This came to me in an email. I don't know in what publication this appeared, but every American should read it. The Sur-Realist salutes the author, Tom Adkins and hopes he won't mind that I shared it with both of my readers.
Subject: Article Written byTom Adkins
By Tom Adkins
Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America 's flirtation with neo socialism. But there's a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barak Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America : The Era of White Guilt is over.
This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man.. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barak Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.
For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barak Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.
So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO. And it's time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright's "God Damn America ," Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization , or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornell West? You're a fraud. Go home. All those "black studies" programs that taught kids to hate whitey? You must now thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.
Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Gangsta rappers? Start praising America . Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please…no more ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah…pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.
To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America ? I'm still waiting for the first black French President.
And let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I've always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You're poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watchin' butt on the couch and complain "Da Man is keepin' me down," allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses.
No more quotas. No more handouts. No more stealing my money because someone's great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actual pain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile.
It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60s ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping, next to dope-smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop-killing. Careful…don't trip on streaking. There ya go, don't be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. It's filthy.
In fact, Obama's ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and got elected President? How unfair is that??? Now, Like a delicious O'Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by it's own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism!
So, listen carefully…Wham!!!
That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried.
However, despite my glee, there's apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barak Obama. Hmmm. In a color-blind world, shouldn't that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it's time to start spreading the guilt around.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Election Manipulation Prediction
On or about October 5th, Joe Biden will excuse himself from the ticket,citing health problems. He will be replaced by Hillary as the candidate for Vice President. This is timed to occur after the VP debate on 10/2. Perhaps Obama finally realized that he made a mistake with his choice and now wants to renege. There have been talks all weekend about how to proceed with this information about the potential switch.
Generally, the feeling is that we should all go ahead and get it out there to as many blog sites and personal email lists as is possible. Watch for blurbs about Biden’s "health problem" such aneurysm. Probably many of you have heard the same rumblings. However, at this point, with this inside info from the DNC, it looks like this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it seems that the best strategy is to get out in front of this obama maneuver, spell it out in detail, and thereby expose it for the grand manipulation that it is. Hillary would be an idiot to let herself be used that way; if she wasn’t good enough first time . . . . . Isn’t it interesting how desperate they are getting now that Sarah Palin has come on the scene?
Generally, the feeling is that we should all go ahead and get it out there to as many blog sites and personal email lists as is possible. Watch for blurbs about Biden’s "health problem" such aneurysm. Probably many of you have heard the same rumblings. However, at this point, with this inside info from the DNC, it looks like this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it seems that the best strategy is to get out in front of this obama maneuver, spell it out in detail, and thereby expose it for the grand manipulation that it is. Hillary would be an idiot to let herself be used that way; if she wasn’t good enough first time . . . . . Isn’t it interesting how desperate they are getting now that Sarah Palin has come on the scene?
NOBAMA'S "NOT EXACTLY'S"
1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google' Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths)
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means ftline'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12..5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to....
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.4-3-08 Article "Obama was 'quite religious in islam'"
8.) My School In Indonesia was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says "Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts."
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My outlook on Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV,that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting "Present" is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
GOD HELP US IF WE JUST SIT IDLY BY AND LET THIS PERSON BECOME OUR NEXT PRESIDENT. IT WOULD BE SUICIDAL FOR US TO DO NOTHING TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. PASS THIS ON TO ALL THE ONES YOU VALUE, JUST AS I AM DOING. IT'S TIME THE "SILENT MAJORITY" TAKE A STAND! GET OUT AND VOTE! PLEASE!
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means ftline'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12..5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to....
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.4-3-08 Article "Obama was 'quite religious in islam'"
8.) My School In Indonesia was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says "Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts."
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My outlook on Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV,that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting "Present" is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
GOD HELP US IF WE JUST SIT IDLY BY AND LET THIS PERSON BECOME OUR NEXT PRESIDENT. IT WOULD BE SUICIDAL FOR US TO DO NOTHING TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. PASS THIS ON TO ALL THE ONES YOU VALUE, JUST AS I AM DOING. IT'S TIME THE "SILENT MAJORITY" TAKE A STAND! GET OUT AND VOTE! PLEASE!
Sunday, September 7, 2008
A Visit From the Past
After returning from our non-eventful evacuation to avoid Gustav, we hauled the 650 lbs of photos back into the house, it occurred to me that I have been living in avoidance long enough. Ever since Katrina I have vowed to scan all of the photos into the computer, get them on to DVDs, store those in various locations, and finally quit worrying about trying to save these thousands of photographs. However, vowing to do is not the same thing as doing. But this time when we returned home I took stock of my time wastage and determined that I waste at least an hour before leaving for the office every morning just frittering it away playing computer games. So I started the daunting task of eating the elephant - dismantling the photo books page by page to scan every photograph individually. Here’s some advice in case you should ever have some reason to have to study your youthful photos at great length while waiting for the scanner to do its thing: don’t be sitting near a mirror. Unless you happen to be wearing a paper bag over your head with eye holes cut out.
In between the pages of photos, I discovered a letter written on 28 November, 1862, by Sarah Ann Slade, born 7 September, 1839, to her husband Plummer Ladner. Plummer Ladner was born in Hancock County on 18 January, 1835, the son of Carlos and Anna Rester Ladner. Plummer and Sarah married in Marion County on 15 September, 1859, but they made their home in Hancock County (Salem Community) where they farmed and raised stock. Sarah gave birth there to Butler on 9/9/1860 and to Theodocia Elizabeth on 1/22/1863. Plummer served with the 7th Batt Miss Infantry during the Civil War and was killed while in service on 8 February, 1864. It is believed that he was killed and buried in or near the vicinity of his home by northern marauders. (That would be Yankees.) Here is Sarah’s letter to Plummer:
My Dear Husband,
I received your kind letter you sent after Rutilous got with you. (Rutilous was Plummer’s brother and was married to Sarah’s sister, Elizabeth. He died suddenly on 2/21/1863.) I was very sorry to hear that you were sick, but I cannot expect to hear nothing else while you are in the Army. I am well. Well as can be, I can never say that I am ever right. Well, Butler is fat and hearty. He grows fast. He can talk. Oh, he is so much company to me. When I ask him where you are he will point the way to go and say, "Pa gone way yunder."
Oh, Plummer, I wish you could come home to see us once more. You said you had a good notion to come any how as they would not let you off. Oh, Plummer, I would be glad to see you anyhow, see you anyway you can come. But I can not persuade you to desert. You know best what to do. I know if I was in your place and they would not let me off, I would want to desert too. But I do not know what is best. It looks like they would let you come home now. Oh, Plummer, if you could be with me when I am confined, I would be better satisfied. Oh, Plummer, I wish I could go to see you. No chance for me to go now, but I hope you can come home. Cpt. ___ is gone back. I think he will shortly let you off.
Steed Calvar got out of beef. He sent Elijah up after beef. Elijah (Plummer’s brother) came to see me and Jeremiah (another of Plummer’s brothers) to see about selling your beef. Jeremiah concluded to take some of your beef. They got six head of yours. I reckon they will take more the next time. Elijah went to see if Shaw would take the money you owed him. He refused to take it. I would not care if he got one cent of it.
Pappy and Mama has been sick. They are both mending, the last I heard from them. All the rest of the family is well, I believe. I haven’t received one letter from George yet. Pappy got some letter from the boys. They were all well. Oh, Plummer, you don’t know how dear you are to me. I could not help crying from your letter where you said you kissed mine and Butler’s hair. Oh, Plummer, I wish it could have been me instead of my hair. Oh, Plummer, you don’t know how it hurts my feelings to think you want to see me so bad and cannot come to see me. Oh, Plummer, ain’t this too hard to think we love as well as we do and have to be parted. Oh, Plummer, I look at your likeness and shed tears. To think maybe I shall never see you again. I wish I had my likeness to send to you. Plummer, if you don’t come home, soon as I get able to go, I will go to see you if you are alive. Plummer I know you love me dearly but try and not grieve yourself any more than you can help. I hope and pray the Lord will be with us. I hope these few lines will find you well. Oh, Plummer, I cannot write all I want to tell you, but I reckon these lines will give you satisfaction, so I must quit. So goodbye, Plummer. I remain your true loving wife. I will remember you, Plummer. Three kisses for you, Sarah Ladner.
Dr. Henry Clay Abney served with the Confederate Army until his capture. He was held prisoner in Vicksburg, MS, until his release in 1865. After the War, probably about 1867, the widow Sarah Slade Ladner married Dr. Henry Clay Abney, and they became my great-great-grand parents. (But I still don't know where that damn Be-AT-triss came from.)
In between the pages of photos, I discovered a letter written on 28 November, 1862, by Sarah Ann Slade, born 7 September, 1839, to her husband Plummer Ladner. Plummer Ladner was born in Hancock County on 18 January, 1835, the son of Carlos and Anna Rester Ladner. Plummer and Sarah married in Marion County on 15 September, 1859, but they made their home in Hancock County (Salem Community) where they farmed and raised stock. Sarah gave birth there to Butler on 9/9/1860 and to Theodocia Elizabeth on 1/22/1863. Plummer served with the 7th Batt Miss Infantry during the Civil War and was killed while in service on 8 February, 1864. It is believed that he was killed and buried in or near the vicinity of his home by northern marauders. (That would be Yankees.) Here is Sarah’s letter to Plummer:
My Dear Husband,
I received your kind letter you sent after Rutilous got with you. (Rutilous was Plummer’s brother and was married to Sarah’s sister, Elizabeth. He died suddenly on 2/21/1863.) I was very sorry to hear that you were sick, but I cannot expect to hear nothing else while you are in the Army. I am well. Well as can be, I can never say that I am ever right. Well, Butler is fat and hearty. He grows fast. He can talk. Oh, he is so much company to me. When I ask him where you are he will point the way to go and say, "Pa gone way yunder."
Oh, Plummer, I wish you could come home to see us once more. You said you had a good notion to come any how as they would not let you off. Oh, Plummer, I would be glad to see you anyhow, see you anyway you can come. But I can not persuade you to desert. You know best what to do. I know if I was in your place and they would not let me off, I would want to desert too. But I do not know what is best. It looks like they would let you come home now. Oh, Plummer, if you could be with me when I am confined, I would be better satisfied. Oh, Plummer, I wish I could go to see you. No chance for me to go now, but I hope you can come home. Cpt. ___ is gone back. I think he will shortly let you off.
Steed Calvar got out of beef. He sent Elijah up after beef. Elijah (Plummer’s brother) came to see me and Jeremiah (another of Plummer’s brothers) to see about selling your beef. Jeremiah concluded to take some of your beef. They got six head of yours. I reckon they will take more the next time. Elijah went to see if Shaw would take the money you owed him. He refused to take it. I would not care if he got one cent of it.
Pappy and Mama has been sick. They are both mending, the last I heard from them. All the rest of the family is well, I believe. I haven’t received one letter from George yet. Pappy got some letter from the boys. They were all well. Oh, Plummer, you don’t know how dear you are to me. I could not help crying from your letter where you said you kissed mine and Butler’s hair. Oh, Plummer, I wish it could have been me instead of my hair. Oh, Plummer, you don’t know how it hurts my feelings to think you want to see me so bad and cannot come to see me. Oh, Plummer, ain’t this too hard to think we love as well as we do and have to be parted. Oh, Plummer, I look at your likeness and shed tears. To think maybe I shall never see you again. I wish I had my likeness to send to you. Plummer, if you don’t come home, soon as I get able to go, I will go to see you if you are alive. Plummer I know you love me dearly but try and not grieve yourself any more than you can help. I hope and pray the Lord will be with us. I hope these few lines will find you well. Oh, Plummer, I cannot write all I want to tell you, but I reckon these lines will give you satisfaction, so I must quit. So goodbye, Plummer. I remain your true loving wife. I will remember you, Plummer. Three kisses for you, Sarah Ladner.
Dr. Henry Clay Abney served with the Confederate Army until his capture. He was held prisoner in Vicksburg, MS, until his release in 1865. After the War, probably about 1867, the widow Sarah Slade Ladner married Dr. Henry Clay Abney, and they became my great-great-grand parents. (But I still don't know where that damn Be-AT-triss came from.)
Monday, August 25, 2008
Beatrice's Foot
Beatrice’s (pronounced Bee-AT-triss) foot has long been a discussion of gleeful humor around our house, and shame on us for it. Beatrice was my great-grand-mother’s niece which makes her my twice-baked potato’s next door neighbor’s cousin by marriage, once removed. Her brother’s name was Brainard. What kind of parents would name their supposedly beloved children such names? And if her name were not tragedy enough, one day the poor dear child was sent to the store.
Her second tragedy happened back in the day when females wore high buttoned shoes. They had to be fastened with button hooks which required a bit of dexterity as well as quite a bit of time. On this lovely sunny afternoon, Beatrice was happily skipping home with her basket of goods from the store. She started across the railroad tracks when she discovered that her shoe had become caught somehow under the rail. "Oh, drat!," said Beatrice as she tried to pull her foot loose from under the track to no avail. Wagons continued to cross at the crossing, but no on noticed the little girl struggling to free her foot. Suddenly she heard the familiar throaty whistle of the train approaching the little town. It always sounded its whistle at the bend just at the edge of town to warn everyone to clear the crossing. Beatrice became frantic, twisting and tugging her leg to free her foot. Tears streaming down her cheeks through the dust on her face, she started fumbling to unbutton her high buttoned shoe, hoping that she could free herself that way. As the train neared, her terror grew proportionately, and Beatrice worked even more frantically to free her foot from the rail.
