writing, and his first novel, Solar Lottery, was published in 1950. He won the Hugo Award for the best novel of 1962 for The Man in the High Castle and the John W. Campbell Memorial Award for the best novel of 1976 for Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said. Phillip K. Dick died in Thousand Oaks, California on May 5, 1982, of heart failure following a stroke. There you have it. But some of you are fans too and you should appreciate all that. They do go through a lot to bring us what we like to read, and I didn't even get into Walter Tevis, who not only wrote Mockingbird, which is probably my favorite novel of all time, but also was temperamentally most similar to me. (Comment on this)
Friday, May 28th, 2010
2:39 am	Aha! People still try to avoid the Rule Against Perpetuities in the real world. From Scully and another v. Coley, [2009] UKPC 29, 32 (P.C. Jamaica): Clause 7 of the Trust Deed was a "Royal Lives" clause providing that except as provided under the Rules the trust would continue until a date twenty-one years after the death of the last survivor of the issue then living of his late Majesty King George VI. (Comment on this)
Monday, May 17th, 2010
2:26 am	Observations from a day when I didn't really do anything... And I can't talk about these sorts of things to people around here in person because I have some sense of social propriety, although not much, and anyway I know they wouldn't answer: 1. If participants in the Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions know the prior contestants' scores, whomever is randomly chosen to play last has a decided advantage...witness this year. If the last three players knew that Dave from the Air Force was in second place among non-winners with $4999, that certainly would have informed their decisions to wager piddling sums like $130 in Final Jeopardy! 2. Last time I was stuck in Newark for two days I was really stupid. I didn't know that I could have taken a PATH train to NYC (World Trade Center station) for $1.75 once I got to Newark Penn Station, and I didn't want to pay the extra $6.75 to take the train all the way from the airport to New York Penn Station on NJ Transit. Wouldn't have made a lot of difference to most people, but I didn't care where in Manhattan I ended up...I just wanted not to be stuck in New Jersey another day. As it was, I got to wander around downtown Newark for eleven hours, which wasn't the most fun I ever had, although I got to hear some interesting conversations. 3. They were re-showing "A Few Good Men" on Bravo. There are parts of that movie I really do like, even though Tom Cruise is in it. However, it plays fast and loose with how the legal system actually works, but that is generally how it's done. Some of my friends refuse to watch police procedurals on TV because the legal errors make them too upset. I did appreciate the rare instance of one of those shows getting a fairly arcane legal point correct on Saturday, in a "Law & Order" episode in which a judge suppressed evidence based on the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment. 4. Sometimes I forget where I am. The rest of the time I'm here, you should remind me that I NEED TO BUY BEER ON SATURDAY. Even if I have enough beer to last through Saturday night, I still need to buy some on Saturday, or otherwise I get stuck paying inflated prices for 3.2, which you have to drink way too much of to get adequately inebriated so you can sleep. I paid only $1.20 less for a twelve pack of 3.2 today as I normally pay for a full case of real beer (granted, it isn't very good, but still...and the point is quite apposite...Wal Mart charges $8.79 for a twelve pack of 3.2 whereas any day other than Sunday you can get a case of the equivalently bad brand of actual beer for the same price or less anywhere). The Sunday closing laws in this festering hellhole are the classic baptists-and-bootleggers coalition and I should be more aware. 5. Maybe I should start posting here more despite what's amounted to an absence of several years. Facebook sucks because it cuts off entries like this, which are really things I need to say, and broadcasts to too many people. I have a smaller audience here who are probably not going to respond either, but I know them better. (Comment on this)
Monday, May 10th, 2010
1:36 am	Legal funniness like I used to post sometimes WOLFF v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. Civil No. 06-cv-321-PB September 18, 2007 ORDER MUIRHEAD, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed a hard-boiled egg as part of his preliminary injunction request. DISCUSSION No fan I am Of the egg at hand. Just like no ham On the kosher plan. This egg will rot I kid you not. And stink it can This egg at hand. There will be no eggs at court To prove a clog in your aort. There will be no eggs accepted. Objections all will be rejected. From this day forth This court will ban Hard-boiled eggs of any brand. And if you should not understand The meaning of the ban at hand Then you should contact either Dan, the Deputy Clerk, or my clerk Jan. I do not like eggs in the file. I do not like them in any style. I will not take them fried or boiled. I will not take them poached or broiled. I will not take them soft or scrambled Despite an argument well-rambled. No fan I am Of the egg at hand. Destroy that egg! Today! Today! Today I say! Without delay! SO ORDERED (With apologies to Dr. Seuss). (Comment on this)
