Awful Feels Softer

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
--The Decider

And you should know by now that when we talk about "tomorrow" here at Unemplawyed, we're really talking about "next month." FYI.

Thanks, as always, for visiting. May I offer you some ketchup (note the made-in-Amurrica spelling) with yer frrreedehm fr-eyes? Better yet, why don't you sample some fresh, sharp, finely-aged Neil Young?

Man. Neil. Yeah, I think that aneurysm actually made him even better, if that's possible. Seriously, it's about time somebody got this angry. Especially someone who is able to put a name on evil (see the 100%-red-state-approved "Let's Roll") and then go on to apply the same unforgiving lens to the best and most unashamedly straightforward protest song on the only mainstream protest album yet to be released in these accursed times--and really, really mean it (just as sincerely as he means the heavenly reclaiming of "America the Beautiful" he caps the record with) both times. Read both sets of lyrics and give this new one a serious listen (especially "Looking for a Leader") before you write him off as just another hate-blinded Bush-burner. It's nothing new, anyway: He's pretty much had the same message for the past forty years. Now if his hoarse preaching were just about 30% catchier, it might manage to catch on with someone who's not already in the choir. Well, whatever. Gotta take what we get, these days.

New business:

The shot above is only a small portion of the actual panorama (taken directly from their website) available from every window of the firm I interviewed with last week on the Charles. I hadn't actually previously considered "the view" as one of the factors to be weighed in looking at places to work, but I kind of have to after this experience. It was hard to be objective about everything I was being told about the place as my eye kept drifting back to the window.

Nice place, though. Solid mid-sized firm with a good general practice and immediate needs. It was easily the longest interview I've ever had, ever (about an hour), and I know I'm jinxing it just by mentioning it here, but I couldn't help it.

Oh, and I'm also writing law school study aids for some upstart New York textbook publisher. Sounds fun, I know, but it's mostly just like getting paid to care (a lot) about law school classes that you really never needed to study for. Gotta wonder what kind of a person is going to buy--let alone use--the pabulum I'm churning out here, though. Seriously, if you need me to hold your hand and walk you through every case in your professional responsibility casebook (let alone if you're actually READING every case in your professional responsibility casebook), you've got bigger problems than I can help you with. But I've already said too much.

Drink More Ovaltine

"Who Was Captain Ahab's First Mate?" (Skip to next section for news)

Unlike most people participating in the Starbucks Crossword Challenge--people who picked up one of the crosswords each week for six weeks--I got all 7+ of the puzzles in the mail at once and blazed through them in a weekend. In the middle of this 48 hours of obsession, C. suggested that she would like to rent a polar bear, saddle him up, ride him down I-95, and direct him to eat Will Shortz as he smirks around his parkview penthouse giggling about the puzzling masses yearning to solve free. I thought that was a little harsh, at the time, but now I think I'd be willing to put up the safety deposit. (Not that I could afford it, but still. I'd be willing.)

Anyway, the question in bold above was what this whole thing came down to. That's right: after nearly seven weeks of complex (and, admittedly, fun) multi-stage puzzles, hard-working cruciverbalists everywhere were dismayed to find that the final answer WAS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY SPONSORING THE CONTEST. Very "Christmas Story," as more than one person has already noted in these furious hours of postgame blogalysis. I just hope that the yahoo who guessed (and it *had* to have been a guess--the tiebreaker puzzle was really awful, and there's no way you could have actually deduced the question from it in the ten minutes it took for the contest to end) didn't actually put an "S" on the end. I think I might just have a polar bear with your name on it, buddy.


Something more relevant:
So this most recent D.A. interview went pretty well, considering. I'll blog some of the hypos more specifically later, but I did want to mention the very last question. It was something that would not be unreasonable to ask would-be prosecutors in most jurisdictions, but one that should present a real surprise for any Massachusetts interviewee:

"And, finally: What do you think about the death penalty?"

Huh. Talk about a safe answer... the Commonwealth hasn't seen any need to kill off its own citizens for nearly half a century. This state is home to the nation's oldest anti-death penalty group (founded, with commendable foresight, in 1928), and the very first ruling handed down from the Massachusetts Bay Colony's nascent supreme court in 1692 was to pardon the remaining condemned from the infamous witch trials.

So I went with the truth: I'm completely, unequivocally, thoroughly and unapologetically against killing people. Killing is killing is killing. Here's my sermon:

No one could ever possibly heed all Ten Commandments in the course of a lifetime, but I'm not about to be a party to violating the only one that most of us should (fingers crossed) be able to manage not to trample on in our lives: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. (Yes, I know that might be better translated "murder," but I still have my own reasons for believing that it applies here--and besides, this is neither the time nor the place to be getting all exegetical on me. At least wait 'til I'm done preaching at you.) I think that a serious and demonstrated respect for human life--whether that life be the most innocent or the most unimaginably reprehensible--is one solid indicia (yes, the word "indicia" actually slipped out in the interview; sadly, my subconcious is just as pretentious as the rest of me) of civilization.

If it were up to me, no one--not any of the Nuremberg defendants, not Saddam, not Manson, not Bundy, not Scott Peterson, not Osama, most assuredly not Zacarias Moussai, and maybe not even Lay and Skilling--anywhere would ever be executed. I have my reasons. It's one reason that I could never be a federal prosecutor, at least until some future Supreme Court finally rules capital punishment unconstitutional. (In my lifetime? Guys? Please?)

So I told them as much, minus (I hope) the preaching. This seemed to go over pretty well, and it was only at this point that I was told that the D.A. is a strong anti-capital punishment advocate. Aaaand... we're breathing again. Admittedly, that could have been pretty bad. I mean, Our Governor already wants to bring state-sponsored killing back with a vengeance--I guess the Book of Mormon doesn't include the Sixth Commandment?--and there can't be that many American D.A.'s willing to take a strong stance against it. But it's not like I was going to lie.

That's more than enough for now. More tomorrow.

Speak, Friend, and Enter.

As a dedicated cruciverbalist and compulsive sweepstakes enterer, I couldn't help but fall for puzzle superstar Will Shortz's new Starbucks/NYT-branded Coffeehouse Crossword Challenge. Seriously, kids, this thing is not for amateurs: six nearly-NYT-grade puzzles, plus an actual Sunday NYT puzzle, plus a series of complicated mini/meta-puzzles with their own challenges. (The journey also included some Morse Code, cryptography, and easy trivia questions.) I took on the whole thing this weekend and finally just now put it together and had my moment of truth. (No, I am not telling you how. It was just too much fun finding it for myself, and I wouldn't want to cheat you. I will say that it was kind of a Mines of Moria thing, as noted by this blog that I discovered a little too late to be of use.) So now I'm totally ready for the tiebreaker on Tuesday. I think.

And now I'm wondering: Why did I just post all of that? This blog is really straying. Well, whatever. If nothing else, it'll boost my Google search rank a bit later tonight as the stragglers try to catch up before the deadline. Good luck, stragglers. May you suffer just a little less than I did.

Anyway, this was all a nice way to keep my mind off of this afternoon's second interview with the Essex D.A.'s office. I'm told that the whole thing is just a panel shooting hypotheticals at you. This is a pretty common tactic for interviews with prosecutors everywhere, I guess, which makes me wonder why someone out there hasn't come up with a list of popular hypos that one might expect at such an interview. Maybe I'll be that person, if I'm in a good mood when I get home.