The train chugged on relentlessly toward Beatrice, shushing steam out of its wheels and mingling its screaming whistle with her screams of fear and frustration. By that time she could feel the thundering vibrations in the ground and the rails. Finally a couple of men doing business in town that day realized that the child was not getting out of the way of the oncoming train and actually seemed to be floundering on the track doing something with her shoe! The men ran toward Beatrice, hoping to reach her before the train moving inexorably toward her hit her small body sitting there on the tracks sobbing in terror. They reached her just in time to grab her arms and pull her backwards. They felt the wind of the powerful locomotive rushing past them as the three of them fell backwards into the dirt and safely away from the train. Beatrice had been save. Everything, that is, but the front half of her foot. The poor little dear.
No doubt this horrible event traumatized Beatrice. Remember, she was my great-grandmother’s niece, so by the time I knew Beatrice, she was 769.5 years old and had the personality and temperament of Torquemada*. Beatrice had a habit of visiting Mama, my great-grandmother, to give two-week demonstrations of "How to Be Lazy Without Guilt." Mama was even older than Beatrice but too much of a Southern hostess ever to complain. Despite Mama’s infirmities, every day she made a huge dinner (that’s lunch to our non-Southerner readers), and we sat around listening to family stories and to Beatrice’s vituperations. (That’s sort of like rattlesnake spit.)
She had a mean spirit that tried to wither the joy out of everyone around her. No doubt this came from having been named Bee-AT-triss. She should have been glad she wasn’t named Birtha. (Yes, I know how to spell it, but it looks even worse this way.) The elderlys and I had little enough joy as it was. There wasn’t that much to wither, but she managed. For example, one of the elderlys had been widowed young and had raised her two young sons and even put them through college by working as a seamstress at home. She had lost a good bit of her hearing as a child due to measles. As a young woman, she lost part of the little finger of her right hand in an accident. In front of her, my favorite elderly, in quite a loud whisper Beatrice said to me, "I just can’t stand people with nubs." Beatrice said that. Beatrice of all people. The one who was half a foot short. As the family story goes (and unfortunately I have total amnesia for this historic moment), I turned to Beatrice, smiled sweetly, and slapped her face with all my might. She grabbed her stinging red face and demanded to know why I had slapped her, and I replied, "Why, Beatrice, you had a mosquito on your face." Strangely, after that she quit tormenting me every day. Even more strangely, I didn’t get punished by the elderlys. Under ordinary circumstances, that act would have merited being sent to the dreaded Catholics, the worst punishment anyone could imagine.
But she also unwittingly provided some entertainment. Back in those days we had no car and we certainly had no television. Entertainment was scarce except for radio programs. At the time, I was just a little moppet with blonde ringlets, big green eyes, and an insatiable curiosity. Growing up among only elderlys, all of whom were two and three generations older warped my tiny little mind and made me the ghoul, I mean girl. I am today. Somehow Beatrice still managed to find those high buttoned shoes and wore them with her dungarees. (Look it up if you are too young to know what dungarees are.) It happened that the bedroom opened off the dining room, and after dinner, Beatrice was so terribly tired from all of that nothing-doing that she just had to lie down to take a nap. Oh, God! To me, that was like starting up the lottery ball spinner, and if all the balls fell into place, I would hit the jackpot. The jackpot being – getting to see Beatrice’s foot! I lived to see Beatrice’s foot! That was to be the pivotal experience of my very young life.
As she lay down, I leaned over the table and became uncharacteristically enraptured by the conversation at the end of the table closest to the bedroom, but really staring between the talkers to watch Beatrice because I knew she took off her shoes to take a nap. Well, it turns out that in the ever-so-long litany of "Ladies Don’t" rules, forgetting one’s self and actually climbing onto the table to get a better view of Beatrice’s foot might just top that list. With a great deal of harrumping and disapproval, the elderlys bade me to sit in that chair like a lady. In case you did not attend Boot Camp for Ladies, one was required to sit up straight and not let one’s back touch the back of the chair - a curse that still haunts me today. And also to be seen and not heard - that was required of all children. So, I sat quietly, not touching the back of my chair, waiting for the elderlys to immerse themselves in their conversation once again, and quietly slithered downward underneath the table. I tried to peer through the forest of legs, and after a while, there they were – Beatrice’s feet hanging off the bed! But the bitch had left her shoes on! Just about that time, the elderlys discovered my absence and called me, I stood up, bumped by head, upset all the coffee on table and would have said "damn," if I had known the word. Throughout her whole visit I stalked Beatrice’s foot day after day to no avail. Now that I am old myself, I can go ahead and say it. Damn! I never ever got to see Beatrice’s foot.
Once Spouse and I were walking in a large city and passed a shoe repair shop and what did we see in the window but a size 12 plaster foot. We had to get that for our daughter in memory of all the giggling and sputtering our family had done about Beatrice over the years. Daughter opened it as a Christmas gift in front of her friends, and for some reason, they just couldn’t understand why her parents would give her a huge ugly plaster foot for Christmas.
*Torquemada: The Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition - famous for his tormenting and torturing of imprisoned Heretics.
Her second tragedy happened back in the day when females wore high buttoned shoes. They had to be fastened with button hooks which required a bit of dexterity as well as quite a bit of time. On this lovely sunny afternoon, Beatrice was happily skipping home with her basket of goods from the store. She started across the railroad tracks when she discovered that her shoe had become caught somehow under the rail. "Oh, drat!," said Beatrice as she tried to pull her foot loose from under the track to no avail. Wagons continued to cross at the crossing, but no on noticed the little girl struggling to free her foot. Suddenly she heard the familiar throaty whistle of the train approaching the little town. It always sounded its whistle at the bend just at the edge of town to warn everyone to clear the crossing. Beatrice became frantic, twisting and tugging her leg to free her foot. Tears streaming down her cheeks through the dust on her face, she started fumbling to unbutton her high buttoned shoe, hoping that she could free herself that way. As the train neared, her terror grew proportionately, and Beatrice worked even more frantically to free her foot from the rail.
The train chugged on relentlessly toward Beatrice, shushing steam out of its wheels and mingling its screaming whistle with her screams of fear and frustration. By that time she could feel the thundering vibrations in the ground and the rails. Finally a couple of men doing business in town that day realized that the child was not getting out of the way of the oncoming train and actually seemed to be floundering on the track doing something with her shoe! The men ran toward Beatrice, hoping to reach her before the train moving inexorably toward her hit her small body sitting there on the tracks sobbing in terror. They reached her just in time to grab her arms and pull her backwards. They felt the wind of the powerful locomotive rushing past them as the three of them fell backwards into the dirt and safely away from the train. Beatrice had been save. Everything, that is, but the front half of her foot. The poor little dear.
No doubt this horrible event traumatized Beatrice. Remember, she was my great-grandmother’s niece, so by the time I knew Beatrice, she was 769.5 years old and had the personality and temperament of Torquemada*. Beatrice had a habit of visiting Mama, my great-grandmother, to give two-week demonstrations of "How to Be Lazy Without Guilt." Mama was even older than Beatrice but too much of a Southern hostess ever to complain. Despite Mama’s infirmities, every day she made a huge dinner (that’s lunch to our non-Southerner readers), and we sat around listening to family stories and to Beatrice’s vituperations. (That’s sort of like rattlesnake spit.)
She had a mean spirit that tried to wither the joy out of everyone around her. No doubt this came from having been named Bee-AT-triss. She should have been glad she wasn’t named Birtha. (Yes, I know how to spell it, but it looks even worse this way.) The elderlys and I had little enough joy as it was. There wasn’t that much to wither, but she managed. For example, one of the elderlys had been widowed young and had raised her two young sons and even put them through college by working as a seamstress at home. She had lost a good bit of her hearing as a child due to measles. As a young woman, she lost part of the little finger of her right hand in an accident. In front of her, my favorite elderly, in quite a loud whisper Beatrice said to me, "I just can’t stand people with nubs." Beatrice said that. Beatrice of all people. The one who was half a foot short. As the family story goes (and unfortunately I have total amnesia for this historic moment), I turned to Beatrice, smiled sweetly, and slapped her face with all my might. She grabbed her stinging red face and demanded to know why I had slapped her, and I replied, "Why, Beatrice, you had a mosquito on your face." Strangely, after that she quit tormenting me every day. Even more strangely, I didn’t get punished by the elderlys. Under ordinary circumstances, that act would have merited being sent to the dreaded Catholics, the worst punishment anyone could imagine.
But she also unwittingly provided some entertainment. Back in those days we had no car and we certainly had no television. Entertainment was scarce except for radio programs. At the time, I was just a little moppet with blonde ringlets, big green eyes, and an insatiable curiosity. Growing up among only elderlys, all of whom were two and three generations older warped my tiny little mind and made me the ghoul, I mean girl. I am today. Somehow Beatrice still managed to find those high buttoned shoes and wore them with her dungarees. (Look it up if you are too young to know what dungarees are.) It happened that the bedroom opened off the dining room, and after dinner, Beatrice was so terribly tired from all of that nothing-doing that she just had to lie down to take a nap. Oh, God! To me, that was like starting up the lottery ball spinner, and if all the balls fell into place, I would hit the jackpot. The jackpot being – getting to see Beatrice’s foot! I lived to see Beatrice’s foot! That was to be the pivotal experience of my very young life.
As she lay down, I leaned over the table and became uncharacteristically enraptured by the conversation at the end of the table closest to the bedroom, but really staring between the talkers to watch Beatrice because I knew she took off her shoes to take a nap. Well, it turns out that in the ever-so-long litany of "Ladies Don’t" rules, forgetting one’s self and actually climbing onto the table to get a better view of Beatrice’s foot might just top that list. With a great deal of harrumping and disapproval, the elderlys bade me to sit in that chair like a lady. In case you did not attend Boot Camp for Ladies, one was required to sit up straight and not let one’s back touch the back of the chair - a curse that still haunts me today. And also to be seen and not heard - that was required of all children. So, I sat quietly, not touching the back of my chair, waiting for the elderlys to immerse themselves in their conversation once again, and quietly slithered downward underneath the table. I tried to peer through the forest of legs, and after a while, there they were – Beatrice’s feet hanging off the bed! But the bitch had left her shoes on! Just about that time, the elderlys discovered my absence and called me, I stood up, bumped by head, upset all the coffee on table and would have said "damn," if I had known the word. Throughout her whole visit I stalked Beatrice’s foot day after day to no avail. Now that I am old myself, I can go ahead and say it. Damn! I never ever got to see Beatrice’s foot.
Once Spouse and I were walking in a large city and passed a shoe repair shop and what did we see in the window but a size 12 plaster foot. We had to get that for our daughter in memory of all the giggling and sputtering our family had done about Beatrice over the years. Daughter opened it as a Christmas gift in front of her friends, and for some reason, they just couldn’t understand why her parents would give her a huge ugly plaster foot for Christmas.
*Torquemada: The Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition - famous for his tormenting and torturing of imprisoned Heretics.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Brutal Mugging of the Sur-Realist at Burger Fling
Sometimes Spouse and I stop off at Burger Fling to pick up breakfast to take to the office. Madame Indecisive goes inside rather than idling away 20 gallons of expensive gas and risk being rear-ended and bumped out of the way by (rightfully) impatient hungry people. Spouse doesn’t like coffee. He also doesn’t like any form of cola. And he isn’t even a Mormon! Just a natural-born weirdo, but he was raised Caesarian, which may explain it. So, in the process of ordering our tasty, nutritious, healthy Burger Fling breakfasts, he always orders my coffee under the auspices of the Senior discount available to those age 55 and over which it clearly states on a small sign on their wall.
One day as we stepped up to the counter, Spouse announced, "Hey, you can order your own coffee now. You’re 55." He said that like it was a good thing. No sooner than those words had left his mouth, my attacker was upon me. He seemed to come from nowhere, and it turned out he had an accomplice waiting in the wings. I was struck in the head, the face, the knees, and the back. My head spun; I went into shock. There was no time for my whole life to flash before my eyes, but afterwards, I certainly had to re-assess things because everything had suddenly changed. I was OLD! Father Time had walked in to Burger Fling and bitch-slapped me right in front of everybody, and he had his good buddy, Father Death, waiting outside in the low-rider.
You would be amazed what that kind of attack does to the human body! It causes permanent aches and pains. It turns the hair silver/white. It makes the teeth jump ship. It makes the body’s curves redistribute into the most bizarre configuration. I’m going to Burger Fling tomorrow and make them take down that damned sign. This obviously is all their fault.
One day as we stepped up to the counter, Spouse announced, "Hey, you can order your own coffee now. You’re 55." He said that like it was a good thing. No sooner than those words had left his mouth, my attacker was upon me. He seemed to come from nowhere, and it turned out he had an accomplice waiting in the wings. I was struck in the head, the face, the knees, and the back. My head spun; I went into shock. There was no time for my whole life to flash before my eyes, but afterwards, I certainly had to re-assess things because everything had suddenly changed. I was OLD! Father Time had walked in to Burger Fling and bitch-slapped me right in front of everybody, and he had his good buddy, Father Death, waiting outside in the low-rider.
You would be amazed what that kind of attack does to the human body! It causes permanent aches and pains. It turns the hair silver/white. It makes the teeth jump ship. It makes the body’s curves redistribute into the most bizarre configuration. I’m going to Burger Fling tomorrow and make them take down that damned sign. This obviously is all their fault.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Where Has Our America Gone?
Thanks to Jim W. (LtCol [ret.], US Army) in Texas for passing this along.
The only decision you have to make is who you want sitting in that seat in the White House when - not if - when we get hit again and millions of American lives are put at risk! President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. (Many countries were convinced that Iraq had WMD's.) Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.
It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders. Therefore, when the war broke out the people
came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not, or whether the war was going badly or not. And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the (Democrat) President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war. Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort. Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining. (Women would trade rationing coupons and tokens to get what each needed.)
