Joke of the Day!

Actually, it's a true story that happens to be funny. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson served on the Marshall Court for 30 years. He died in New York City in 1834 after undergoing surgery on his jaw. Here is a picture of the cemetary from his church in his hometown of Charleston, South Carolina. There is a memorial to Justice Johnson there, but he is not buried there.

In fact, Justice Johnson is not buried anywhere. After he died, his family paid for his body to be shipped from New York to Charleston. Unfortunately, his body was misplaced and no one really knows where it ended up.

Sounds like someone should have filed for a writ of habeas corpus! Thank you, tip your waitresses.

If this joke makes you want to puke, leave a comment to that effect. If your sense of humor is warped (like mine) and you enjoyed this joke, leave a comment too.

P.S. on Circuit City Jackass

Remember this guy? Well he is free at last, free at last, thank God almighty he is free at last. From his manifesto blog:

I am proud to announce that the baseless charges brought against me by the Brooklyn, Ohio Police Department were dropped this morning and the process of expunging my record has begun. I was presented with an offer to have my charges dropped in exchange for signing a document which asked the following of me: I would not file a Section 1983 civil suit against the Brooklyn police department for infringing on my civil rights. I would not make any disparaging remarks about the police department, with financial repercussions for doing so. I would not discuss the details of this agreement.

His initial reaction? Shocker: "These conditions were completely unacceptable to me." It took an emotional 2 A.M. phone call from a relative to make him agree to the deal.

What an idiot, he admits he legal fees will be around $10,000. And what has he gained? What fundamental, intrinsic, overriding legal principle did he uphold? Nothing. This whole case trivializes the fight for real constitutional rights with a lot more at stake. People go to court to protect society against racism and bigotry. People go to court to adjudicate national elections. People go to court to save their very lives. This idiot just didn't want to show his receipt...Grr!

New AG quotes Shakespeare

The president's nominee for attorney general apparently knows how to read, making him unique in this administration. Retired Judge Michael Mukasey, who will replace the legendary dikephobe Alberto Gonzales, wrote an opinion declaring federal sentencing guidelines unconstitutional in 1988. It took the Supreme Court until 2005 to reach that same conclusion.

But it is how the opinion was written that makes Mukasey noteworthy. The Associated Press reports:

The ruling also gives a glimpse of Mukasey's wry personality during his first year as a judge.

In it, he warns of the mingling of judges and Justice Department officials who sit on the Sentencing Commission as a slippery slope to violating the constitutionally protected separation of powers. At one point, he notes that the then-Soviet Union's own Constitution promised rights that can "be broken at will," resulting in government oppression.

Mukasey also references Act 5, Scene 7 from Shakespeare's "Macbeth" without explaining why or adding comment. The scene involves Macbeth killing Young Siward with his sword. "They have tied me to a stake; I cannot fly, but bear-like I must fight the course," Macbeth laments.

"This point, or one very much like it, was made by Justice Scalia in a speech at the courthouse in Bedford, New York in October, 1987," Mukasey wrote after the Macbeth reference.

Well done. Given that there is a special rule in the Bluebook for quoting Shakespeare, I'm glad to know someone actually does quote the Bard every once in a while. If you are going to wax eloquent, you may as well quote Shakespeare. That passage is dicta-licious.

Lips Vapor-Locked on Granny's Ass

It's a little esoteric for the Dicta, and it's certainly beyond the scope of the Supreme Court, but it's too good to pass up:

As most of our (four) readers know, when I take off my Dicta robes, I'm a second-year law student, and I'm taking Wills, Estates, and Trusts (called by a different name at my law school). Let me tell you, wills litigation is the most depressing sort of litigation in the world, because under American law, a will is only litigated if there's someone who's pissed off because Granny didn't love them enough.

Yet another failure of the adversary system, but it's neither here nor there.