Thursday, January 21st, 2010
12:44 am	From the archives... I'm doing my best to try to get my students motivated to qualify to NFL nationals. It's an incredibly rough experience, but it's always cool to have been there. I think I've managed at least to get through to the top team who are serious about qualifying, but I don't know about anyone else, and that's unfortunate. I saved a few ballots from the last time Andy and I debated at nationals. There's other stuff I wish I had...the thrashing we administered to the defending national champions at Harvard when we were clueless juniors no one had ever heard of was the stuff of legend...but the coach at the time had implemented an official policy of destroying all archival material because "every round is a new one." But I have a little bit of shit from an activity that doesn't really do a good job of maintaining any sort of institutional history, and I was particularly proud of this win at nationals...how does one go about persuading a debate coach from Missouri and a speech teacher from Nevada that it would be a bad idea for the federal government to give a whole bunch of money to schools so they can make debate classes mandatory for all their students? Well... ROUND: 5 DIVISION: CX DATE: 6/13 ROOM: NH 373 JUDGE: 14J07 AFFIRMATIVE: Odessa CODE: X207 NEGATIVE: Eagan CODE: X168 Eric Parekh 30 (3) David Coates 30 (1) Amit Patel 30 (4) Andy Martin 30 (2) DECISION: The winning team is the negative side: team code X168 SIGNED: Jeanine Williams SCHOOL: Reno High--Nevada REASON FOR DECISION AND COMMENTS: Aff: Good 1AC--clear and concise. Your plan is one that I'd love to vote for (self-justifying--who here could say that Debate is bad?) and on the surface would appear to be the answer to many problems. It is, however, seriously flawed. Valiant defense of the plan, right up to the end, but as a policy maker I can't vote for something that is unconstitutional, especially in the current climate of Supreme Court being of a "states rights" mind frame. Neg: Excellent 1NC--very well organized! Super organization of evidence to attack and refute the Aff case. Good solvency press and evidence supporting the Federalism disad. I really enjoyed this round--excellent work by all the contestants. You are all winners!! If only my kids can make it out of this district by taking things seriously and not keeling over and dying any time they hit a team they think is better than they are, they can have that kind of fun... (Comment on this)
Friday, January 8th, 2010
12:20 am	Nominal consideration in a contract made by someone famous in 1926... Know all men by these Presents: That Stan Laurel, the party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) gold coin of the United States of America, to him in hand paid by Hal Roach Studios Inc., the party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does by these presents grant, sell and convey into the said party of the second part, its executors, administrators and assigns, story entitled "A CLOSE SHAVE." To have and to hold the same to the said party of the second part, its executors, administrators and assigns forever. And Stan Laurel does for his heirs, executors and administrators, covenant and agree to and with the said party of the second part, its executors, administrators and assigns, to warrant and defend the title to the said property, goods and chattels hereby conveyed, against the just and lawful claims and demands of all persons whomsoever. Witness my hand and seal this 17th day of November, 1926. /s/ STAN LAUREL Gold clauses were enforceable up until 1935 even though I doubt that Hal Roach ever gave Stanley any gold coins in exchange for this script. Except for the gold part, the opening sentence is conventional boilerplate to hide the amount of money he was actually paid for the script. Anyone who's ever signed a lease and actually read it is familiar with language like: "In consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable consideration receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged..." (Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009
