skinny kid, funnier name

The "skinny kid with a funny name" -- a name that includes Hussain -- just made his name a little funnier.

Obama and Biden

Osama bin Laden

I'm just saying. Apparently 0ther people have noticed this too. Many of them seem slightly irrational or a little like conspiracy theorists. I just think it's funny. Actually at first glance, I thought Obama -- like the savior he is -- had captured bin Laden or something. But unfortunately, CNN was just telling me that Obama chose his running mate.

the medium is the text message

Obama will announce his VP via text message. He claims he wants to avoid the pomp & circumstance of traditional VP announcements. At best, this gimmick is yet another non-substantive issue to distract this campaign. At worst, this is actually self-defeating for Obama because it plays into McCain's criticism that Obama is all flash and no substance.

I wonder how the VP feels about this by the way? A little snubbed? Or a little bit like a pawn in all this? I know the job of VPs is to take lumps (unless they're Cheney), but to play second fiddle to a text message? Really?

I'm [sic] of this

So I'm writing a demurrer and just got the uncontrollable urge to cite an error-containing excerpt from the complaint just so I can throw in a [sic]. It's a cheap little poke into opposing counsel that feels good when executed to perfection. The style manuals have their own rules on [sic]. Here's my perspective as a litigator:

1. Only use [sic] when noting a typographical error. I've seen people use it when they substantively disagree with the language. In my view, that's just weird, lazy, and wrong.
2. Be sure it's actually a [sic]! You look way sillier for thinking a non-mistake is a mistake, than for declining to point out someone else's mistake.
3. If you're gonna throw out a slightly gratuitous [sic] you better be damn sure your own papers in that case are air tight.
   
4. Unless you're trying to lose, never use [sic] when quoting a court, especially your court. In that case, I would just use empty brackets -- or a convenient ellipses -- where the court's error would be.
5. [Sic]'s are distracting. They're tangential to whatever point you're making. (They simply show the reader that the mistake is not your own.) Also, all those brackets are hard on the eyes and further distract the reader.
   
6. [Sic]'s may be a sign you're quoting too much. I paraphrase as much as I can. Overquoting is lazy writing. Quotes are less customized (read, "favorable") to your case. And just as brackets are distracting, so are " "'s everywhere. Don't even get me started on block quotes....
7. So, ideally, you should only [sic] when there is an actual reason to quote that language. Executed to perfection is when a [sic] dutifully points out that key language in the opponent's papers has a typo. This advances your client's interests by subtly showing the court that the other lawyer is sloppy -- even in connection with crucial language. And it's a poke.

Okay, back to the demurrer. Pursuant to item #7 above, I'm gonna show some self restraint and not call out plaintiff's council [sic] for his [sic].

"That's what she said!"

So far my blawg only has one quote from NBC's "The Office." You'll just have to take my word that I'm a fan and I had a plan to pay modest tribute to the show in this blawg.

Well... I've been humbled. Check out this attorney's blawg, which is entirely devoted to The Office: "That's What She Said." (Based on my blawg's only Office quote, you know I approve of the title.) In true lawyer fashion, That's What She Said applies the law to the facts and analyzes the legal implications of The Office characters' workplace antics. Not surprisingly, the blawger is a labor/employment lawyer, at Ford & Harrison. Obviously a promotional move for the firm and a good one.

Verdict: Well done, my friend, well done.

Terms Of Use

My attorney has already started to earn his keep. Below are the terms of this blawg, which you agree to by entering this site. I just hope this effort didn't exhaust the retainer.

Oh, if you think my terms are ridiculous, check out the terms of use for the blog instapundit. This guy Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, actually "requires" people to send him an affidavit if they don't agree to his terms! It doesn't look like he's kidding, but he absolutely must be, right? Mr. Reynolds obviously doesn't expect anyone to send him an affidavit. He just wants to go to court and say the absence of an affidavit shows that the other guy necessarily agreed to his terms of use. What legal-fiction malarchy. Is that how they do things in Knoxville? I hear banjos.... (J/K, I love the TN and don't worry Mr. Reynolds, my affidavit is in the mail.)

-----------------

So I might have "edited" -- or entirely fabricated -- Mr. Masterson's memo... enjoy!

TO: Faceman
FROM: Masterson
RE: Your psycho... I mean pseudo... blawg
DATE: [Redacted]

Your website needs some "terms of use." Please post the following:

In exchange for access to this blawg, and other sufficient consideration, all visitors of That Pseudo Blawg ("you") agree and acknowledge that:

Copy that. All content on this weblog/blog/blawg is copyrighted by Templeton "Face" Peck, Jr. and any of his other pseudo-nyms, pen names, and aliases (collectively, "Face"). This includes all blawg posts, the title "That Pseudo Blawg," and the pseudo-author's name and biography (which was appropriated from the television show "The A-Team").

Hook me up. Any and all uses of and references to That Pseudo Blawg -- whether in the web, Web 2.0, the blogosphere, the blawgosphere, the real world, or (yuck) the print media -- shall credit and cite That Pseudo Blawg.

Only a blawg. "That Pseudo Blawg" is only a blog/blawg; it does not offer legal advice. This site is for information purposes only. Nothing in this site is offered as -- or can reasonably be construed to be -- legal advice. You should not act or rely on this blawg. You should be particularly wary of any blawger who hides his identity.

Please don't sue me. You agree not to bring suit or any claim against Face or any of his agents -- in any forum whatsoever -- for anything in, arising from, or in any way related to That Pseudo Blawg. You also agree not to harass [is that one word or two?] Face in relation to this blawg. Face shall determine in his sole, absolute, and arbitrary discretion what constitutes harassment, as that term is used herein.

You break it, you buy it. If a claim is made against Face or any of his agents -- or if Face becomes party to any type of litigation or dispute whatsoever, in any forum -- because of anything arising out of or relating to your use of That Pseudo Blawg, you will indemnify, defend, and hold Face harmless against any such claim or dispute, including attorney fees incurred as a result thereof. This obligation is binding on you even if it is claimed or proved that Face was actively or passively negligent or otherwise responsible for the claim or dispute.

Common sense. The relative lack of redundant contract language, or other "legalese," does not make these terms any less enforceable than they otherwise would be. In addition, the fact that these terms may be slightly humorous to some does not make them any less enforceable.

You've been served. These Terms Of Use remain binding on all visitors of this web page until Face amends or cancels these terms in writing. Face may amend or add to these terms at any time, without further notice, by editing this post. Also, these terms will remain binding on all visitors even if this "Terms Of Use" post gets "archived" on this blawg.