So what’s the point of this rant?  Well, the blog Feminist Law Professor posted this “brilliant” piece (of course anonymously from a member of their blogroll) condemning Cohen’s article, because it “smacks of subtle sexism” because he writes about a female judge WHO WAS SUSPENDED BY THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT FOR INSULTING PEOPLE instead of male judges who weren’t.  In fact, the entire rambling (and completely idiotic) post ends with:

With all due respect, I believe you owe Judge Eiler and the rest of the “acerbic when irritated” female lawyers and judges in the world an apology.

That’s right.  Apparently, Cohen’s article, where he says that judges shouldn’t be using the bully pulpit that is the bench to bully people, has apparently insulted all female lawyers and judges in the world.

So to the moron who wrote that piece (whether male, female, shemale or none-of-the-above), here’s a clue: you’re not that important that Adam Cohen is actually trying to insult you.  Adam Cohen took a situation that he thought was wrong and wrote an article stating that he thought the behavior of the person in the situation was wrong.  He didn’t say all women were wrong (in fact, he noted that Judge Judy (of tv) was highly successful with what she did).  Just because a man “insults” a woman doesn’t mean that he’s insulting all women.

But of course, in our hypersensitive, politically correct culture, it means exactly that.  A slight against one is a slight against all.  America is turning into the Three Musketeers of being offended.  It’s bullshit.  It’s possible for one woman to be a bitch, without all of them being bitches.  It’s possible for one man to be an asshole, without all men being assholes (okay, maybe it’s impossible for men to not be assholes, but that’s just how we are).  In this case, it possible for Judge Judy’s (tv) behavior to be completely acceptable and Judge Judy’s (Seattle) behavior to be completely unacceptable and unprofessional.

Hell, it’s possible for the Feminist Law Professors Blog to condemn anonymous comments because they claim to blog under their own names, while publishing an anonymous piece decrying that Adam Cohen is a sexist and that his article was akin to calling someone a nigger (oh yeah, did I mention that part before?  Talk about pulling the n-card when it’s uncalled for).

Of course, if Cohen were to respond to this, claiming that the Feminist Law Professors Blog (since the author was anonymous, the post has to be attributed to the publishing entity) was being sexist and racist because he’s a white male, everyone would think he’s an idiot.  However, because the post was attacking a white male, the douche-baggery is “okay”.

Sadly, the post is supposed to have been written by a law professor (since all the “members” of the blog are law professors).  That means that somebody who is teaching the next generation of Judge Judys is condoning the behavior of someone who bullies unrepresented people just because she can (or maybe she’s angling for a tv show?).  I further suspect that the anonymous poster is one of the seven Yale Law professors who actually associate with the site (it would explain the anonymity).  That would be even scarier (can you imagine if Reggie Bush called Drew Brees a racist, just because Brees complained that Bush is incapable of getting yards after the catch?  FYI, I’m not a Saints fan, but Reggie Bush just happened to be a perfect metaphor, and I’m running with it).

Whomever wrote that piece clearly has their panties in a bunch.  They need to either step forward and state their name (notably, they actually call Cohen out because he didn’t name one of the people the Judge insulted) and/or apologize for being retarded.

Oh, and for anyone reading this who thinks that I’m insulting all women/law professors/feminists/people who thought Reggie Bush would be a superstar in the NFL, the only the last ones have a legitimate gripe.  The rest of you are just hypersensitive dumbasses.

I ride the train.  Correction — I commute by train.  I also work a normal job.  That means that I’m on the train during normal commuting hours — I’m on the train at around 8 am and around 5 pm.  The vast majority of people on the train with me are commuters (let’s pick a totally random number that sounds about right — 93.514%).  That leaves 6.486% of people on the train who aren’t commuting.

So you would think that you have about a 1 in 15 chance of being around someone who doesn’t understand train etiquette, right?  Well, you’d be wrong.  There are tons of commuters that don’t seem to understand it either.

Now let’s clarify train etiquette (I’m sure some of you have no clue).  There are a few simple rules that people should follow on a commuter train.  First, in the morning people are tired, which means you should shut up so people can sleep.  Silence is golden.  Second is seating - you need to sit in empty seats before sitting next to someone else; 2 people should be in the 3-person seats before you double up a 2 person seat; 2-person seats should be doubled up before a third person sits in a 3-person seat.  Third, in the evening you should keep your conversations relatively quiet — people are unwinding from work and don’t want to hear about the hairy growth on your inner thigh, or how your colonoscopy went.  The people you’re sitting with don’t really care about your latest office escapade (which isn’t even entertaining to the people in your office, let along people on the train), and everybody else cares less.  Fourth, cell phones are for s/texting, sending pictures of the hot redhead, or the very quick ”I’ll be at the station in about 10 minutes” call.  They’re not for elongated conversations — remember, as boring as stories about your pathetic life are to everyone else, it’s even more boring when you can only hear half the conversation.  Fifth, and this is the one that’s pissing me off the most right about now (though that’s subject to change by my next train ride), you should WEAR HEADPHONES.