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our (Democrat)President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops! Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies. A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that Ger- man or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog, or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets (looking only for pleasure).
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve. It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodomand Gomorra and the Land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices
(and take some time).
We are in great danger. The terrorists are Fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause. Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits. So we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing...
America is not at war. (unfortunately only) The military is at war. America is at
The MALL...
The only decision you have to make is who you want sitting in that seat in the White House when - not if - when we get hit again and millions of American lives are put at risk! President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. (Many countries were convinced that Iraq had WMD's.) Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.
It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders. Therefore, when the war broke out the people
came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not, or whether the war was going badly or not. And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the (Democrat) President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war. Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort. Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining. (Women would trade rationing coupons and tokens to get what each needed.)
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our (Democrat)President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops! Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies. A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that Ger- man or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog, or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets (looking only for pleasure).
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve. It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodomand Gomorra and the Land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices
(and take some time).
We are in great danger. The terrorists are Fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause. Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits. So we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing...
America is not at war. (unfortunately only) The military is at war. America is at
The MALL...
Thursday, July 31, 2008
BEWARE OF GREEN FOOD -- ANOTHER HANDY HEALTH HINT
A while back I had a heart procedure done at a local hospital. As we checked out, Spouse suggested lunch at a Chinese restaurant since they serve many healthy vegetables. This particular restaurant also serves its own version of pizza and a few Mexican dishes apparently for those Chinese-food haters who were dragged along against their will.
I chose my usual favorites – the healthy fried egg roll, the healthy fried shrimp rangoon, the healthy fried rice, making it a point to skip the fish bait which no one should eat unless they want parasites and hepatitis. However, considering I had just been released from the hospital, I did make a concession to have some healthy guacamole.
We weren’t too far into our meal when I loaded my fork with a big glob of guacamole. No chopsticks for me, no siree bob. As soon as the guacamole entered my mouth, I had a nanosecond of exploration of this substance along with the immediate thoughts : Hmmm . . . "What an odd texture for guacamole." followed by a most inelegant "What the f . . . !" right before my eyeballs started spinning in their sockets. Then, while the top of my head blew off like Space Shuttle launch, green stuff started flowing from my ears, nose, and mouth as I tried desperately to rid myself of this Al K. Duh-inspired poison. If you have ever had your mouth fumigated with a blow torch and then rinsed with rubbing alcohol, you have some idea of the experience of this guacamole. Of course, Spouse has no idea of what’s going on and thinks something has gone wrong with my heart again. I can’t talk because my tongue and teeth are in flames, and I’m still trying to get the stuff out before, God forbid, it should go down my throat. Somehow in the midst of my physical chaos, I noticed a woman two tables away pointing at me and laughing. Bitch. She wouldn’t think it was so funny if it was her hair that was singed from the inside-out.
Afterwards, we learned that the Chinese guacamole was actually wasabe, some sort of nuclear horseradish that probably glows in the dark. People who go to Chinese, Japanese, and other -ese restaurants to eat fish bait apply a dot of this green stuff (which masquerades as guacamole) about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Apparently they believe it will act like Germ-X and kill all the parasites, viruses, and bacteria in the fish bait they are eating. And they just may be right.
I chose my usual favorites – the healthy fried egg roll, the healthy fried shrimp rangoon, the healthy fried rice, making it a point to skip the fish bait which no one should eat unless they want parasites and hepatitis. However, considering I had just been released from the hospital, I did make a concession to have some healthy guacamole.
We weren’t too far into our meal when I loaded my fork with a big glob of guacamole. No chopsticks for me, no siree bob. As soon as the guacamole entered my mouth, I had a nanosecond of exploration of this substance along with the immediate thoughts : Hmmm . . . "What an odd texture for guacamole." followed by a most inelegant "What the f . . . !" right before my eyeballs started spinning in their sockets. Then, while the top of my head blew off like Space Shuttle launch, green stuff started flowing from my ears, nose, and mouth as I tried desperately to rid myself of this Al K. Duh-inspired poison. If you have ever had your mouth fumigated with a blow torch and then rinsed with rubbing alcohol, you have some idea of the experience of this guacamole. Of course, Spouse has no idea of what’s going on and thinks something has gone wrong with my heart again. I can’t talk because my tongue and teeth are in flames, and I’m still trying to get the stuff out before, God forbid, it should go down my throat. Somehow in the midst of my physical chaos, I noticed a woman two tables away pointing at me and laughing. Bitch. She wouldn’t think it was so funny if it was her hair that was singed from the inside-out.
Afterwards, we learned that the Chinese guacamole was actually wasabe, some sort of nuclear horseradish that probably glows in the dark. People who go to Chinese, Japanese, and other -ese restaurants to eat fish bait apply a dot of this green stuff (which masquerades as guacamole) about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Apparently they believe it will act like Germ-X and kill all the parasites, viruses, and bacteria in the fish bait they are eating. And they just may be right.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Lipstick and Stroke - Health Hint
Now, men, don’t think you are excluded from this little missal just because it mentions lipstick. You occasionally use Chapstick, don’t you? The other day I was having a perfectly normal morning getting ready for work until it came time to put on my lipstick. I use that two-step kind where you paint on the color and then coat it with gloss. Most women usually start with the upper lip and do their little Cupid bows. Personally, I follow my own lip line unlike those women who never learned not to color outside the lines. Have you ever watched women watching other women put on lipstick? The watcher moves her lips very carefully in sync with the put-er-on-er. I suppose if we just watched the watcher, we wouldn’t really need a mirror. But I digress. Then I get to the lower lip. I say "lower" lip because I can’t spell bottem.
So I start doing the lower lipstick just like usual. Only the lower lip lipstick didn’t go on as usual. My lip was . . . well, . . . flaccid. (For all you visual processors out there, no doubt you can draw some sort of parallel.) I had to practically put my lip in a splint to get the lipstick on. My immediate reaction: Dear God! I’ve had a stroke!
Now if you had read one of the previous blogs about recognizing the signs of a stroke, you would know to check the following, which I did:
S * Ask the individual to SMILE.
Okay. I grinned into the mirror like a rabid chimpanzee.
T * Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE Coherently) (e.g. It is sunny out today).
I’m in the bathroom listening to the tv which is making sense to me. That rules out receptive aphasia. I started chattering like a magpie and it sounded all right to me, but that rules out nothing since people with expressive aphasia jabber not knowing they aren’t making sense to the listener. So I called a friend, and he seemed to have no difficulty understanding me.
R * Ask the person to RAISE BOTH ARMS. If s/he has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call 999/911 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
Both arms went up okay and even flapped around a bit, just in case.
T * Tell the person: STICK OUT YOUR TONGUE. If the tongue is crooked, if it goes to one side or the other , that is also an indication of a stroke.
The tongue went out okay.
As I thought more about this problem, it occurred to me that strokes occur hemispherically, that is, it causes a problem on the right side or the left side, not JUST the lower lip. Therefore, something else caused my "broken" lower lip. How in the world was I going to go to work and be out in public with a wobbly lip?
Fortunately, a banana saved the day just in the nick of time. On the way out the door to work I grabbed a banana and took a bite only to discover that my flaccid lower lip was not the result of a stroke; it was the result of having forgotten to put in my lower dentures. So, before you rush off to the hospital thinking you are having a stroke just because your lower lip is acting the fool, first – make sure you have on clean panties, second – go through the STRT checklist, and third – see if you have teeth.
That’s all folks.
So I start doing the lower lipstick just like usual. Only the lower lip lipstick didn’t go on as usual. My lip was . . . well, . . . flaccid. (For all you visual processors out there, no doubt you can draw some sort of parallel.) I had to practically put my lip in a splint to get the lipstick on. My immediate reaction: Dear God! I’ve had a stroke!
Now if you had read one of the previous blogs about recognizing the signs of a stroke, you would know to check the following, which I did:
S * Ask the individual to SMILE.
Okay. I grinned into the mirror like a rabid chimpanzee.
T * Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE Coherently) (e.g. It is sunny out today).
I’m in the bathroom listening to the tv which is making sense to me. That rules out receptive aphasia. I started chattering like a magpie and it sounded all right to me, but that rules out nothing since people with expressive aphasia jabber not knowing they aren’t making sense to the listener. So I called a friend, and he seemed to have no difficulty understanding me.
R * Ask the person to RAISE BOTH ARMS. If s/he has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call 999/911 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
Both arms went up okay and even flapped around a bit, just in case.
T * Tell the person: STICK OUT YOUR TONGUE. If the tongue is crooked, if it goes to one side or the other , that is also an indication of a stroke.
The tongue went out okay.
As I thought more about this problem, it occurred to me that strokes occur hemispherically, that is, it causes a problem on the right side or the left side, not JUST the lower lip. Therefore, something else caused my "broken" lower lip. How in the world was I going to go to work and be out in public with a wobbly lip?
Fortunately, a banana saved the day just in the nick of time. On the way out the door to work I grabbed a banana and took a bite only to discover that my flaccid lower lip was not the result of a stroke; it was the result of having forgotten to put in my lower dentures. So, before you rush off to the hospital thinking you are having a stroke just because your lower lip is acting the fool, first – make sure you have on clean panties, second – go through the STRT checklist, and third – see if you have teeth.
That’s all folks.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Handy Health Hints
From time to time I’ll try to treat you to tantalizing tidbits of timely topical tips. (Cool alliteration, huh!)
They will not include tips on how to grill on your outdoor chicken crematorium.
1. Recently I learned an important life lesson: if you eat a bowl of delicious stewed prunes, you really should follow it up with a Kaopectate chaser. I am not kidding.
2. As you age, your teeth might desert you for one reason or another. In that case, you will probably find yourself the proud owner of faux teeth. These faux teeth won’t have a great deal of loyalty to you, by the way, and tend to be quite oppositional. The best solution is to nail them in with implants. Alas, not all of us can afford such costly solutions. So you have to resort to tooth glue such as Poligrip which is, by far, the most superior product of this sort. Tooth glue not only has to adhere your teeth to your gums, it also has to act as padding between the two. So you squeeze it in the little trench of your faux teeth in the morning and pop the teeth in your mouth for the day where you can pretty well expect them to remain until you are ready to remove them. Ah, therein lies the rub. During the day, the stuff sets up sort of like . . say. . the goop that attaches labels to products that, when you try to get it off, looks like a giant booger that you find yourself playing with in some sort of morbid fascination. And this goop has the strength of a bungee cord. So if you ever feel the urge to hang by your teeth from a tightrope over Niagra Falls, it would probably work out pretty well. The other night when I took out my faux teeth, somehow they slipped from my fingers and bungeed back so hard that it split my lip. I am not kidding. That Poligrip is strong stuff.
3. We all have bathrooms. We all keep supplies in our bathrooms. We should never lay our Preparation H on the shelf next to our Poligrip. Please see #1 and #2 for all the reasons you will ever need to have for this bit of advice. I am definitely not kidding. For those who process everything visually, you might want to poke out your mind’s eye right about now.
That’s all for now.
They will not include tips on how to grill on your outdoor chicken crematorium.
1. Recently I learned an important life lesson: if you eat a bowl of delicious stewed prunes, you really should follow it up with a Kaopectate chaser. I am not kidding.
2. As you age, your teeth might desert you for one reason or another. In that case, you will probably find yourself the proud owner of faux teeth. These faux teeth won’t have a great deal of loyalty to you, by the way, and tend to be quite oppositional. The best solution is to nail them in with implants. Alas, not all of us can afford such costly solutions. So you have to resort to tooth glue such as Poligrip which is, by far, the most superior product of this sort. Tooth glue not only has to adhere your teeth to your gums, it also has to act as padding between the two. So you squeeze it in the little trench of your faux teeth in the morning and pop the teeth in your mouth for the day where you can pretty well expect them to remain until you are ready to remove them. Ah, therein lies the rub. During the day, the stuff sets up sort of like . . say. . the goop that attaches labels to products that, when you try to get it off, looks like a giant booger that you find yourself playing with in some sort of morbid fascination. And this goop has the strength of a bungee cord. So if you ever feel the urge to hang by your teeth from a tightrope over Niagra Falls, it would probably work out pretty well. The other night when I took out my faux teeth, somehow they slipped from my fingers and bungeed back so hard that it split my lip. I am not kidding. That Poligrip is strong stuff.
3. We all have bathrooms. We all keep supplies in our bathrooms. We should never lay our Preparation H on the shelf next to our Poligrip. Please see #1 and #2 for all the reasons you will ever need to have for this bit of advice. I am definitely not kidding. For those who process everything visually, you might want to poke out your mind’s eye right about now.
That’s all for now.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Life is no Picnic
Since nobody reads this blog, I can just mutter anything and no one will know the difference. Does anyone know what "blog" means? I didn’t, so Wikipedia informed me that it’s short for "web log." But, if you didn’t already know that, you won’t find out from me because you aren’t reading this since nobody reads this blog, which is fine with me because I rarely can think of anything to write.
Here we have our typical, hot summer - just right for the kind of barbeque we didn’t have on the Fourth of July. That would be because I blew up our barbeque grill.
Having cultivated a little self-awareness, it behooves me to admit that often I look but I do not see; I hear but I do not listen.
Many, many times I had watched Spouse fire up the grill to grill something delicious for dinner. Or so I thought. One lovely Sunday Spouse went out and bought a brand new, shiny barbeque grill. He assembled it with great anticipation, but other plans kept him from initiating it that day. However, he is a patient man; he enjoyed dreaming of those thick steaks he was going to grill with the professional burn marks across them, caveman style. During the following week, I decided to grill chicken for dinner and called Spouse at work to ask if he minded if I used his new grill. "No, problem," he said, and gave me complete instructions on how to use it.