Except that it is. In the People's Republic of China, my Wills casebook informs me, the court pays no respect to testamentary intent (i.e., Granny's wishes). Whereas, in the United States, you basically have to prove that the wishes Granny expressed in her will can't be relied on, either because she was crazy, misled, or too stupid to make a will (which is a VERY low bar to clear), in China, the court is empowered to distribute the estate against the will (in other words, despite Granny's wishes) simply to ensure that the estate is distributed in a fair manner.

How does the court define "fair?" This is going to seem really bizarre to those of you who are used to the American enshrinement of Granny's wishes, regardless of any evidence that suggests her wishes may not be appropriate. But the Chinese court conducts a fact-intensive inquiry to determine, I kid you not, who took the most care of Granny. The estate is distributed, not according to who Granny wanted to get the estate, but according to who cared for her.

Maybe in China this works, and maybe kittens come out of my rear end. I know what this does, and it may be that this is a conscious policy choice by Chinese lawmakers. This scheme ensures that little Johnny and Susie will FIGHT to be the child who gets to take in Granny. We're talking cage match to the DEATH. I don't know about you, but encouraging brown-nosing strikes me as a particularly bad way to determine who inherits the lion's share of the estate. After all, Granny may be an independent old bird who doesn't like Johnny butting in her business, and writes him out of her will to teach him not to be so damn nosy. But the court would then write Johnny back in, because he was so "concerned about her." Bollocks.

But you know, cage matches might be the best way of distributing estates when heirs get antsy - two heirs enter, one heir leaves. I bet it would at least reduce litigation.

To which we say, amen.

Worst oral argument EVER!

I'm sure many of you remember this high profile example of verbal diarrhea...

Well...apparently stupidity is sometimes rewarded. That bimbo got a modeling contract with Donald Trump, where she will travel the world, earn millions, and continue to be dumber than dirt.

Unfortunately, most times stupidity doesn't pay. Take a listen to this oral argument before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. This clueless attorney is attempting to appeal evidence seized from a dog sniffing search. My favorite part is the response from the U.S. Attorney. Thanks to Holmes for the reference.

State Senator Sues God; God Responds.

From the Associated Press:

LINCOLN, Neb. - A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response. One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.

"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!" Friend said.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.

Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.

It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.

"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.

There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.

A second response from "God" disputing Chambers' allegations lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office. A message left for that office was not immediately returned Thursday.

Attempts to reach Chambers by phone and at his Capitol office Thursday were unsuccessful.

ACLU Takes "Wide Stance" on Free Speech

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in support of disgraced-gay-sex-soliciting-soon-to-be-former Senator Larry Craig, who is trying to get his guilty plea thrown out. Here is an excerpt from their press release:

"The real motive behind secret sting operations like the one that resulted in Senator Craig’s arrest is not to stop people from inappropriate activity. It is to make as many arrests as possible – arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people," said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works."

In its brief, the ACLU argues that the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public. Solicitation for private sex, regardless if it occurs in a bar or a restroom, is protected speech under the First Amendment. When free speech rights come into play, police enforcement actions must be "carefully crafted" so that they don’t unnecessarily ensnare people who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

I think this argument is a little silly. It's not entrapment if Craig initiates the solicitation, which is probably why he pleaded guilty in the first place. And second, it's pretty clear that this pattern of solicitation is for sex in public. That's why people who engage in this behavior block the view underneath the stall by placing a bag up against it. Just like saying, "Do you want a date?" is a method of soliciting sex with a prostitute, bumping feet and flashing your hand is a generally accepted means of soliciting sex in public.

Happy Constitution Day!

Our founding document turns 220 years old today. The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787. I could wax poetic about the manifold threats to basic constitutional liberties in our current political climate, but I honestly don't have the energy. So instead, a little trivia (thanks to a quiz from the National Constitution Center):

No amendment could change equal representation in the Senate without:
A. Payment of compensation
B. Approval of the Cabinet
C. Three-fourths vote of both houses
D. Consent of the states involved

In order to become a part of the Constitution, amendments now usually have to be ratified by the state legislatures within:
A. 10 years
B. 2 years
C. 6 months
D. 7 years

The number of states represented by the signers of the Constitution was:
A. 13
B. 12
C. 10
D. 7

Answers are in the comments.