9:43 pm	I wonder if this is a relative of mine... From United States v. Coates, 949 F.2d 104 (4th Cir. 1991): OPINION PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to determine whether the government can prosecute a person for arranging a murder-for-hire through the use of interstate commerce facilities, where the only basis for federal jurisdiction derives from actions the government admits were undertaken by its *105 agents solely to manufacture jurisdiction. We hold that on the facts of this case, such actions cannot provide a basis for jurisdiction. I Because of a conflict between his mother and a step-brother about the inheritance of land in Charles County, Maryland, Richard Paul Coates decided that he wanted to have his step-brother killed. For that reason, Coates called Julian York to arrange a murder-for-hire. York, however, turned out to be a federal informer, and York alerted county detectives to Coates' scheme. The county detectives in turn notified federal agents, and the county and federal agents decided to work together to ensnare Coates. As part of their plan, a county detective was introduced to Coates as York's friend who would do the actual killing. The plotting and scheming among Coates, the detective, and York then went on for some time. As Coates' interest in the killing seemed to flag, the agent and York renewed it. Finally, it was settled that Coates would make a bomb and the agent would deliver it to the target. While Coates was making the bomb, the agent needed an excuse to explain his absence because of the demands of another investigation, so he told Coates that he had to go to Kentucky. Coates asked the agent to pick up some blasting caps for the bomb while he was there. The Kentucky trip, however, was just a ruse and the agent never went there. Instead, he made a much shorter trip in order to place an interstate phone call. Knowing that they needed a jurisdictional basis on which to prosecute Coates for a federal crime, York and the agent went just over the Maryland line into Virginia, concededly for the sole purpose of making an interstate telephone call to Coates. Once in Virginia, the agent called Coates in Maryland and discussed with him the details of the bomb and the murder scheme. (Comment on this)
Sunday, February 22nd, 2009
7:41 pm	My own private stimulus package It's true! wireless and broadband deployment grant programs (including transfer of funds to David Coates for the David Coates Personal Economic Stimulus Program) For necessary and unnecessary expenses related to the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs established by section 6002 of division B of this Act, $2,825,000,000, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be for Wireless Deployment Grants and $1,825,000,000 shall be for Broadband Deployment Grants: Provided, That an additional $1,000,000 shall be paid directly to David Coates in the form of subsidized loans that do not require repayment. Provided Further, That the funds be used by David Coates to buy beer and cigarettes or for whatever. Provided Even Further, That David Coates will receive free Chicago Cubs tickets for life. Provided Even Further Still, That David Coates shall be treated as a cabinet-level appointment for the purpose of income tax reporting, and therefore no taxes shall be paid on any of the aformentioned benefits. And one more thing: Keith Ellison is hereby expelled from Congress, effective immediately upon enactment. Get your own personal stimulus plan here! (Comment on this)
Friday, January 30th, 2009
6:53 pm	Self-indulgent amusement Comments are screened. If you've ever had a smidgen of a crush on me, feel free to comment below. I won't mock you, and only you and I will ever know. Then post it in your own LJ. Meme borrowed from mastergode (Comment on this)
Saturday, January 10th, 2009
5:19 pm	The TSA get what they deserve... From Becky Akers: There is a God after all... And He hath seen our oppression under the wicked Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and hath smitten its malefactors with a plague. Yes, the TSA’s vaunted new uniforms apparently cause "skin rashes, …runny or bloody noses, lightheadedness [sic], red eyes, and swollen and cracked lips." Or at least that’s what the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) claims. It "estimate[s]" that 200 or 300 "workers" [sic for "stand-ins at the security theater"] have complained of such symptoms. ... Despite outcries from cops and their unions nationwide, the TSA never admitted to impersonating the police (naturally enough, since that’s a crime – at least for you or me). Yet it not only confessed but emphasized its hopes of intimidating us. "The new shirts and badges will convey authority to passengers and reflect the seriousness of screener's duties, said Elio Montenegro, a TSA spokesman." USA Today seconded that: "The attire aims to convey an image of authority to passengers, who have harassed, pushed and in a few instances punched screeners. ‘Some of our officers aren't respected,’ said TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe." My heart bleeds. But now the story’s changed. It wasn’t power over us these bozos sought; no, it was a "more professional look" and "better wear." Why, the TSA even listened to its employees, atypically enough, and "designed" the uniforms with their "input." ("Yo, Boss," says fat LaWanda, peeling off her blue gloves. "How ’bout you gimme a badge like them cops wear? Tired of these uppity passengers arguin’ wit me ever time I take one of their damn bottles of rum, like I’m stealin’ or somethin’ ’stead of doin’ my job. Hell, I’d go thirsty otherwise on the chicken%@#$ I make at this damn checkpoint.") Read the hilarity here. (Comment on this)
Friday, December 12th, 2008
7:30 pm	interesting... Get different results every time you take one of these, or at least I do. (Comment on this)