"Pile up the coals and use a lot of lighter fluid to get them wet. Then light the coals. When the fire dies down, put the chicken on the grill and close the lid. Be sure you watch it." he instructed.
I got every bit of his instructions, every single bit. However, Spouse, the safety-conscious engineer, had always wheeled the grill out into the yard to start the fire and then brought it back to the patio which had a cover of wood beams and Lexan. This somehow had escaped my attention even though he had done it in front of my very eyes many times.
So I carefully made a pyramid of coals in Spouse’s shiny new barbeque grill right there on the patio and mentally reviewed the instructions. He said to use a LOT of lighter fluid to get them wet. Okay, done. Now when you look at the can of lighter fluid, you won’t find any markings that say, "a little," "some," or "a lot." In my completely unbiased judgement, it seemed that probably the whole can would constitute a lot. Which is what Spouse definitely said to use. A lot. So that’s how much I used. The whole can. It seemed to sort of evaporate as it poured on, so I understood why he said to use a lot.
Contrary to what you haven’t read here because you aren’t reading this blog, I’m not completely stupid (there's lots of room in there for ignorant, also), so I stood back to throw the match on the coals. Ladies, if you have been looking for a quicker way to pluck your eyebrows, this is it – that is, if you’re going for the brow-less look. Stand one step closer and you can go for the face-less look. Anyway, flames immediately started licking the wooden beams, and I immediately started wracking my brain for solutions from my high school classes. History . . . Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Should I pour milk on it?hmmm. Civics . . . Nothing there. English, likewise. Social Studies. Ha! Algebra, something about X + Y. That won’t do it. Wait! It was either Physics or Chemistry. You are supposed to eliminate the supply of oxygen to extinguish a fire. That’s it! So I slammed down the cover of the grill and closed the little swivel things on each end. Almost instantly the glass cover blew out of the front. Whew! That emergency taken care of, I went into the house to wait for the fire to die down, according to instructions. You know, for a safety-conscious engineer, he really should have told me to wear safety goggles.
After a while, the flames died down to about an inch or so above the grate. Using my logic that fire cooks food, it seemed time to put the chicken on to cook. I brushed the large shards of glass off the grate and laid out the chicken pieces carefully so as not to get burned by the dancing flames and went back into the house.
Spouse called from time to time to ask me if I was watching the chicken. Dutifully I would look out the kitchen window and report that everything was okay, meaning that the patio was no longer on fire which, of course, I had not mentioned to him. I didn’t make any actual trips outside. I’m used to using ovens where you leave stuff alone and let it do its own thing. I thought men just like to poke at barbeque stuff just like they like to turn knobs and dials and to push buttons just because those things move. I didn't know they were actually doing something at the barbeque grill.
And then Spouse came home from work. And then he saw his brand new, shiny barbeque grill. That just happened to look as if it had been sucked through an airplane window during combat. What he didn’t see was chicken. The chicken had long since been incinerated with nothing left but remnants of the bones. The only printable words that emerged from Spouse had something to do with the fact that I would never be allowed to operate any outdoor cooking device again, from campfires (like that would happen since I equate camping with spending a weekend at Dachau) to Habachi’s. We are now the proud owners of the only chicken crematorium in the State.
Here we have our typical, hot summer - just right for the kind of barbeque we didn’t have on the Fourth of July. That would be because I blew up our barbeque grill.
Having cultivated a little self-awareness, it behooves me to admit that often I look but I do not see; I hear but I do not listen.
Many, many times I had watched Spouse fire up the grill to grill something delicious for dinner. Or so I thought. One lovely Sunday Spouse went out and bought a brand new, shiny barbeque grill. He assembled it with great anticipation, but other plans kept him from initiating it that day. However, he is a patient man; he enjoyed dreaming of those thick steaks he was going to grill with the professional burn marks across them, caveman style. During the following week, I decided to grill chicken for dinner and called Spouse at work to ask if he minded if I used his new grill. "No, problem," he said, and gave me complete instructions on how to use it.
"Pile up the coals and use a lot of lighter fluid to get them wet. Then light the coals. When the fire dies down, put the chicken on the grill and close the lid. Be sure you watch it." he instructed.
I got every bit of his instructions, every single bit. However, Spouse, the safety-conscious engineer, had always wheeled the grill out into the yard to start the fire and then brought it back to the patio which had a cover of wood beams and Lexan. This somehow had escaped my attention even though he had done it in front of my very eyes many times.
So I carefully made a pyramid of coals in Spouse’s shiny new barbeque grill right there on the patio and mentally reviewed the instructions. He said to use a LOT of lighter fluid to get them wet. Okay, done. Now when you look at the can of lighter fluid, you won’t find any markings that say, "a little," "some," or "a lot." In my completely unbiased judgement, it seemed that probably the whole can would constitute a lot. Which is what Spouse definitely said to use. A lot. So that’s how much I used. The whole can. It seemed to sort of evaporate as it poured on, so I understood why he said to use a lot.
Contrary to what you haven’t read here because you aren’t reading this blog, I’m not completely stupid (there's lots of room in there for ignorant, also), so I stood back to throw the match on the coals. Ladies, if you have been looking for a quicker way to pluck your eyebrows, this is it – that is, if you’re going for the brow-less look. Stand one step closer and you can go for the face-less look. Anyway, flames immediately started licking the wooden beams, and I immediately started wracking my brain for solutions from my high school classes. History . . . Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Should I pour milk on it?hmmm. Civics . . . Nothing there. English, likewise. Social Studies. Ha! Algebra, something about X + Y. That won’t do it. Wait! It was either Physics or Chemistry. You are supposed to eliminate the supply of oxygen to extinguish a fire. That’s it! So I slammed down the cover of the grill and closed the little swivel things on each end. Almost instantly the glass cover blew out of the front. Whew! That emergency taken care of, I went into the house to wait for the fire to die down, according to instructions. You know, for a safety-conscious engineer, he really should have told me to wear safety goggles.
After a while, the flames died down to about an inch or so above the grate. Using my logic that fire cooks food, it seemed time to put the chicken on to cook. I brushed the large shards of glass off the grate and laid out the chicken pieces carefully so as not to get burned by the dancing flames and went back into the house.
Spouse called from time to time to ask me if I was watching the chicken. Dutifully I would look out the kitchen window and report that everything was okay, meaning that the patio was no longer on fire which, of course, I had not mentioned to him. I didn’t make any actual trips outside. I’m used to using ovens where you leave stuff alone and let it do its own thing. I thought men just like to poke at barbeque stuff just like they like to turn knobs and dials and to push buttons just because those things move. I didn't know they were actually doing something at the barbeque grill.
And then Spouse came home from work. And then he saw his brand new, shiny barbeque grill. That just happened to look as if it had been sucked through an airplane window during combat. What he didn’t see was chicken. The chicken had long since been incinerated with nothing left but remnants of the bones. The only printable words that emerged from Spouse had something to do with the fact that I would never be allowed to operate any outdoor cooking device again, from campfires (like that would happen since I equate camping with spending a weekend at Dachau) to Habachi’s. We are now the proud owners of the only chicken crematorium in the State.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Al K.Duh Mice Magnet
The Sur-Realist finally has some news. Wes’ attorney has filed his appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, since he would not send a copy to me to read, I can only surmise that it said something like this: Dear Real Judges (unlike that dumb ass Wingate, who only made it through college and law school by virtue of Affirmative Action), Please note all the egregious moral and legal errors that stupid jerk made as he deliberately set up my client, Wes Teel, for conviction. We would appreciate it if you would send Wingate to federal prison where he will have a chance to really study law. Love, George.
P.S. I'm sorry I saved his life in Court that day.
If you would like to read Paul Minor’s brief (which is anything but), go to this site supplied by the Sun Herald. Minor's 5th Circuit appeal brief
About my identity. I am the Executive Assistant to a Mafia Don who doesn’t like for people to bother me. When that happens, he points them out to his newbees to "make their bones." Uncle The Don likes his world to run smoothly, and if I’m upset, he’s upset. It’s a trickle-down thing.
I think I have discovered our Al K. Duh connection. It’s my husband, the engineer. He thinks we have mice because we have a field behind our house. Nice try, City Boy! That explanation would hold water for regular mice, but not for those armed kamikaze mice wearing suicide vests (okay, it was dark and I didn’t have on my glasses, but I’m pretty sure the little sheet-head had one on.).
My first clue to Spouse’s connection came when I noticed the clock radio. Let’s start with the fact that my husband is a man. A man’s man, to be exact. Some men go out and buy themselves magnificent toys such as a yacht, a Farrari, a Linguini, beautiful blonde arm candy. My husband can’t afford any of these. Big bills and busty blonds upset me. And when I’m upset, in comes The Uncle Don. Trickle-down. See? Besides which, Spouse is interested in Engineering Things that would bore the paint right off the walls. We often have stimulating conversations about sine waves and electricity. My sweet Spouse has tried for decades to explain time zones to me by using grapefruits and oranges. However, as brilliant as he is, he doesn’t read body language very well. Glazed-over eyes, yawning, turning off the lights, and going to bed in the midst of one of his lectures has never shortened one, to my knowledge. He firmly believes that one day, I too, shall understand sine waves and electricity if he just repeats the lectures often enough, complete with gestures in the air.
Anyway, I digress. Before he learned how to comparison shop on the internet, Spouse was not a reconnaissance shopper. His shopping method involved dashing into a store that may carry what he wanted, usually Walmart, grabbing the item, and checking out as if he were trying to catch the last helicopter out of Saigon. The grocery store is his one shopping exception. Spouse has some sort of fascination with every single item in grocery stores. It would be faster to stay home, plant the crops, thresh the wheat, raise the cow, bake the bread, and brew your own Pepsi instead of waiting for him to poke around in the grocery store. Let’s just say that Mr. Whipple would have to take Valium.
So Spouse came home one day with a real prize - a clock radio. He went out and bought it himself with no prompting and was delighted with its features. He thinks It has a really good sound system (like who cares what a buzzer sounds like) and you can set it for two time zones (there went the lecture with the grapefruit and oranges again.) "And," he says, "It only cost ten bucks!" It buzzes and wakes people up. That is, if there was any possible way they managed to get any sleep whatsoever during the night with It in the room. You see, It was apparently made from a refurbished floodlight formerly used in Hollywood at opening nights. By the way, if any airports should have a problem with their landing field lights, please just let us know. I’ll gladly donate the clock radio to sit right there on the landing field although It would probably blind all the pilots as well as the people in the tower. So, after a few nights of taping paper, then tin foil over the lighted face to no avail, It was relegated to the floor with its face to the wall. It sits there blinking just outside the bathroom door, serving as a sort of a night light for the blind.
Wait! Did I say "blinking?" Yes, I did. There It sits at Al K. Duh level, blinking some kind of signal known only to kamikaze mice. And that’s not the only clue I sluethed out around here. Spouse, the Engineer, who now reconnaissance shops on the net, found himself the all-time prize watch. It does things like give him the equation for the co-efficient of linear expansion; it can plot a course to the core of the earth; it can store phone numbers and addresses. It may also tell time. But this marvel of wrist watchery has one fatal flaw, it has a direct connection to Mecca, home of the little sheet-head kamikaze mice.
Every night Spouse dutifully lays his Captain Marvel Watch on his bedside table (that would be the one that doesn’t get knocked around by serial killers or Al K. Duh mice.), and he has to line it up pointing to Colorado! The Rule Book that came with the watch told him to do that, and Spouse, the Engineer, always follows Operating Rules. Now think about this. One end of the watch is pointing to Colorado, supposedly to line it up with some time zone thing or other (probably an errant lemon, or something.) Well, excuse my geometry or trigonometry or whatever math (and geography) I valiantly ignored, but that makes the other end of the watch wide open and directly pointing toward Mecca!!! With my dead reckoning, his watch may be shooting toward the direction of Colorado, but it is sucking up from Mecca (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. By golly, I remember something from Physics!) Therefore, every night, Spouse’s watch - while getting itself reset to the correct time - is sucking little sheet-head kamikaze mice right out of Mecca where they recognize the destination by the blinking clock radio light right at their mouse hole.
Well, that solves that riddle.
P.S. I'm sorry I saved his life in Court that day.
If you would like to read Paul Minor’s brief (which is anything but), go to this site supplied by the Sun Herald. Minor's 5th Circuit appeal brief
About my identity. I am the Executive Assistant to a Mafia Don who doesn’t like for people to bother me. When that happens, he points them out to his newbees to "make their bones." Uncle The Don likes his world to run smoothly, and if I’m upset, he’s upset. It’s a trickle-down thing.
I think I have discovered our Al K. Duh connection. It’s my husband, the engineer. He thinks we have mice because we have a field behind our house. Nice try, City Boy! That explanation would hold water for regular mice, but not for those armed kamikaze mice wearing suicide vests (okay, it was dark and I didn’t have on my glasses, but I’m pretty sure the little sheet-head had one on.).
My first clue to Spouse’s connection came when I noticed the clock radio. Let’s start with the fact that my husband is a man. A man’s man, to be exact. Some men go out and buy themselves magnificent toys such as a yacht, a Farrari, a Linguini, beautiful blonde arm candy. My husband can’t afford any of these. Big bills and busty blonds upset me. And when I’m upset, in comes The Uncle Don. Trickle-down. See? Besides which, Spouse is interested in Engineering Things that would bore the paint right off the walls. We often have stimulating conversations about sine waves and electricity. My sweet Spouse has tried for decades to explain time zones to me by using grapefruits and oranges. However, as brilliant as he is, he doesn’t read body language very well. Glazed-over eyes, yawning, turning off the lights, and going to bed in the midst of one of his lectures has never shortened one, to my knowledge. He firmly believes that one day, I too, shall understand sine waves and electricity if he just repeats the lectures often enough, complete with gestures in the air.