That’s right.  If you are using some device that generates sound, and having the sound on is intrical to your use of the device, wear headphones.  I’m not watching whatever pretentious douche-baggery you find intellectually stimulating, so I don’t want to listen to it either.  Your taste in music most likely sucks, and I have no desire to listen to your latest PSP escapades.

You are sitting on a train (for which you’re paying at least $10-20/ticket, or hundreds of dollars for monthly tickets), holding an expensive electronic device.  If you can’t afford $2.50 for a pair of headphones, then turn off the sound.  If turning off the sound would ruin your enjoyment of the device, then I’m even happier.

I’d note that this common courtesy extends everywhere that isn’t your own home, but since I can’t even go to a restaurant without seeing a kid buried in a video game for 95% of the meal, I’ll settle for imposing the rule on the train.  Personally, I’d love to see a policy where devices were seized and auctioned off if someone used them in a noise-making manner without using headphones — it would help keep down the price of tickets, and maybe the MTA would be able to balance their stupid budget.

Now someone’s going to find this post and write a comment about how their Aunt Jenny has a degenerative condition which prohibits her from using headphones, and how she pays for a ticket and has as much right as a I do to do what she wants on the train.  So let me preemptively say this:

Fuck Aunt Jenny.  She has a right to ride the train.  She does not, however, have a right to be inconsiderate of the other passengers.  If that means she has to sit on the train in silence, twiddling her thumbs because she’s illiterate and brought her iPad instead of a picture book, then too bad.  If she can’t sit on the train without watching some foreign-made indie flick, then she shouldn’t be on the train.

Yesterday I was riding on the subway. The (basically one) benefit of getting on at the first/last stop of the train is that I always get a seat heading into Manhattan. As such, I get a pelvic-level view of all the commuters who have to stand.

So this woman gets on, and she’s reading the Metro Section of USA Today. And there, on the front page of the section, is a headline reading: “Why we care that [some random celebrity] is preggers”.

That’s right — an internationally distributed newspaper, bearing the name of our country in the title, used the word “preggers” in a headline that wasn’t bashing the word “preggers”.

Let’s preface the following with a few facts:

• When you search for “preggers” on wikipedia, it redirects you to the pregnancy page.
• Dictionary.com lists preggers as a “Chiefly British Informal” adjective form pregnant. It’s time of origin is listed as 1940-1945.
• A google search comes up with approximately 770,000 hits.
• I absolutely hate the word preggers.

With that, let the ranting begin:

All I hear nowadays is preggers this and preggers that. Sure, in Britian it’s used to describe pregnancy. Of course, they use the word “fag” to describe a cigarette. Try walking around Midtown saying fag to your smoking buddies.

Just because some other country uses a word doesn’t make it an accepted part of the American English language. Just because it sounds okay with a British accent doesn’t mean the same drivel sounds fine with a Southern drawl. And just because it’s slang used by some people doesn’t mean it belongs in the headline of a major fucking newspaper!! Nigga is slang used by some people to describe others. Have you ever seen the NY Times run a headline with the word Nigga in it? I doubt it. Why? Because they have a basic understanding of propriety — some things are better left unsaid, and somethings that are said are better left unprinted.

Besides, preggers is pretentious shit. In the press it’s only used with celebrities. They talk about pregnancy rates, and they talk about Angelina Jolie being pregant.

And what’s the point? I could understand if the headline read “Why we care that [the following assclown] is pregs”. Why could I understand that? Well, pregs is a shortened version of pregnant. Pregnant = 8 letters. Pregs = 5 letters. Preggers = 8 letters!! So not only does it sound like totally crap, it doesn’t even save you any letters.

It’s not like this is the only bastardization of the English language. And it’s not like it’s the only word to come out England that sucks ass in an American accent. So go ahead — use the word preggers you cheeky bastard. And everytime you do use it, especially in front of me, be prepared for a kick in the nuts. But don’t, and I mean don’t, ever use it in print — you’ll come off as the uneducated pretentious prick that you are.\

Cheers mate!

There’s an article about six people who’ve died due to amoebas eating their brains. Seriously. While I find this interesting, it’s not the subject of today’s little tirade. In the article, Michael Beach from the CDC is quoted. Beach (talk about a convenient name) is a specialist in “recreational waterborne illnesses”. As opposed to what? Professional waterborne illnesses? I can imagine it now:

Dying Person: Excuse me, I seem to be dying because of a waterborne illness. Can you help me?

Michael Beach: What’s the illness?

Dying Person: A jellyfish stung me.

Michael Beach: I’m sorry. Jellyfish are professional killers, the hit men of the sea really. I only deal with the recreational killers.