Yum yum!

The dikephobes at the Justice Department are in trouble again. Even though Alberto Gonzales is gone, it looks like he rang up quite a food tab while he was in office.

According to the Associated Press, the department spent nearly $7 million to plan, host or send employees to ten conferences over the last two years. At one conference that hosted 1,500 people, the DOJ spent $13,000 on cookie and brownies. For that amount of money, you could have gotten pot brownies (probably not a good idea for a DOJ conference). At another conference, attendees were treated to Sweedish meatballs which cost $4 per ball. I just hope they were organic.

I wish that the Justice Department had more credibility right now. If it did, this scandal would have more of an impact. I would love for a scandal like this one to be the biggest embarassment facing the department, instead of scandals involving lying to Congress, politically motivated firings of prosecutors, or spying on Americans without warrants.

Of Pets and Property

Thanks to Miss B for bringing this article to my attention. Apparently pet custody disputes in divorce cases are becoming more and more common. Animal specialists are often called into to determine which "parent" deserves custody, according to the pet's best interest:

Dr. Amy Marder, a veterinarian practicing in Lexington, has found herself called upon to decide which human "parent" a pet prefers. Marder makes her recommendation, based not only on who she thinks would take better care of the pet, but whom she has decided the pet has a stronger bond with - the same sort of considerations that would go into deciding a child-custody case. Sometimes she recommends joint custody, but only if she thinks the animal can handle it.

This is a new development in law:

"For literally thousands of years animals have been part of personal property," says David Favre, a law professor and animal law specialist at Michigan State University, "but in the past five years we're seeing courts take a broader view that animals are not like televisions and computers, that our relationship with them is more complex than that." At the same time, the field of animal law is growing. Nearly half of the 190 accredited law schools in the United States now offer animal law courses, up from a handful 10 years ago.

Considering Americans are going to spend $40 billion on their pets this year, I guess this is not surprising. I just think judges have better things to do than oversee discovery as to which party in a divorce case owns more Milk Bones.

Retarded state legislation: Tennessee edition

I love commending resolutions in state legislatures. It is important for lawmakers to honor great citizens, heroes or people who stand out among their fellow citizens. Unfortunately, this resolution does none of those things. Here is an excerpt (with snarky comments added):

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 148
By Ford, O.

WHEREAS, it is fitting that the members of this General Assembly should salute those citizens who through their extraordinary efforts have distinguished themselves as entertainers of whom we can all be proud and whose music has become the voice of America; and

WHEREAS, if Justin Timberlake has become the voice of America, the United States is suffering a moral decline akin to ancient Rome; and

WHEREAS, Tennessee has been the birthplace of a host of truly legendary musicians, songwriters and singers like Chet Atkins, Aretha Franklin, Dolly Parton, and Tina Turner, who (unlike Justin Timberlake) have won international acclaim and national accolades; and

WHEREAS, showcasing his talents at a tender age, young Justin would first garner national attention as a contestant on the television show Star Search, performing country songs as “Justin Randall” before gaining a real taste of fame as a member of The Mickey Mouse Club television program in 1993; and

WHEREAS, Timberlake's music continues to appeal to Americans with an IQ on par with children who watch The Mickey Mouse Club; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Timberlake’s latest album release, FutureSex/LoveSounds, has produced three Number One singles, “SexyBack,” “My Love,” and “What Goes Around..,” while racking up worldwide sales to date of over five million copies; and

WHEREAS, as the attorney charged with drafting this legislation I now feel obligated to kill myself having written the words SexyBack into state law; and