Anyway, I digress. Before he learned how to comparison shop on the internet, Spouse was not a reconnaissance shopper. His shopping method involved dashing into a store that may carry what he wanted, usually Walmart, grabbing the item, and checking out as if he were trying to catch the last helicopter out of Saigon. The grocery store is his one shopping exception. Spouse has some sort of fascination with every single item in grocery stores. It would be faster to stay home, plant the crops, thresh the wheat, raise the cow, bake the bread, and brew your own Pepsi instead of waiting for him to poke around in the grocery store. Let’s just say that Mr. Whipple would have to take Valium.
So Spouse came home one day with a real prize - a clock radio. He went out and bought it himself with no prompting and was delighted with its features. He thinks It has a really good sound system (like who cares what a buzzer sounds like) and you can set it for two time zones (there went the lecture with the grapefruit and oranges again.) "And," he says, "It only cost ten bucks!" It buzzes and wakes people up. That is, if there was any possible way they managed to get any sleep whatsoever during the night with It in the room. You see, It was apparently made from a refurbished floodlight formerly used in Hollywood at opening nights. By the way, if any airports should have a problem with their landing field lights, please just let us know. I’ll gladly donate the clock radio to sit right there on the landing field although It would probably blind all the pilots as well as the people in the tower. So, after a few nights of taping paper, then tin foil over the lighted face to no avail, It was relegated to the floor with its face to the wall. It sits there blinking just outside the bathroom door, serving as a sort of a night light for the blind.
Wait! Did I say "blinking?" Yes, I did. There It sits at Al K. Duh level, blinking some kind of signal known only to kamikaze mice. And that’s not the only clue I sluethed out around here. Spouse, the Engineer, who now reconnaissance shops on the net, found himself the all-time prize watch. It does things like give him the equation for the co-efficient of linear expansion; it can plot a course to the core of the earth; it can store phone numbers and addresses. It may also tell time. But this marvel of wrist watchery has one fatal flaw, it has a direct connection to Mecca, home of the little sheet-head kamikaze mice.
Every night Spouse dutifully lays his Captain Marvel Watch on his bedside table (that would be the one that doesn’t get knocked around by serial killers or Al K. Duh mice.), and he has to line it up pointing to Colorado! The Rule Book that came with the watch told him to do that, and Spouse, the Engineer, always follows Operating Rules. Now think about this. One end of the watch is pointing to Colorado, supposedly to line it up with some time zone thing or other (probably an errant lemon, or something.) Well, excuse my geometry or trigonometry or whatever math (and geography) I valiantly ignored, but that makes the other end of the watch wide open and directly pointing toward Mecca!!! With my dead reckoning, his watch may be shooting toward the direction of Colorado, but it is sucking up from Mecca (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. By golly, I remember something from Physics!) Therefore, every night, Spouse’s watch - while getting itself reset to the correct time - is sucking little sheet-head kamikaze mice right out of Mecca where they recognize the destination by the blinking clock radio light right at their mouse hole.
Well, that solves that riddle.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
What's Up
Dear Readers,
The Sur-Realist is touched with your concern for my welfare. Let me bring you up to date. Work takes up a great deal of my time; ennui takes up the rest. Blogging is not a passion of my life, thus thinking up something that might interest you does not fall within my natural talents, as you may have already noticed. Since our last contact I have kept in touch with Wes and have been fighting miniature terrorists.
Wes has been making an excellent recovery from his triple by-pass surgery. This cannot have been easy for him. He was stricken with a heart attack his first week in prison and had the surgery soon thereafter. Wes has had to go through the post-operative hospital stay without the comfort of contact with any family members who weren’t even notified. When he was returned to the prison compound, the friends he had made in the small community tended to him faithfully and helped him through his recovery. Wes was very weak for a long time but is now coming along very nicely. He has been removed from convalescent status and has been given the job of tidying up the unit. He enjoys having an activity that keeps him busy for part of the day along with the prayer group. We speak on the phone almost every week, and it certainly makes me feel better. It probably cheers Wes, as well, to keep in contact with people from home.
Anonymouse #1: You are right that the freedom to go to the polls is what makes America great. If only we had some decent choices . . .
Anonymouse #2: Yes, I’m okay. Thank you very much for inquiring. Someone has made an attempt to get to me, but we are trying to circumvent it. Unfortunately LegalSchnauzer, Roger Shuler, lost his house in Alabama because he continued to stand on principle when the Sheriff auctioned it off illegally for something like $2,500. I salute him for his integrity and single-mindedness. I’m afraid my pragmatism and need for a roof over my head would have gotten in the way of my principles in this case.
Anonymouse #3: You don’t understand the Sur-Realist. I have two extremely strong values that I uphold above all others: loyalty and protecting/defending those who can’t defend themselves, i.e., children, elderly, the sick, and the unjustly accused, among others. Just for the record, I spent all day yesterday on the phone trying to protect a molested child only to learn that the police in Georgia do not consider it a crime for a father to put his finger up his child’s panties. In speaking to the Judge in that misguided State, I did hasten to assure him that even though Georgia police do not consider it a crime, we here in Mississippi do. Apparently the judge shares the police’s views there because I was not successful in convincing him to protect the child.
Now about my personal fight with terrorists. It all started in our rather large bathroom where I was sitting minding my own business. You know how you get that feeling that you are being watched? The hair on the back of your neck starts to stand up, and you feel eyes boring into you. Those of you who grew up on the lap of luxury will not have this sense quite as finely honed as those of us who grew up in genteel or even abject poverty. We are the ones who can speak knowledgeably of outhouses. We are the ones who still turn on the bathroom light at night. In case you haven’t guessed why, it’s to make sure there are no snakes or spiders in there. And the Sears catalog was always handy. At least our outhouse was fairly near the house. My grandmother’s outhouse was on the other side of a barbed wire fence! No, it didn’t make any sense to me either, even as a child. Anyway, the point of this digression is that people who obtain their childhood training in outhouses become hyper-vigilant in bathrooms. Therefore, I was immediately on super alert when I felt beady little eyes on me. As I looked up, there across the bathroom stood a mouse, hands on his hips, staring me straight in the eye. Even without my glasses, I’m pretty sure it was wearing a little rag on its head. Obviously, Al Queda had invaded my bathroom. You’d be surprised how naked you feel sitting on the toilet without your Glock when you need it. Al and I kept staring at each other until, in a sudden kamikaze move, he charged me! Now what do you do when a mouse charges you while you are sitting on the john? You abandon your Sur-Realist dignity and run out of the bathroom where your spouse is laughing as if something is actually funny. Humph!
But Al Queda was not finished with me, not by a long shot. He bided his time, lulling me into a false sense of security. Months later, I heard a knock on the leg of my bedside table. Now what would you do if you heard that in my middle of the night? If you are at all like me, you would assume that it’s a serial killer. You see, I had stupidly forgotten about Al Queda. But I am always prepared for serial killers. My spouse does not like for me to fire the gun randomly into the bedroom every time a serial killer wakes me up, so I keep a bar-b-que fork for defense. My plan is to stab the serial killer in the balls and yell, "Snake! Snake!" This is to throw him off guard. So, here I am trying to locate my bar-b-que fork in the dark while the serial killer is actually knocking on my bed table. Between you and me, I find this disconcerting. I’m also kicking my spouse at the same time, thinking that we both should be awake for this. Finally, Spouse gets tired of the whole thing, turns on the lamp, comes around to my side of the bed, and discovers Al Queda caught in a mouse trap. Now, I did not actually see Al because Spouse took care of him, knowing I would prefer to dispense with Al using one of my weapons. Apparently, Al must have come after me wearing a little dynamite belt which padded the trap bar and kept it from killing him immediately because it flipped over and he was trying to escape dragging the trap with his mutilated body. I have no merciful feelings for Al Queda. Well, not too many. I hope he didn’t suffer too long. Maybe he and his ilk will leave me alone now.
See you later.
The Sur-Realist is touched with your concern for my welfare. Let me bring you up to date. Work takes up a great deal of my time; ennui takes up the rest. Blogging is not a passion of my life, thus thinking up something that might interest you does not fall within my natural talents, as you may have already noticed. Since our last contact I have kept in touch with Wes and have been fighting miniature terrorists.
Wes has been making an excellent recovery from his triple by-pass surgery. This cannot have been easy for him. He was stricken with a heart attack his first week in prison and had the surgery soon thereafter. Wes has had to go through the post-operative hospital stay without the comfort of contact with any family members who weren’t even notified. When he was returned to the prison compound, the friends he had made in the small community tended to him faithfully and helped him through his recovery. Wes was very weak for a long time but is now coming along very nicely. He has been removed from convalescent status and has been given the job of tidying up the unit. He enjoys having an activity that keeps him busy for part of the day along with the prayer group. We speak on the phone almost every week, and it certainly makes me feel better. It probably cheers Wes, as well, to keep in contact with people from home.
Anonymouse #1: You are right that the freedom to go to the polls is what makes America great. If only we had some decent choices . . .
Anonymouse #2: Yes, I’m okay. Thank you very much for inquiring. Someone has made an attempt to get to me, but we are trying to circumvent it. Unfortunately LegalSchnauzer, Roger Shuler, lost his house in Alabama because he continued to stand on principle when the Sheriff auctioned it off illegally for something like $2,500. I salute him for his integrity and single-mindedness. I’m afraid my pragmatism and need for a roof over my head would have gotten in the way of my principles in this case.
Anonymouse #3: You don’t understand the Sur-Realist. I have two extremely strong values that I uphold above all others: loyalty and protecting/defending those who can’t defend themselves, i.e., children, elderly, the sick, and the unjustly accused, among others. Just for the record, I spent all day yesterday on the phone trying to protect a molested child only to learn that the police in Georgia do not consider it a crime for a father to put his finger up his child’s panties. In speaking to the Judge in that misguided State, I did hasten to assure him that even though Georgia police do not consider it a crime, we here in Mississippi do. Apparently the judge shares the police’s views there because I was not successful in convincing him to protect the child.
Now about my personal fight with terrorists. It all started in our rather large bathroom where I was sitting minding my own business. You know how you get that feeling that you are being watched? The hair on the back of your neck starts to stand up, and you feel eyes boring into you. Those of you who grew up on the lap of luxury will not have this sense quite as finely honed as those of us who grew up in genteel or even abject poverty. We are the ones who can speak knowledgeably of outhouses. We are the ones who still turn on the bathroom light at night. In case you haven’t guessed why, it’s to make sure there are no snakes or spiders in there. And the Sears catalog was always handy. At least our outhouse was fairly near the house. My grandmother’s outhouse was on the other side of a barbed wire fence! No, it didn’t make any sense to me either, even as a child. Anyway, the point of this digression is that people who obtain their childhood training in outhouses become hyper-vigilant in bathrooms. Therefore, I was immediately on super alert when I felt beady little eyes on me. As I looked up, there across the bathroom stood a mouse, hands on his hips, staring me straight in the eye. Even without my glasses, I’m pretty sure it was wearing a little rag on its head. Obviously, Al Queda had invaded my bathroom. You’d be surprised how naked you feel sitting on the toilet without your Glock when you need it. Al and I kept staring at each other until, in a sudden kamikaze move, he charged me! Now what do you do when a mouse charges you while you are sitting on the john? You abandon your Sur-Realist dignity and run out of the bathroom where your spouse is laughing as if something is actually funny. Humph!
But Al Queda was not finished with me, not by a long shot. He bided his time, lulling me into a false sense of security. Months later, I heard a knock on the leg of my bedside table. Now what would you do if you heard that in my middle of the night? If you are at all like me, you would assume that it’s a serial killer. You see, I had stupidly forgotten about Al Queda. But I am always prepared for serial killers. My spouse does not like for me to fire the gun randomly into the bedroom every time a serial killer wakes me up, so I keep a bar-b-que fork for defense. My plan is to stab the serial killer in the balls and yell, "Snake! Snake!" This is to throw him off guard. So, here I am trying to locate my bar-b-que fork in the dark while the serial killer is actually knocking on my bed table. Between you and me, I find this disconcerting. I’m also kicking my spouse at the same time, thinking that we both should be awake for this. Finally, Spouse gets tired of the whole thing, turns on the lamp, comes around to my side of the bed, and discovers Al Queda caught in a mouse trap. Now, I did not actually see Al because Spouse took care of him, knowing I would prefer to dispense with Al using one of my weapons. Apparently, Al must have come after me wearing a little dynamite belt which padded the trap bar and kept it from killing him immediately because it flipped over and he was trying to escape dragging the trap with his mutilated body. I have no merciful feelings for Al Queda. Well, not too many. I hope he didn’t suffer too long. Maybe he and his ilk will leave me alone now.
See you later.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The Sur-Realist would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank Roger Shuler, the brilliant journalist who writes the Legal Schnauzer blog, and Scott Horton, the renowned law professor from Columbia Law School, the writer of Harpers.org. Because of the efforts of these two men, Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, has been released from prison, pending his appeal.
In particular, Roger Shuler has worked tirelessly to uncover the corruption that created the Seigelman case and the Paul Minor / John Whitfield / Wes Teel case where no crime existed. In an extreme simplification, the Republicans (and I’m embarrassed at this time to be a member of the party) felt the need to feather their own nest and found that the easiest way to do that would be to eliminate some of the high rollers in the other party. The belief is that Karl Rove engineered this play, and this has been discussed on MSNBC by Dan Abrams. Scott Horton followed the research begun by Shuler, and he interviewed all the parties involved in the Minor case. He believes that a gross injustice has been done to these men just as it was done to Siegelman. The U. S. House Judiciary Committee will soon be hearing Siegelman's testimony in this matter. Rep. Artur seems very supportive and wants this practice investigated. Hopefully, this means the Minor / Whitfield / Teel case will also be investigated by Congress.