Or maybe he’s referring to the manner in which the disease was acquired.

Dying Person #2: Help! An amoeba swam up my nose and is now eating my brain!!

Michael Beach: Quick — tell me how it happened!

Dying Person #2: Well, I was in the lake as part of my daily training regiment for my job as a Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer….

Michael Beach: Let me stop you right there. I only deal with people who get their illnesses recreationally. You clearly got yours in furtherance of your career, and therefore I can’t help you — it’s outside of my specialty.

In either scenario, the ludicrous part is the fact that someone actually has that narrow of a specialty. I mean, how tailored can this person’s educational and personal interest background be, that he specializes in something as narrow as “recreational waterborne illnesses”.

Of course, this isn’t Beach’s fault. This is symptomatic of a greater problem with our country. Nowadays, we want everybody who does anything to be specialized. Who are the lowest paid doctors? General practitioners. Specialists make more. Yet who is more important to our overall well being? GPs. That’s right — unless you have a myriad of medical conditions, or one major medical issue, most of the time you’ll go see your good old GP. They’re the ones that will have your entire medical history, and may actually know your name without a chart in front of them. Under many insurance plans (for those who have them), they’re also the person who has to give you a referral to a specialist, meaning that they have to be able to recognize when you need to go to one. So these “guardians of the gate” so to speak should be the most qualified doctors to treat you on a day to day basis. Yet they’re the least paid. Which of course means that all the really good doctors, who feel like they should actually make enough money to pay back their ridiculous student loans, specialize.

It doesn’t end with doctors. We really expect all our professionals to specialize. Lawyers are just as bad. All clients want their lawyers to specialize in specific areas, especially in metropolitan areas. In backwoods, USA, it’s not really a big deal — in a one or two lawyer town, you basically get specialization credit for being a lawyer, and therefore you are specialized in both the law and prickdom. Everywhere else, they want specialization. Now I can understand this in a couple of areas of the law. IP law is highly specialized, and is a dynamic/complex/constantly shifting area of the law. Entertainment law is also very internally complex, and half of entertainment law is knowing the right people anyway, so it’s like a little fraternity. If you are a large corporation, with a lot of corporate legal needs, specialized attorneys may be better suited to help you. If you’re ever facing jail time, definitely get a specialist — I’ll find out who Johnny Cochran would’ve hired before I let Bubba near my ass. Otherwise, let it go. If you’re not leaving millions upon millions to your kids, you don’t need an estate specialist. If your kid scraped his knee at school, you don’t need a personal injury only firm. Like your GP, you should have a general practitioner lawyer who you go to for your general legal needs. Then, assuming you have a competent GPL, they can tell you when you need to go to a specialist, and possibly recommend one to you.

Otherwise, get off your high horse and stop pretending that you’re so important. When you call the plumbers’ do you ask that they send over someone who specializes in snaking toilets? How about the grocery bagger? Do they need to be certified in “eggs” or does a general certification in “shit I don’t want broken” suffice?

Pretty soon, someone will have a job where all they do is explain specializations to people, and help people decide what specialization they want someone to have. They’ll have a specialization in specializations. If that position ever opens, let me know. I’ll have no problem telling people that the only specialist they’ll ever need is a proctologist to pull the stick outta their ass. And as a side note — I do think proctologists should be paid more than GPs, or frankly any other type of specialists — after all it takes a certain type of person to tolerate dealing with peoples’ asses all day.

You know, for decades now, the Washington sun has been rising in the east. You see, Washington has been looking to the eastern elites, to the editorial pages of the Times and the Post, and to the broadcasters from the — from the coast. Yes.

Mind you, Mitt Romney, after being raised the good little boy in Utah, went to Harvard, worked in Boston, worked in Boston some more, kept working in Boston, ran for the United States Senate to represent Massachusetts, worked in Boston some more, became the Governor of Massachusetts and then stayed in Boston.  Pssstttt, Mitt — that makes you an easterner.

Oh yeah Mitt — you and your wife are worth several hundred million dollars, not counting the nine-figure trust fund for your kids.  Man I wish I had a nine-figure trust fund.  Hell, I’d settle for a nine dollar trust fund right now.  Anyway, if you’re worth nine-figures, you’re elite.

Now I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being elite.  Far from it.  Hell, anyone would like to be among the financially elite.  It’s a good thing.  In fact, if you know someone who claims they wouldn’t want to be among the financially elite, they’re lying to you.  Want proof?  Ask them what they would do if they won $100,000,000.00.  If their answer is anything other than either refusing to collect it or donating every last cent to charity, then they’re a hypocritical douche bag.  If their answer is one of those two choices, then they’re either a lying turd or fucking nuts.  Or both.

So Mitt, you are an “eastern elite”.  You’re attacking the Democrats for looking for candidates like you.  That makes you a tool.