WHEREAS, a true entertainer to 14 year old girls everywhere, Mr. Timberlake has expanded onto the silver screen and stars in the recently released major motion picture Black Snake Moan and is currently finishing a nationally sold-out tour, the FutureSex/LoveShow; and

WHEREAS, this General Assembly finds it appropriate to pause in its deliberations to acknowledge and applaud such a remarkable musical talent and a great Tennessean; and

WHEREAS, this General Assembly should not pause in its deliberations for too long, lest we all become mildly retarded from thinking Justin Timberlake is a great Tennessean; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRING, that we hereby honor and commend Mr. Justin Timberlake on his highly successful music career and for his meritorious service to the State of Tennessee (seriously?) and extend to him our best wishes for every future success.

Top Ten Things You Didn't Know About the Supreme Court

I found a report at ABC News with more juicy details from Jeffrey Toobin's new book: The Nine. It looks like this book is chalk full of good gossip about the personalities behind the justices. Enjoy!

• 10. Even though they disagree on most issues, Thomas has a very friendly relationship with Justice Steven Breyer. They passed notes on the bench, mocking each other's positions. "State's right uber alles," Breyer would jot and Thomas would retort, "Always for the criminal, eh?"


• 9. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, an Anglophile who collected antiques and fine wines, was so vain that "he placed a large cushion on his center seat on the bench, so he would appear taller than his colleagues."


• 8. When Rehnquist ordered the other justices to show up in Court for arguments in the case of Clinton v. Jones on the morning of a freakish snowstorm that dumped 21 inches on Washington, chaos ensued. Running late, Scalia ordered his driver to break the law: "By the power invested in me, I authorize you to run these lights!"


• 7. The snow was so high that the driver, picking up Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Breyer had to physically lift up Ginsburg, who was wearing a skirt and heels, and carry her into the car (she later repaid the favor by writing "the fellow a letter of recommendation for law school").


• 6. Rehnquist had a single beer and one cigarette at lunch every day and sported an outrageous sense of fashion. When he was introduced to President Nixon, Rehnquist wore a pink shirt that clashed with a psychedelic tie and Hush Puppies." When he left, Nixon quipped, "Is he Jewish? He looks it & That's a hell of a costume he's wearing, just like a clown."


• 5. Rehnquist was not impressed with Bill Clinton and his wife. When told that the newly elected president was thinking of nominating Hillary as attorney general, the chief justice quipped, "They say Caligula appointed his horse counsel of Rome."


• 4. Souter couldn't be reached in time to make Rehnquist's funeral because he is a technophobe -- he has a telephone and a fountain pen but "no answering machine, fax, cell phone or e-mail" (he was once given a television but never plugged it in).


• 3. Almost everyone Souter knew in Washington, from O'Connor to first lady Barbara Bush, had tried to get the single man married off. None of them succeeded, even O'Connor's hosting a party that promised "fajitas and frivolity." After one first date, the woman said she thought the evening went well until the end, when Souter took her home and said, "Let's do this again next year." He was so distant from popular culture that while presiding over a 2003 wedding, he first learned the name of a singing group familiar to his colleagues -- The Supremes.


• 2. Although they shared similar judicial philosophies, Justice Antonin Scalia thought that Thomas was more extreme than he was. Asked to compare his views to those held by Thomas, Scalia once said, "I am an originalist but I am not a nut."


• 1. The decision to rush the swearing-in of Justice Clarence Thomas spared the controversial nominee the publication of more embarrassing personal revelations than Anita Hill's notorious testimony. That same day, three Washington Post reporters were set to write a story about Thomas' extensive taste for pornography, including accounts from eyewitnesses such as the manager of his local video store. "But since Thomas had been sworn in, the Post decided not to pursue the issue and dropped the story."

There's no crying in jurisprudence!