It doesn’t matter if you love or hate Siegelman, Minor, Whitfield, Teel, or any other Americans who were turned into political prisoners in our own country simply because they contributed to the wrong political party. You should be absolutely outraged that we have political prisoners. We have kept our military in constant peril to establish democracy in places that have no concept of a democracy and seemingly no use for one. And behind their backs, our government has sanctioned the persecution and prosecution of people innocent of the crimes of which they stand convicted. Thank God we don’t still burn people at the stake.
Just in case you think you might be safe from the risk of similar persecution, think again. The Sur-Realist has been informed by reliable sources that an arch-nemesis of Wes, a politician, has now started to attack even Wes’ innocent friends and supporters. In Alabama, Roger Shuler is in danger of losing his home simply because the "powers that be" want him to stop blogging. Thank God for people like Shuler and Horton, people who dig up the truth, no matter how obscure, and fearlessly expose evil for what it is and let the rest of us know. They, too, serve to preserve America. God bless them and keep them safe from harm.
In particular, Roger Shuler has worked tirelessly to uncover the corruption that created the Seigelman case and the Paul Minor / John Whitfield / Wes Teel case where no crime existed. In an extreme simplification, the Republicans (and I’m embarrassed at this time to be a member of the party) felt the need to feather their own nest and found that the easiest way to do that would be to eliminate some of the high rollers in the other party. The belief is that Karl Rove engineered this play, and this has been discussed on MSNBC by Dan Abrams. Scott Horton followed the research begun by Shuler, and he interviewed all the parties involved in the Minor case. He believes that a gross injustice has been done to these men just as it was done to Siegelman. The U. S. House Judiciary Committee will soon be hearing Siegelman's testimony in this matter. Rep. Artur seems very supportive and wants this practice investigated. Hopefully, this means the Minor / Whitfield / Teel case will also be investigated by Congress.
It doesn’t matter if you love or hate Siegelman, Minor, Whitfield, Teel, or any other Americans who were turned into political prisoners in our own country simply because they contributed to the wrong political party. You should be absolutely outraged that we have political prisoners. We have kept our military in constant peril to establish democracy in places that have no concept of a democracy and seemingly no use for one. And behind their backs, our government has sanctioned the persecution and prosecution of people innocent of the crimes of which they stand convicted. Thank God we don’t still burn people at the stake.
Just in case you think you might be safe from the risk of similar persecution, think again. The Sur-Realist has been informed by reliable sources that an arch-nemesis of Wes, a politician, has now started to attack even Wes’ innocent friends and supporters. In Alabama, Roger Shuler is in danger of losing his home simply because the "powers that be" want him to stop blogging. Thank God for people like Shuler and Horton, people who dig up the truth, no matter how obscure, and fearlessly expose evil for what it is and let the rest of us know. They, too, serve to preserve America. God bless them and keep them safe from harm.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
TO HELP YOU SAVE A LIFE
Blood Clots/Stroke
This is worth sharing. STROKE: Remember These Four Letters.... S.T.R.T.
A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke... totally . He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough.
RECOGNIZING A STROKE: Remember the "4" steps, STRT . Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke . Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions:
S * Ask the individual to SMILE.
T * Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) (i.e. It is sunny out today)
R * Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call 999/911 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
T * Ask the person to STICK OUT YOUR TONGUE. If the tongue is crooked, if it goes to one side or the other , that is also an indication of a stroke. A cardiologist says if everyone who reads this sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved.
This is worth sharing. STROKE: Remember These Four Letters.... S.T.R.T.
A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke... totally . He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough.
RECOGNIZING A STROKE: Remember the "4" steps, STRT . Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke . Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions:
S * Ask the individual to SMILE.
T * Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) (i.e. It is sunny out today)
R * Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call 999/911 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
T * Ask the person to STICK OUT YOUR TONGUE. If the tongue is crooked, if it goes to one side or the other , that is also an indication of a stroke. A cardiologist says if everyone who reads this sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Dickie Scruggs
So, what do you all think of the Dickie Scruggs debacle? Do you think his son was also guilty? Again, it's the wife who will bear the emotional brunt. Diane typed Dickie's way through law school. At least she will be comfortable while waiting for him to get out of prison. However, he isn't going to pass Go, and he's certainly not going to collect $200.
Monday, March 10, 2008
RULE 1.3 DILIGENCE; RULE 1.4 COMMUNICATION; AND RULE 1.5 FEES
.
These will be the last rules posted because those already posted represent the areas most likely to have been controversial. Those that won't be posted include:
1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
1.7 Conflict of Interest: General Rule.
1.8 Conflict of Interests: Prohibited Transactions.
1.9 Conflict of Interest: Former Client.
1.10 Imputed Disqualification: General Rule.
1.11 Successive Government and Private Employment.
1.12 Former Judge or Arbitrator.
1.13 Organization as Client.
1.14 Client Under a Disability.
1.15 Safekeeping Property.Mississippi IOLTA Program Notice of Election.
1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation.
1.17 Sale of Law Practice.
If anybody is dying to read any of these, just say so. I will not be sitting around holding my breath waiting for a request. This whole effort is to educate all of us in an area we probably knew nothing about when we started. Now the Sur-Realist finished with this and will go on to something else. Probably.
RULE 1.3 DILIGENCE
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Comment
A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction
or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and may take whatever lawful and ethical measures
are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor. A lawyer should act with commitment
and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.
However, a lawyer is not bound to press for every advantage that might be realized for a
client. A lawyer has professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter
should be pursued. See Rule 1.2. A lawyer’s workload should be controlled so that each
matter can be handled adequately.
Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination.
A client’s interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of
conditions; in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the
client’s legal position may be destroyed. Even when the client’s interests are not affected in
substances, however, unreasonable delay can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine
confidence in the lawyer’s trustworthiness.
Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.16, a lawyer should carry
through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client. If a lawyer’s employment is limited
to a specific matter, the relationship terminates when the matter has been resolved. If a
lawyer has served a client over a substantial period in a variety of matters, the client
sometimes may assume that the lawyer will continue to serve on a continuing basis unless
the lawyer gives notice of withdrawal. Doubt about whether a client-lawyer relationship still
exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will not
mistakenly suppose the lawyer is looking after the client’s affairs when the lawyer has ceased
to do so. For example, if a lawyer has handled a judicial or administrative proceeding that
produced a result adverse to the client but has not been specifically instructed concerning
pursuit of an appeal, the lawyer should advise the client of the possibility of appeal before
relinquishing responsibility for the matter.
Code Comparison
DR 6-101(A)(3) requires that a lawyer not "neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
EC 6-4 states that a lawyer should "give appropriate attention to his legal work." Canon 7
states that "a lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law." DR
7-101(A)(1) provides that "a lawyer shall not intentionally . . . fail to seek the lawful
objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the
Disciplinary Rules. . . ." DR 7-101(A)(3) provides that "a lawyer shall not intentionally . . .
prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship. . . ."
RULE 1.4 COMMUNICATION
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Comment
The client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions
concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be
pursued, to the extent the client is willing and able to do so. For example, a lawyer
negotiating on behalf of a client should provide the client with facts relevant to the matter,
inform the client of communications from another party and take other reasonable steps that
permit the client to make a decision regarding a serious offer from another party. A lawyer
who receives from opposing counsel an offer of settlement in a civil controversy or a
proffered plea bargain in a criminal case should promptly inform the client of its substance
unless prior discussions with the client have left it clear that the proposal will be
unacceptable. See Rule 1.2(a). Even when a client delegates authority to the lawyer, the
client should be kept advised of the status of the matter.
Adequacy of communication depends in part on the kind of advice or assistance
involved. For example, in negotiations where there is time to explain a proposal, the lawyer
should review all important provisions with the client before proceeding to an agreement.
In litigation a lawyer should explain the general strategy and prospects of success and
ordinarily should consult the client on tactics that might injury or coerce others. On the other
hand, a lawyer ordinarily cannot be expected to describe trial or negotiation strategy in detail.
The guiding principle is that the lawyer should fulfill reasonable client expectations for
information consistent with the duty to act in the client’s best interests, and the client’s
overall requirements as to the character of representation.
Ordinarily, the information to be provided is that appropriate for a client who is a
comprehending and responsible adult. However, fully informing the client according to this
standard may be impracticable, for example, where the client is a child or suffers from mental
disability. See Rule 1.14. When the client is an organization or group, it is often impossible
or inappropriate to inform every one of its members about its legal affairs; ordinarily, the
lawyer should address communications to the appropriate officials of the organization. See
Rule 1.13. Where many routine matters are involved, a system of limited or occasional
reporting may be arranged with the client. Practical exigency may also require a lawyer to
act for a client without prior consultation.
Withholding Information. In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in
delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently
to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a psychiatric diagnosis of
a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client. A
lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience.
Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer
may not be disclosed to the client. Rule 3.4(c) directs compliance with such rules or orders.
Code Comparison
This Rule has no direct counterpart in the Disciplinary Rules of the Code.
DR 6-101(A)(3) provides that a lawyer shall not "neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
DR 9-102(B)(1) provides that a lawyer "shall promptly notify a client of the receipt of his
funds, securities, or other properties." EC 7-8 states that "a lawyer should exert his best
efforts to insure that decisions of his client are made only after the client has been informed
of relevant considerations." EC 9-2 states that "a lawyer should fully and promptly inform
his client of material developments in the matters being handled for the client."
RULE 1.5 FEES
(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors to be considered in determining
the reasonableness of a fee include the following:
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing
the services; and
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
(b) When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the
fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable
time after commencing the representation.
(c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is
rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by paragraph (d) or other
law. A contingent fee agreement shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the
fee is to be determined, including the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, litigation and other expenses to be deducted
from the recovery, and whether such expenses are to be deducted before or after the
contingent fee is calculated. Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer shall
provide the client with a written statement stating the outcome of the matter and, if there is
a recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the method of its determination.
(d) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect:
(1) any fee in a domestic relations matter, the payment or amount of which is
contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of alimony or support,
or property settlement in lieu thereof; or
(2) a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case.
(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only
if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or,
by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the
representation;
(2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the
lawyers involved; and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
Comment
Basis or Rate of Fee. When the lawyer has regularly represented a client, they
ordinarily will have evolved an understanding concerning the basis or rate of the fee. In a
20
new client-lawyer relationship, however, an understanding as to the fee should be promptly
established. It is not necessary to recite all the factors that that underlie the basis of the fee,
but only those that are directly involved in its computation. It is sufficient, for example, to
state that the basic rate is an hourly charge or a fixed amount or an estimated amount, or to
identify the factors that may be taken into account in finally fixing the fee. When
developments occur during the representation that render an earlier estimate substantially
inaccurate, a revised estimate should be provided to the client. A written statement
concerning the fee reduces the possibility of a misunderstanding. Furnishing the client with
a simple memorandum or a copy of the lawyer’s customary fee schedule is sufficient if the
basis or rate of the fee is set forth.
Terms of Payment. A lawyer may require advance payment of a fee, but is obliged
to return any unearned portion. See Rule 1.16(d). A lawyer may accept property in payment
for services, such as an ownership interest in an enterprise, providing this does not involve
acquisition of a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation
contrary to Rule 1.8(j). However, a fee paid in property instead of money may be subject to
special scrutiny because it involves questions concerning both the value of the services and
the lawyer’s special knowledge of the value of the property.
An agreement may not be made whose terms might induce the lawyer improperly to
curtail services for the client or perform them in such a way contrary to the client’s interest.
For example, a lawyer should not enter into an agreement whereby services are to be
provided only up to a stated amount when it is foreseeable that more extensive services will
probably be required, unless the situation is adequately explained to the client. Otherwise,
the client might have to bargain for further assistance in the midst of a proceeding or
transaction. However, it is proper to define the extent of services in light of the client’s
ability to pay. A lawyer should not exploit a fee arrangement based primarily on hourly
charges by using wasteful procedures. When there is doubt whether a contingent fee is
consistent with the client’s best interest, the lawyer should offer the client alternative bases
for the fee and explain their implications. Applicable law may impose limitations on
contingent fees, such as a ceiling on the percentage.
Paragraph (d)(1) does not prohibit a contingent fee agreement for the collection of
past due alimony or support. See MSB Ethics Opinion No. 88.
Division of Fee. A division of fee is a single billing to a client covering the fee of two
or more lawyers who are not in the same firm. A division of fee facilitates association of
more than one lawyer in a matter in which neither alone could serve the client as well, and
most often is used when the fee is contingent and the division is between a referring lawyer
and a trial specialist. Paragraph (e) permits the lawyers to divide a fee on either the basis of
21
the proportion of services they render or by agreement between the participating lawyers if
all assume responsibility for the representation as a whole and the client is advised and does
not object. It does not require disclosure to the client of the share that each lawyer is to
receive. Joint responsibility for the representation entails the obligations stated in Rule 5.1
for purposes of the matter involved.
Disputes Over Fee. If a procedure has been established for resolution of fee disputes,
such as an arbitration or mediation procedure established by the bar, the lawyer should
conscientiously consider submitting to it. Law may prescribe a procedure for determining
a lawyer’s fee, for example, in representation of an executor or administrator, a class or a
person entitled to a reasonable fee as part of the measure of damages. The lawyer entitled
to such a fee and a lawyer representing another party concerned with the fee should comply
with the prescribed procedure.
