Am I missing a bad joke? The link is to some dude singing a song. I'm involved in a project that involves RBG being alive and well and my latest information, as of yesterday, is that she's doing fine and will be in NYC on 2/7.
If this is a bad joke, can someone explain it to me?
Roman authorities in general gave little thought to early Christians. Persecution under most emperors was a transient, local phenomenon. Mormons will gladly tell you about the persecution the first few generations of Mormons suffered. Christianity grew faster rate than other religions at the time because there was room for it to grow, much like a developing world economy.
From what I've read, early Christianity, starting from a very small base, grew roughly as fast on a percentage basis, as Mormonism did. It was still very much a minority religion until Constantine legalized it and showed it favor. From then on, until Theodosius made it the official religion, it continued to grow rapidly.
LF17 The argument that this proposal would get around the Article V prohibition on depriving states of equal representation without their consent seems to be that the Supreme Court has accepted stupid arguments before, so why not this one? True, but weak. But there is a work-around. Let each state keep its two Senators and add about 100 at-large seats, 25 of which would be elected each two years. (Initial terms would have to be staggered to do this.) Since they wouldn't represent states at all, they wouldn't deprive states of their equal representation. Since they would be elected at-large, they would, in effect, be national popular vote winners, and the voters in large states would have a more nearly proportionate say, even if the two Dakotas or MontanaHo vote as overwhelmingly one way as they often do.
True, it wasn't an anti-discrimination law, but it was a government program, which just happened to make it possible to sell to anyone who had money without bigoted customer pushback. . So which of these other government programs would propertarians, er, libertarians, have endorsed?
Hi1--another in a long line of "free markets won't tolerate discrimination because it leaves money on the table and, therefore, in the long run, they will do the job" that falters out of the gate because the driving force was the Rural Free Delivery Act, a damn gummint program.
She was too young. When my father was about to marry her, he discussed the matter with me and I said all I cared about was whether she was older than I was. She cleared that hurdle by two years, but was born well after WWII.
Coincidentally, my father died 9 years ago today. His second wife, whom we all liked, was Japanese, and my father and I had a running routine where I'd call on 12/7 and we'd bat jokes back and forth about surprises, sneaky things, and the weather ("a nip in the air"). We never knew whether she got it.
This. There are lots of ways to skin the health care cat. Many of them work very well, and, since they exist, they must be affordable. I don't care which of the many reasonable ways we go. Let's pick one and do it.
Not likely to help. Much of opportunistic federalism involves pure pocketbook issues. Many a big business prefers to deal with a single bureaucracy and a single set of regulations than with fifty, so we see such intrusions on traditional state authority as the Class Action Fairness Act and federal laws preventing states from applying their product liability laws to firearms. Almost everyone cares far more about the substance of the laws than about the "appropriate" level of government to make them, and will push for what they want at whatever level of government is most likely to give it to them. Principle be damned. When anyone outside of the ivory tower talks federalism, he could be sincere, but that's not the way to bet.
This isn't a partisan issue. Almost nobody, left or right, wants Federalism For Real. Not that there aren't a few principled federalists. By my count there are 37 of them.
I have in my library a copy of an ABA publication on law firm management published in 1962. I wish I had it at hand to quote directly, but the gist of the section on hourly billing was that a busy lawyer could reasonably expect to bill about 1200 hours annually, and should set hourly rates accordingly. Hard to believe it was ever like that.
So how do you come out on the dog-walking question?
I haven't had to bill my time for many years, but I tried that very same experiment once, just for the hell of it. But the right way to do the math, and the correct way to bill, is to use six minutes as a minimum, regardless of the time taken, and the right way to scam is to make a two-minute call for Client A, bill six minutes, spend three minutes e-filing something for Client B, spend another two minutes doing something minor for Client C, bill six minutes, then spend two minutes on another call for Client A, bill six minutes, spend another three minutes on something for Client B, bill six minutes, and so on. So far, you have done four minutes of work for Client A and billed twelve, although you could have done both calls back-to-back and gotten both in for the six-minute minimum.
You can easily bill two to three times the actual working hours by breaking up the tasks, though that is not only bad for the client, but inefficient for the lawyer.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Wednesday Writs for 1/9”
Am I missing a bad joke? The link is to some dude singing a song. I'm involved in a project that involves RBG being alive and well and my latest information, as of yesterday, is that she's doing fine and will be in NYC on 2/7.
If this is a bad joke, can someone explain it to me?
On “The Story After the Story Tells the Story”
Yes, it was. Because then it was.
On “A Tale of Two Falwells”
Roman authorities in general gave little thought to early Christians. Persecution under most emperors was a transient, local phenomenon. Mormons will gladly tell you about the persecution the first few generations of Mormons suffered. Christianity grew faster rate than other religions at the time because there was room for it to grow, much like a developing world economy.
"
From what I've read, early Christianity, starting from a very small base, grew roughly as fast on a percentage basis, as Mormonism did. It was still very much a minority religion until Constantine legalized it and showed it favor. From then on, until Theodosius made it the official religion, it continued to grow rapidly.