Though he earns his money analyzing the celebrity legal controversy du jour, Jeffrey Toobin actually found time to write about the Supreme Court, The Nine. Thanks to the good folks over at the WSJ Law Blog, the book makes a huge revelation. After Bush v. Gore, one member of the Court seriously considered resigning. Was it Justice Ginsburg who bitterly wrote "I dissent" at the end of her opinion? Was it Justice Stevens, who wrote: "Although we may never know... the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."? Was it Justice Scalia who abandoned his principles of federalism to get a Republican installed in the White House? Here is an excerpt from The Nine:

David Souter alone was shattered. He was, fundamentally, a very different person from his colleagues. It wasn’t just that they had immediate families; their lives off the bench were entirely unlike his. They went to parties and conferences; they gave speeches; they mingled in Washington, where cynicism about everything, including the work of the Supreme Court, was universal. Toughened, or coarsened, by the their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn’t. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter though he might not be able to serve with them anymore.

Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept.

WOW! For such a calm, collegial institution, it's good to know that the justices are real people with real emotions. Also, I'm glad to hear that a Republican appointee was seriously troubled about Bush v. Gore. It shows that there is some impartiality left in our judicial system. Thank goodness Souter didn't resign, although his rationale would have shocked the nation.

Bush v. Gore was a wretched decision. That's not my take on it. That's Justice Kennedy and Justice O'Connor's take. It's in the per curiam opinion that they wrote. As Adam Cohen of the New York Times notes:

There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.

Cohen ultimately concludes Bush v. Gore shouldn't be abandoned, but the larger point is the Court held its nose when it wrote this opinion. It didn't like its solution, so it tried to do an end around stare decisis so that they limit the damage done by their B.S. reasoning. That is the height of judicial irresponsibility.

Supreme Dicta meets the MSM

There is now a feather in my cap (or more appropriately a gold stripe on my robe). This humble little blog has gotten the attention of the Main Stream Media. My post on the brave civil rights hero petty jackass mentioned in a blog post on the Cleveland Plain Dealer website. I need to call my agent.

Right here, right now, you are going to face JUSTICE!

Wow...that's all I have to say. Thanks to the good folks over at Above the Law for finding this gem. Ever wonder what kind of education you can get at the #14 law school in the country? Check out this course being offered at Georgetown Law:

The Law of "24"
Professor W. Sharp
LL.M Course 853 (cross-listed) 2 credit hours

The award winning Fox Television drama series 24 explores America’s fictional response to international terrorism through the eyes of Jack Bauer, a U.S. counter-terrorism agent. Oftentimes without remorse or regard for the law, Agent Bauer is willing to do what has to be done when faced with the threat of kidnappings, assassinations, nuclear detonations, and bioterrorism on U.S. soil – despite traitors in his family, his unit, and the White House; partisan politics; sleeper cells; and hidden agendas. This course provides a detailed understanding of a very wide-range of U.S. domestic and international legal issues concerning counterterrorism in the context of the utilitarian and sometimes desperate responses to terrorism raised by the plot of 24. Course requirements include active classroom discussion and a paper of approximately 25 pages.

First Monday is around the corner!

You may have noticed the gigantic countdown clock that will mark time until the new Supreme Court session begins. I made a fantastic discovery on iTunes today, and I downloaded a copy of First Monday in October, a delightful film about the Court. Here's a synopsis:

Walter Matthau and Jill Clayburgh star in this dramatic comedy that centers around the appointment of the first woman to the US Supreme Court. She is aggressive, witty, magnetic--and an arch-conservative. He is wry, opinionated and roundly liberal. One hundred and one men have proceeded the new female justice to seats on the bench of the nation's highest court, but now it's eight men and her. All unanimously accept their new colleague--except Matthau, "The Great Dissenter." He becomes the source of her fury, her challenges, her antagonism...and finally her loving admiration. Matthau and Clayburgh are unforgettably and hilariously opposed in this contemporary tale that goes behind the bend with wit, wisdom and great conviction.