Code Comparison
DR 2-106(A) provides that "A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge,
or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee." DR 2-106(B) provides that "A fee is clearly
excessive when, after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with
a definite and firm conviction that the fee is in excess of a reasonable fee." DR 2-106(B)
further provides that "Factors to be considered . . . in determining . . . reasonableness . . .
include . . .: (1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly. (2) The likelihood, if
apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other
employment by the lawyer. (3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar
services. (4) The amount involved and the results obtained. (5) The time limitations
imposed by the client or by the circumstances. (6) The nature and length of the professional
relationship with the client. (7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or
lawyers performing the services. (8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent." The Rule
includes the factor of ability to pay; a person of ample means may justly be charged more for
a service, and a person of limited means less, other factors being the same. EC 2-17 states
that "A lawyer should not charge more than a reasonable fee. . . ."
There is no counterpart to Rule 1.5(b) in the Disciplinary Rules of the Code. EC 2-19
states that "It is usually beneficial to reduce to writing the understanding of the parties
concerning the fee, particularly when it is contingent."
With regard to Rule 1.5(c), DR 2-106(C) prohibits "a contingent fee in a criminal
case."
With regard to Rule 1.5(d), DR2-107(A) permits division of fees only if: "(1) The
client consents to employment of the other lawyer after a full disclosure that a division of
fees will be made. (2) The division is in proportion to the services performed and
responsibility assumed by each. (3) The total fee does not exceed clearly reasonable
compensation. . . ." Rule 1.5(d) permits division without regard to the services rendered by
each lawyer if they assume joint responsibility for the representation.
See also MSB Ethics Opinion Nos. 40, 59, 88, 91, 92 and 100.
These will be the last rules posted because those already posted represent the areas most likely to have been controversial. Those that won't be posted include:
1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
1.7 Conflict of Interest: General Rule.
1.8 Conflict of Interests: Prohibited Transactions.
1.9 Conflict of Interest: Former Client.
1.10 Imputed Disqualification: General Rule.
1.11 Successive Government and Private Employment.
1.12 Former Judge or Arbitrator.
1.13 Organization as Client.
1.14 Client Under a Disability.
1.15 Safekeeping Property.Mississippi IOLTA Program Notice of Election.
1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation.
1.17 Sale of Law Practice.
If anybody is dying to read any of these, just say so. I will not be sitting around holding my breath waiting for a request. This whole effort is to educate all of us in an area we probably knew nothing about when we started. Now the Sur-Realist finished with this and will go on to something else. Probably.
RULE 1.3 DILIGENCE
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Comment
A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction
or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and may take whatever lawful and ethical measures
are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor. A lawyer should act with commitment
and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.
However, a lawyer is not bound to press for every advantage that might be realized for a
client. A lawyer has professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter
should be pursued. See Rule 1.2. A lawyer’s workload should be controlled so that each
matter can be handled adequately.
Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination.
A client’s interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of
conditions; in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the
client’s legal position may be destroyed. Even when the client’s interests are not affected in
substances, however, unreasonable delay can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine
confidence in the lawyer’s trustworthiness.
Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.16, a lawyer should carry
through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client. If a lawyer’s employment is limited
to a specific matter, the relationship terminates when the matter has been resolved. If a
lawyer has served a client over a substantial period in a variety of matters, the client
sometimes may assume that the lawyer will continue to serve on a continuing basis unless
the lawyer gives notice of withdrawal. Doubt about whether a client-lawyer relationship still
exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will not
mistakenly suppose the lawyer is looking after the client’s affairs when the lawyer has ceased
to do so. For example, if a lawyer has handled a judicial or administrative proceeding that
produced a result adverse to the client but has not been specifically instructed concerning
pursuit of an appeal, the lawyer should advise the client of the possibility of appeal before
relinquishing responsibility for the matter.
Code Comparison
DR 6-101(A)(3) requires that a lawyer not "neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
EC 6-4 states that a lawyer should "give appropriate attention to his legal work." Canon 7
states that "a lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law." DR
7-101(A)(1) provides that "a lawyer shall not intentionally . . . fail to seek the lawful
objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the
Disciplinary Rules. . . ." DR 7-101(A)(3) provides that "a lawyer shall not intentionally . . .
prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship. . . ."
RULE 1.4 COMMUNICATION
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Comment
The client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions
concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be
pursued, to the extent the client is willing and able to do so. For example, a lawyer
negotiating on behalf of a client should provide the client with facts relevant to the matter,
inform the client of communications from another party and take other reasonable steps that
permit the client to make a decision regarding a serious offer from another party. A lawyer
who receives from opposing counsel an offer of settlement in a civil controversy or a
proffered plea bargain in a criminal case should promptly inform the client of its substance
unless prior discussions with the client have left it clear that the proposal will be
unacceptable. See Rule 1.2(a). Even when a client delegates authority to the lawyer, the
client should be kept advised of the status of the matter.
Adequacy of communication depends in part on the kind of advice or assistance
involved. For example, in negotiations where there is time to explain a proposal, the lawyer
should review all important provisions with the client before proceeding to an agreement.
In litigation a lawyer should explain the general strategy and prospects of success and
ordinarily should consult the client on tactics that might injury or coerce others. On the other
hand, a lawyer ordinarily cannot be expected to describe trial or negotiation strategy in detail.
The guiding principle is that the lawyer should fulfill reasonable client expectations for
information consistent with the duty to act in the client’s best interests, and the client’s
overall requirements as to the character of representation.
Ordinarily, the information to be provided is that appropriate for a client who is a
comprehending and responsible adult. However, fully informing the client according to this
standard may be impracticable, for example, where the client is a child or suffers from mental
disability. See Rule 1.14. When the client is an organization or group, it is often impossible
or inappropriate to inform every one of its members about its legal affairs; ordinarily, the
lawyer should address communications to the appropriate officials of the organization. See
Rule 1.13. Where many routine matters are involved, a system of limited or occasional
reporting may be arranged with the client. Practical exigency may also require a lawyer to
act for a client without prior consultation.
Withholding Information. In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in
delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently
to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a psychiatric diagnosis of
a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client. A
lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience.
Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer
may not be disclosed to the client. Rule 3.4(c) directs compliance with such rules or orders.
Code Comparison
This Rule has no direct counterpart in the Disciplinary Rules of the Code.
DR 6-101(A)(3) provides that a lawyer shall not "neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
DR 9-102(B)(1) provides that a lawyer "shall promptly notify a client of the receipt of his
funds, securities, or other properties." EC 7-8 states that "a lawyer should exert his best
efforts to insure that decisions of his client are made only after the client has been informed
of relevant considerations." EC 9-2 states that "a lawyer should fully and promptly inform
his client of material developments in the matters being handled for the client."
RULE 1.5 FEES
(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors to be considered in determining
the reasonableness of a fee include the following:
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing
the services; and
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
(b) When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the
fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable
time after commencing the representation.
(c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is
rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by paragraph (d) or other
law. A contingent fee agreement shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the
fee is to be determined, including the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, litigation and other expenses to be deducted
from the recovery, and whether such expenses are to be deducted before or after the
contingent fee is calculated. Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer shall
provide the client with a written statement stating the outcome of the matter and, if there is
a recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the method of its determination.
(d) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect:
(1) any fee in a domestic relations matter, the payment or amount of which is
contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of alimony or support,
or property settlement in lieu thereof; or
(2) a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case.
(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only
if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or,
by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the
representation;
(2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the
lawyers involved; and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
Comment
Basis or Rate of Fee. When the lawyer has regularly represented a client, they
ordinarily will have evolved an understanding concerning the basis or rate of the fee. In a
20
new client-lawyer relationship, however, an understanding as to the fee should be promptly
established. It is not necessary to recite all the factors that that underlie the basis of the fee,
but only those that are directly involved in its computation. It is sufficient, for example, to
state that the basic rate is an hourly charge or a fixed amount or an estimated amount, or to
identify the factors that may be taken into account in finally fixing the fee. When
developments occur during the representation that render an earlier estimate substantially
inaccurate, a revised estimate should be provided to the client. A written statement
concerning the fee reduces the possibility of a misunderstanding. Furnishing the client with
a simple memorandum or a copy of the lawyer’s customary fee schedule is sufficient if the
basis or rate of the fee is set forth.
Terms of Payment. A lawyer may require advance payment of a fee, but is obliged
to return any unearned portion. See Rule 1.16(d). A lawyer may accept property in payment
for services, such as an ownership interest in an enterprise, providing this does not involve
acquisition of a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation
contrary to Rule 1.8(j). However, a fee paid in property instead of money may be subject to
special scrutiny because it involves questions concerning both the value of the services and
the lawyer’s special knowledge of the value of the property.
An agreement may not be made whose terms might induce the lawyer improperly to
curtail services for the client or perform them in such a way contrary to the client’s interest.
For example, a lawyer should not enter into an agreement whereby services are to be
provided only up to a stated amount when it is foreseeable that more extensive services will
probably be required, unless the situation is adequately explained to the client. Otherwise,
the client might have to bargain for further assistance in the midst of a proceeding or
transaction. However, it is proper to define the extent of services in light of the client’s
ability to pay. A lawyer should not exploit a fee arrangement based primarily on hourly
charges by using wasteful procedures. When there is doubt whether a contingent fee is
consistent with the client’s best interest, the lawyer should offer the client alternative bases
for the fee and explain their implications. Applicable law may impose limitations on
contingent fees, such as a ceiling on the percentage.
Paragraph (d)(1) does not prohibit a contingent fee agreement for the collection of
past due alimony or support. See MSB Ethics Opinion No. 88.
Division of Fee. A division of fee is a single billing to a client covering the fee of two
or more lawyers who are not in the same firm. A division of fee facilitates association of
more than one lawyer in a matter in which neither alone could serve the client as well, and
most often is used when the fee is contingent and the division is between a referring lawyer
and a trial specialist. Paragraph (e) permits the lawyers to divide a fee on either the basis of
21
the proportion of services they render or by agreement between the participating lawyers if
all assume responsibility for the representation as a whole and the client is advised and does
not object. It does not require disclosure to the client of the share that each lawyer is to
receive. Joint responsibility for the representation entails the obligations stated in Rule 5.1
for purposes of the matter involved.
Disputes Over Fee. If a procedure has been established for resolution of fee disputes,
such as an arbitration or mediation procedure established by the bar, the lawyer should
conscientiously consider submitting to it. Law may prescribe a procedure for determining
a lawyer’s fee, for example, in representation of an executor or administrator, a class or a
person entitled to a reasonable fee as part of the measure of damages. The lawyer entitled
to such a fee and a lawyer representing another party concerned with the fee should comply
with the prescribed procedure.
Code Comparison
DR 2-106(A) provides that "A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge,
or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee." DR 2-106(B) provides that "A fee is clearly
excessive when, after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with
a definite and firm conviction that the fee is in excess of a reasonable fee." DR 2-106(B)
further provides that "Factors to be considered . . . in determining . . . reasonableness . . .
include . . .: (1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly. (2) The likelihood, if
apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other
employment by the lawyer. (3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar
services. (4) The amount involved and the results obtained. (5) The time limitations
imposed by the client or by the circumstances. (6) The nature and length of the professional
relationship with the client. (7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or
lawyers performing the services. (8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent." The Rule
includes the factor of ability to pay; a person of ample means may justly be charged more for
a service, and a person of limited means less, other factors being the same. EC 2-17 states
that "A lawyer should not charge more than a reasonable fee. . . ."
There is no counterpart to Rule 1.5(b) in the Disciplinary Rules of the Code. EC 2-19
states that "It is usually beneficial to reduce to writing the understanding of the parties
concerning the fee, particularly when it is contingent."
With regard to Rule 1.5(c), DR 2-106(C) prohibits "a contingent fee in a criminal
case."
With regard to Rule 1.5(d), DR2-107(A) permits division of fees only if: "(1) The
client consents to employment of the other lawyer after a full disclosure that a division of
fees will be made. (2) The division is in proportion to the services performed and
responsibility assumed by each. (3) The total fee does not exceed clearly reasonable
compensation. . . ." Rule 1.5(d) permits division without regard to the services rendered by
each lawyer if they assume joint responsibility for the representation.
See also MSB Ethics Opinion Nos. 40, 59, 88, 91, 92 and 100.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
RULE 1.1 COMPETENCE & RULE 1.2 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
See? I told you this stuff was boring! But you and I both need to be properly educated about duties and responsibilities of our attorneys. So, no, Anonymouse, I'm not a Big Baby. I'm a citizen who expects people to put their money where their mouth is. By that I mean:
a: Loyalty before everything but honor. If you are someone's friend, be a friend unless it requires you to compromise your own honor. Being a supportive friend to Wes Teel does not require me to compromise myself in any fashion.
b. If you are going to make accusations and allegations about a person, then cite the specific rule he has broken. We hear a lot of comments that he was a bad lawyer. Put your money where your mouth is. Just losing your case doesn't make an attorney a bad lawyer. Give a substantive reason to back up your opinion.
(P.S. I'm sorry this prints out with such gaps on the lines. It doesn't look this way when I put it in the box.)
CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP
RULE 1.1 COMPETENCE
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation
requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for
the representation.
Comment
Legal Knowledge and Skill. In determining whether a lawyer employs the requisite
knowledge and skill in a particular matter, relevant factors include the relative complexity
and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer’s general experience, the lawyer’s training
and experience in the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give
the matter and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, a
lawyer of established competence in the field in question. In many instances the required
proficiency is that of a general practitioner. Expertise in a particular field of law may be
required in some circumstances.
A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal
problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. A newly admitted lawyer can be as
competent as a practitioner with long experience. Some important skills, such as the analysis
of precedent, the evaluation of evidence and legal drafting, are required in all legal problems.
Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems
a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized
knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through
necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through the association of
a lawyer of established competence in the field in question.