"
I hadn't thought about Mo Udall, whom I supported in '76, in years. The late John McCain used to visit him in a care facility during his last years.
On “Congresswoman Says Bad Word, Conservatives Feign Outrage”
But is there a dance video?
On “Linky Friday: Those Folks on the Hill”
LF17 The argument that this proposal would get around the Article V prohibition on depriving states of equal representation without their consent seems to be that the Supreme Court has accepted stupid arguments before, so why not this one? True, but weak. But there is a work-around. Let each state keep its two Senators and add about 100 at-large seats, 25 of which would be elected each two years. (Initial terms would have to be staggered to do this.) Since they wouldn't represent states at all, they wouldn't deprive states of their equal representation. Since they would be elected at-large, they would, in effect, be national popular vote winners, and the voters in large states would have a more nearly proportionate say, even if the two Dakotas or MontanaHo vote as overwhelmingly one way as they often do.
On “Ordinary World for 1/3”
True, it wasn't an anti-discrimination law, but it was a government program, which just happened to make it possible to sell to anyone who had money without bigoted customer pushback. . So which of these other government programs would propertarians, er, libertarians, have endorsed?
"
Hi1--another in a long line of "free markets won't tolerate discrimination because it leaves money on the table and, therefore, in the long run, they will do the job" that falters out of the gate because the driving force was the Rural Free Delivery Act, a damn gummint program.
On “On Going Shooting”
I just say that if you know what you're doing, either is fine for any realistic purpose; if you don't, it doesn't matter which you mis-use.
On “Paul Ryan and the Beast That Didn’t Starve”
Dick Cheney would like a word with you.
"
North, you must be a youngster. You left out the Reagan administration.
On “Guiltiest Feeling: Dine & Dash”
Another trope spoiled by the cell phone.
On “When a Feller Needs a Friend: Lucille”
Whom?
On “Linky Friday: Pearl Harbor”
She was too young. When my father was about to marry her, he discussed the matter with me and I said all I cared about was whether she was older than I was. She cleared that hurdle by two years, but was born well after WWII.
"
Coincidentally, my father died 9 years ago today. His second wife, whom we all liked, was Japanese, and my father and I had a running routine where I'd call on 12/7 and we'd bat jokes back and forth about surprises, sneaky things, and the weather ("a nip in the air"). We never knew whether she got it.
On “How To Pay For It”
No fair bringing in real numbers.
"
This. There are lots of ways to skin the health care cat. Many of them work very well, and, since they exist, they must be affordable. I don't care which of the many reasonable ways we go. Let's pick one and do it.
On “Guiltiest Feeling: The Phone”
How many movie and novel plot lines have been ruined by the cell phone?
On “The Miracle and the Moment”
I'm not sure they haven't "improved their skills" -- or learned that they had skills they didn't know they had, which may be much the same thing.
On “Let the People Gerrymander Themselves”
Not likely to help. Much of opportunistic federalism involves pure pocketbook issues. Many a big business prefers to deal with a single bureaucracy and a single set of regulations than with fifty, so we see such intrusions on traditional state authority as the Class Action Fairness Act and federal laws preventing states from applying their product liability laws to firearms. Almost everyone cares far more about the substance of the laws than about the "appropriate" level of government to make them, and will push for what they want at whatever level of government is most likely to give it to them. Principle be damned. When anyone outside of the ivory tower talks federalism, he could be sincere, but that's not the way to bet.
On “The Democratic Party Was Not Always This Way”
Chad, LeeEsq., you can't be spoiling the kids' fun by bringing up old stuff like that.
On “Let the People Gerrymander Themselves”
This isn't a partisan issue. Almost nobody, left or right, wants Federalism For Real. Not that there aren't a few principled federalists. By my count there are 37 of them.
On “Wednesday Writs for 11/21”
I have in my library a copy of an ABA publication on law firm management published in 1962. I wish I had it at hand to quote directly, but the gist of the section on hourly billing was that a busy lawyer could reasonably expect to bill about 1200 hours annually, and should set hourly rates accordingly. Hard to believe it was ever like that.
So how do you come out on the dog-walking question?
"
I haven't had to bill my time for many years, but I tried that very same experiment once, just for the hell of it. But the right way to do the math, and the correct way to bill, is to use six minutes as a minimum, regardless of the time taken, and the right way to scam is to make a two-minute call for Client A, bill six minutes, spend three minutes e-filing something for Client B, spend another two minutes doing something minor for Client C, bill six minutes, then spend two minutes on another call for Client A, bill six minutes, spend another three minutes on something for Client B, bill six minutes, and so on. So far, you have done four minutes of work for Client A and billed twelve, although you could have done both calls back-to-back and gotten both in for the six-minute minimum.
You can easily bill two to three times the actual working hours by breaking up the tasks, though that is not only bad for the client, but inefficient for the lawyer.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.