Here is one of the great exchanges from these two justices sparring:

Justice Loomis: The people of this country have only one absolute protection against chaos, the law. And you and I were appointed to this Court for only one reason, to uphold and sustain that law.

Justice Snow: Watch out. You can't turn the law into a straightjacket. The law has gotta be a suit of clothes that a man can wear. It's got to fit easily, be comfortable. Law shouldn't strap a man in at the throat, or the brain, or the crotch.

Please go out and get this movie. You will not regret it.

The Bill of Rights also protects jackasses

An old buddy of mine posted a link to some idiot's blog and asked me to comment (I hope he understood he is unleashing a monster). Here's the scenario:

Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. Having forgotten that it was my sister’s birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”

(LONG STORY SHORT - the police were called when Mr. Righi refused to show the contents of his bag.)

At this point Officer Arroyo asked to see my receipt and driver’s license. I handed over the receipt, and stated that my name is Michael Righi. Again, Officer Arroyo asked to see my driver’s license. The conversation went something like this:
Me: “I’m required by law to state that my name is Michael Righi, but I do not have to provide you with my driver’s license since I am not operating a vehicle.”
Officer Arroyo: “Give me your driver’s license or I will place you under arrest.”
Me: “My name is Michael Righi. I am not willing to provide you with my driver’s license.”
Officer Arroyo: “Turn around and up against the wall.”

I agree - this is a protest just for the sake of having a protest. The rights violations - from both the store owner and the police - are de minimus in this scenario. What is this guy's problem (or, more likely, when is he graduating from law school)?

The store has a legitimate interest in preventing shoplifting. As stupid as this sounds, they are on stronger legal footing by inspecitng everyone's bag than by utilizing selective enforcement, which brings up all sorts of racial profiling and other Equal Protection problems. It is the same legal principle as mandatory baggage searches at airports. Even though most of us are not shoplifters (or terrorists), so long as we bear the burden equally, and as long as burden isn't too intrusive, and so long as the need for the security is legitimate, there isn't any constitutional problem there.

The obligation to show a driver's license to police without probable cause is a much more significant issue (though again, in this particular instance, the shopper was just being a jackass). The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada that during a Terry stop that only the name of a person in a stop-and-identify state is required for identification. Photo ID is not required. I personally believe that while the police have a right to demand identification in order to conduct a legitimate investigation, the failure or refusal to produce identification is not sufficient grounds for arrest. Many people do not own or do not regularly carry identification and we shouldn't punish them for that, especially when there is no probable cause for other criminal conduct.

Sorry to up the nerd level on this discussion, but this is the type of issue that really interests me. Maybe I can design a moot court scenario around this case for my future students.

I sued Ben Affleck, do I even need a reason?

What do Weird Al Yankovic and American Tort Reform Association have in common? Well, Weird Al's new song "I'll Sue Ya" is being featured on their home page as the "unofficial theme song for America's lawsuit-loving plaintiffs' bar." The song, which is loosely based on Rage Against the Machine, highlights the absurdity of American litigiousness (although the solution to that is not tort reform IMHO). But whatever your take on tort reform, you will get a kick out of this video.

Management Day

Today marks Labor Day, the day set aside to remember those who died so that we could have barbeques involving, if necessary, entire pigs, 50%-off sales at JC Penney's, and Jetskis.

Oh, wait, no - it's none of those things. Labor Day is the day set aside to remember the ordinary workers who fought and (all too often) died to enable their fellow workers to band together and bargain collectively for higher wages, shorter hours, and better working conditions. Rather than waste your time and mine snarking endlessly about the twisting of labor law to ensure that workers have a massive uphill battle to get a collective bargaining agreement, I'll just ask for a moment of silence as we remember those who died for our weekend and eight-hour work day.

Remember that the struggle is continuing, and remember that many have thrown their very bodies into the struggle. Surely you can afford a moment of time?