In an emergency a lawyer may give advice or assistance in a matter in which the 12
lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required where referral to or consultation or
association with another lawyer would be impractical. Even in an emergency, however,
assistance should be limited to that reasonably necessary in the circumstances, for ill
considered action under emergency conditions can jeopardize the client’s interest.
A lawyer may accept representation where the requisite level of competence can be
achieved by reasonable preparation. This applies as well to a lawyer who is appointed as
counsel for an unrepresented person. See also Rule 6.2.
Thoroughness and Preparation. Competent handling of a particular matter includes
inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and use of methods
and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate
preparation. The required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at
stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more elaborate treatment
than matters of lesser consequence.
Maintaining Competence. To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer
should engage in continuing study and education. If a system of peer review has been
established, the lawyer should consider making use of it in appropriate circumstances.
Code Comparison
DR 6-101(A)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not handle a matter "which he knows or
should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who
is competent to handle it." DR 6-101(A)(2) requires "preparation adequate in the
circumstances"; Rule 1.1 more fully particularizes the elements of competence.
RULE 1.2 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of
representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to
the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision
whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case, a lawyer shall abide
by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether
to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
(b) A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment,
does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views
or activities.
13
(c) A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client gives informed
consent.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that a
lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of
any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a
good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
(e) When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules
of Professional Conduct or other law, the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the
relevant limitations on the lawyer's conduct.
[Amended effective November 3, 2005]
Comment
Scope of Representation. Both lawyer and client have authority and responsibility
in the objectives and means of representation. The client has ultimate authority to determine
the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law and the
lawyer’s professional obligations. At the same time, a lawyer is not required to pursue
objectives or employ means simply because a client may wish that the lawyer do so. A clear
distinction between objectives and means sometimes cannot be drawn, and in many cases the
client-lawyer relationship partakes of a joint undertaking. In questions of means, the lawyer
should assume responsibility for technical and legal tactical issues, but should defer to the
client regarding such questions as the expense to be incurred and concern for third persons
who might be adversely affected. Law defining the lawyer’s scope of authority in litigation
varies among jurisdictions.
In a case in which the client appears to be suffering mental disability, the lawyer’s
duty to abide by the client’s decisions is to be guided by reference to Rule 1.14.
Independence from Client’s Views or Activities. Legal representation should not
be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services, or whose cause is controversial
or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not
constitute approval of the client’s views or activities.
Services Limited in Objectives or Means. The objectives or scope of services
provided by a lawyer may be limited by agreement with the client or by the terms under
which the lawyer’s services are made available to the client. For example, a retainer may be
for a specifically defined purpose. Representation provided through a legal aid agency may
be subject to limitations on the types of cases the agency handles. When a lawyer has been
retained by an insurer to represent an insured, the representation may be limited to matters
related to the insurance coverage. The terms upon which representation is undertaken may
exclude specific objectives or means that the lawyer regards as imprudent.
An agreement concerning the scope of representation must accord with the Rules of
Professional Conduct and other law. Thus, the client may not be asked to agree to
representation so limited in scope as to violate Rule 1.1, or to surrender the right to terminate
the lawyer’s services or the right to settle litigation that the lawyer might wish to continue.
Criminal, Fraudulent and Prohibited Transactions. A lawyer is required to give
an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client’s
conduct. The fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent
does not, of itself, make a lawyer a party to the course of action. However, a lawyer may not
knowingly assist a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct. There is a critical distinction
between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending
the means by which a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity.
When the client’s course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer’s
responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer is not permitted to reveal the client’s
wrongdoing, except where permitted by Rule 1.6. However, the lawyer is required to avoid
furthering the purpose, for example, by suggesting how it might be concealed. A lawyer may
not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposes is legally proper,
but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. Withdrawal from the representation, therefore,
may be required.
Where the client is a fiduciary, the lawyer may be charged with special obligations in
dealings with a beneficiary.
Paragraph (d) applies whether or not the defrauded party is a party to the transaction.
Hence, a lawyer should not participate in a sham transaction; for example, a transaction to
effectuate criminal or fraudulent escape of tax liability. Paragraph (d) does not preclude
undertaking a criminal defense incident to a general retainer for legal services to a lawful
enterprise. The last clause of paragraph (d) recognizes that determining the validity or
interpretation of a statute or regulation may require a course of action involving disobedience
of the statute or regulation or of the interpretation placed upon it by governmental authorities.
Code Comparison
Rule 1.2(a) has no counterpart in the Disciplinary Rules of the Code. EC 7-7 states
that "In certain areas of legal representation not affecting the merits of the cause or
substantially prejudicing the rights of a client, a lawyer is entitled to make decisions on his
own. But otherwise the authority to make decisions is exclusively that of the client. . . ." EC
7-8 states that "In the final analysis, however, the . . . decision whether to forego legally
available objectives or methods because of nonlegal factors is ultimately for the client. . . .
In the event that the client in a nonadjudicatory matter insists upon a course of conduct that
is contrary to the judgment and advice of the lawyer but not prohibited by Disciplinary Rules,
the lawyer may withdraw from the employment." DR 7-101(A)(1) provides that "A lawyer
shall not intentionally . . . fail to seek the lawful objections of his client through reasonable
available means permitted by law. . . . A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule,
however, by . . . avoiding offensive tactics. . . ."
Rule 1.2(b) has no counterpart in the Code.
Rule 1.2(c) has no counterpart in the Code.
With regard to paragraph (d), DR 7-102(A)(7) provides that a lawyer shall not
"counsel or assist his client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent." DR
7-102(A)(6) provides that a lawyer shall not "participate in the creation or preservation of
evidence when he knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false." DR 7-106 provides that
"A lawyer shall not . . . advise his client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal . . . but he
may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of such rule or ruling." EC 7-5
states that "A lawyer should never encourage or aid his client to commit criminal acts or
counsel his client on how to violate the law and avoid punishment therefor."
With regard to Rule 1.2(e), DR 2-110(C)(1)(c) provides that a lawyer may withdraw
from representation if a client "insists" that the lawyer engage in "conduct that is illegal or
that is prohibited under the Disciplinary Rules." DR 9-101(C) provides that "a lawyer shall
not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly . . . any tribunal, legislative body or
public official."
See also MSB Ethics Opinion No. 92.
Next post will be Rule 1.3
a: Loyalty before everything but honor. If you are someone's friend, be a friend unless it requires you to compromise your own honor. Being a supportive friend to Wes Teel does not require me to compromise myself in any fashion.
b. If you are going to make accusations and allegations about a person, then cite the specific rule he has broken. We hear a lot of comments that he was a bad lawyer. Put your money where your mouth is. Just losing your case doesn't make an attorney a bad lawyer. Give a substantive reason to back up your opinion.
(P.S. I'm sorry this prints out with such gaps on the lines. It doesn't look this way when I put it in the box.)
CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP
RULE 1.1 COMPETENCE
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation
requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for
the representation.
Comment
Legal Knowledge and Skill. In determining whether a lawyer employs the requisite
knowledge and skill in a particular matter, relevant factors include the relative complexity
and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer’s general experience, the lawyer’s training
and experience in the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give
the matter and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, a
lawyer of established competence in the field in question. In many instances the required
proficiency is that of a general practitioner. Expertise in a particular field of law may be
required in some circumstances.
A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal
problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. A newly admitted lawyer can be as
competent as a practitioner with long experience. Some important skills, such as the analysis
of precedent, the evaluation of evidence and legal drafting, are required in all legal problems.
Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems
a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized
knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through
necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through the association of
a lawyer of established competence in the field in question.
In an emergency a lawyer may give advice or assistance in a matter in which the 12
lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required where referral to or consultation or
association with another lawyer would be impractical. Even in an emergency, however,
assistance should be limited to that reasonably necessary in the circumstances, for ill
considered action under emergency conditions can jeopardize the client’s interest.
A lawyer may accept representation where the requisite level of competence can be
achieved by reasonable preparation. This applies as well to a lawyer who is appointed as
counsel for an unrepresented person. See also Rule 6.2.
Thoroughness and Preparation. Competent handling of a particular matter includes
inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and use of methods
and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate
preparation. The required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at
stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more elaborate treatment
than matters of lesser consequence.
Maintaining Competence. To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer
should engage in continuing study and education. If a system of peer review has been
established, the lawyer should consider making use of it in appropriate circumstances.
Code Comparison
DR 6-101(A)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not handle a matter "which he knows or
should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who
is competent to handle it." DR 6-101(A)(2) requires "preparation adequate in the
circumstances"; Rule 1.1 more fully particularizes the elements of competence.
RULE 1.2 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of
representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to
the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision
whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case, a lawyer shall abide
by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether
to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
(b) A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment,
does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views
or activities.
13
(c) A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client gives informed
consent.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that a
lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of
any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a
good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
(e) When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules
of Professional Conduct or other law, the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the
relevant limitations on the lawyer's conduct.
[Amended effective November 3, 2005]
Comment
Scope of Representation. Both lawyer and client have authority and responsibility
in the objectives and means of representation. The client has ultimate authority to determine
the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law and the
lawyer’s professional obligations. At the same time, a lawyer is not required to pursue
objectives or employ means simply because a client may wish that the lawyer do so. A clear
distinction between objectives and means sometimes cannot be drawn, and in many cases the
client-lawyer relationship partakes of a joint undertaking. In questions of means, the lawyer
should assume responsibility for technical and legal tactical issues, but should defer to the
client regarding such questions as the expense to be incurred and concern for third persons
who might be adversely affected. Law defining the lawyer’s scope of authority in litigation
varies among jurisdictions.
In a case in which the client appears to be suffering mental disability, the lawyer’s
duty to abide by the client’s decisions is to be guided by reference to Rule 1.14.
Independence from Client’s Views or Activities. Legal representation should not
be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services, or whose cause is controversial
or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not
constitute approval of the client’s views or activities.
Services Limited in Objectives or Means. The objectives or scope of services
provided by a lawyer may be limited by agreement with the client or by the terms under
which the lawyer’s services are made available to the client. For example, a retainer may be
for a specifically defined purpose. Representation provided through a legal aid agency may
be subject to limitations on the types of cases the agency handles. When a lawyer has been
retained by an insurer to represent an insured, the representation may be limited to matters
related to the insurance coverage. The terms upon which representation is undertaken may
exclude specific objectives or means that the lawyer regards as imprudent.
An agreement concerning the scope of representation must accord with the Rules of
Professional Conduct and other law. Thus, the client may not be asked to agree to
representation so limited in scope as to violate Rule 1.1, or to surrender the right to terminate
the lawyer’s services or the right to settle litigation that the lawyer might wish to continue.
Criminal, Fraudulent and Prohibited Transactions. A lawyer is required to give
an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client’s
conduct. The fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent
does not, of itself, make a lawyer a party to the course of action. However, a lawyer may not
knowingly assist a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct. There is a critical distinction
between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending
the means by which a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity.
When the client’s course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer’s
responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer is not permitted to reveal the client’s
wrongdoing, except where permitted by Rule 1.6. However, the lawyer is required to avoid
furthering the purpose, for example, by suggesting how it might be concealed. A lawyer may
not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposes is legally proper,
but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. Withdrawal from the representation, therefore,
may be required.
Where the client is a fiduciary, the lawyer may be charged with special obligations in
dealings with a beneficiary.
Paragraph (d) applies whether or not the defrauded party is a party to the transaction.
Hence, a lawyer should not participate in a sham transaction; for example, a transaction to
effectuate criminal or fraudulent escape of tax liability. Paragraph (d) does not preclude
undertaking a criminal defense incident to a general retainer for legal services to a lawful
enterprise. The last clause of paragraph (d) recognizes that determining the validity or
interpretation of a statute or regulation may require a course of action involving disobedience
of the statute or regulation or of the interpretation placed upon it by governmental authorities.
Code Comparison
Rule 1.2(a) has no counterpart in the Disciplinary Rules of the Code. EC 7-7 states
that "In certain areas of legal representation not affecting the merits of the cause or
substantially prejudicing the rights of a client, a lawyer is entitled to make decisions on his
own. But otherwise the authority to make decisions is exclusively that of the client. . . ." EC
7-8 states that "In the final analysis, however, the . . . decision whether to forego legally
available objectives or methods because of nonlegal factors is ultimately for the client. . . .
In the event that the client in a nonadjudicatory matter insists upon a course of conduct that
is contrary to the judgment and advice of the lawyer but not prohibited by Disciplinary Rules,
the lawyer may withdraw from the employment." DR 7-101(A)(1) provides that "A lawyer
shall not intentionally . . . fail to seek the lawful objections of his client through reasonable
available means permitted by law. . . . A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule,
however, by . . . avoiding offensive tactics. . . ."
Rule 1.2(b) has no counterpart in the Code.
Rule 1.2(c) has no counterpart in the Code.
With regard to paragraph (d), DR 7-102(A)(7) provides that a lawyer shall not
"counsel or assist his client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent." DR
7-102(A)(6) provides that a lawyer shall not "participate in the creation or preservation of
evidence when he knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false." DR 7-106 provides that
"A lawyer shall not . . . advise his client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal . . . but he
may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of such rule or ruling." EC 7-5
states that "A lawyer should never encourage or aid his client to commit criminal acts or
counsel his client on how to violate the law and avoid punishment therefor."
With regard to Rule 1.2(e), DR 2-110(C)(1)(c) provides that a lawyer may withdraw
from representation if a client "insists" that the lawyer engage in "conduct that is illegal or
that is prohibited under the Disciplinary Rules." DR 9-101(C) provides that "a lawyer shall
not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly . . . any tribunal, legislative body or
public official."
See also MSB Ethics Opinion No. 92.
Next post will be Rule 1.3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
