Yodelling Llama

November 30, 2006

Overcrowded bus.

Filed under: Transportation — Chris @ 2:07 pm

An odd thing happened yesterday.

Usually, when I catch the 7:30-something-in-the-morning 355, because of the position of my apartment on the route (toward the beginning), it is relatively empty. All the seats are usually filled by the time the bus reaches downtown, but when I board, it is typically only 20% full. Also, when I board the 355 around 4:30 in the evening after work, the seats are typically only 70% full.

Yesterday, however, Seattle was recovering from an unusually severe snowstorm. Well, unusual for Seattle. I gather Seattle doesn’t usually get any snow at all in the winter, and when it does, it is typically melted inside of a couple of hours, at least on the streets. This time, however, the temperature dropped, making the snow stick around, and in many places turn into ice. The City, and much of the Western half of the state, because it is not used to this sort of thing, never bothered investing in a great deal of snow removal equipment. No salters at all. Only a few plows and a handful of gravel trucks. For what is, by some estimates, a reasonably large city. Lovely.

So what did people do? The snow storm was Monday night. Some people went to work via automobile as usual on Tuesday, thinking things would be fine by then. Things were not fine. A great number of the skittish folks who had bad experiences commuting on Tuesday noticed something, though. They noticed that while their crappy little vehicles slipped and slided around the road, the buses did pretty well. Why? Partly because the bus drivers generally know how to drive, and most other Seattle drivers do not. Partly because the buses are heavier. But mostly because the buses were equipped with chains. Chains, for those of you who do not regularly drive in wintery weather, are exactly as you’d expect: a ladder of chains wrapped tightly around the tires. Chains make for some very good driving in snow and on ice. Good grips. You don’t leave ‘em on year round because they are prone to fucking up your car and refuse to let you drive fast and make an awful noise and fuck up the pavement. But they’re useful in winter weather.

Right. So the Tuesday drivers decided to take advantage of the better-equipped buses on Wednesday. Which brings me back to my odd thing that happened yesterday: I barely got a seat. On both legs of the journey. The 355 was so packed both ways that it had to pass people up.

Why am I bothering to write about this? Because I know most of the non-regulars who took the bus yesterday were bitching about how cramped and slow the bus was. Not realizing that (1) it was slower than usual in part because of the snow and ice, and (2) it was more uncomfortable and slower in large part because the bus was absorbing so many non-regulars. If a large number of the car commuters would take the bus more often, there would be more buses. Less overcrowding. Happier transit users all around.

The 355 is my bus. All you non-regulars can stop bitching and apologize to me for making my ride uncomfortable. Otherwise I’m going to start having to hitch at gunpoint and ruin your commute.

November 28, 2006

Weyerhaeuser, antitrust, and predatory pricing.

Filed under: Law — Chris @ 3:45 pm

I absolutely adore the fact that transcripts from Supreme Court oral argument are now available online only a few hours after the oral argument itself took place.

I absolutely adore the attorney who came up with the argument in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. that, just as pricing for sale very low has market benefits (see Brooke Group, the generic cigarette case), pricing for purchase very high has market benefits. I haven’t read Mandeville Farms (which Pincus cites as the Court’s nod toward this theory; see page 9, line 16), so perhaps this has been done before. But my antitrust professor never talked about it. And he was the type to talk about clever arguments.

I absolutely adore Justice Scalia’s tendency to lob softballs, complete with a valuable unstated (at least aloud) argument, to an attorney, only to tear him a new one later on.

Motherfucker.

Filed under: Language — Chris @ 2:29 pm

I’m in the middle of reading an article entitled “Fuck,” by Christopher Fairman (a law professor at Ohio State). The article is predominantly composed of legal argument, so would be of interest to half of my regular readers. But something popped out at me that I found surprising.

In every culture, there are things that we are not supposed to do and things we are not supposed to say: taboo acts and taboo words. Sometimes there’s a correlation. For example, Western society has taboos relating to sex. While sex is not entirely forbidden, it is regulated by a set of conscious and unconscious rules; given the appropriate time place, and person, sex is not taboo. Incest, however, is taboo—so is the word motherfucker.

Somehow I’ve gone through most of my life thus far without realizing the term “motherfucker” implied incest. That is, although I’ve been primarily using it as a general purpose expletive, when I meant it literally, I meant it to mean “one who copulates with a mother.” As opposed to how Prof. Fairman uses it to mean “one who copulates with his own mother.”

Has anyone else been confused in this regard? Are there any other native English speakers out there who at least thought of the “a” definition at some point? Or am I the only one who didn’t automatically think of incest when I heard “motherfucker” used for the first time? I’d like to know, because I have a reputation for always thinking of the least socially acceptable interpretation of words and phrases, and this revelation might put a bullet in that reputation.

November 27, 2006

I’m in the C-List, baby!

Filed under: Administrative — Chris @ 9:18 pm

C-List Blogger

[From Will Hines.]

Lieberman Party vs. Joltin’ Joe.

Filed under: Humor,Politics — Chris @ 2:14 pm

You already know the set up: Joe Lieberman loses the Democratic primary. Joe Lieberman leaves the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman forms an independent political party (called the “Connecticut for Lieberman Party”). Joe Lieberman wins a Senate seat. Joe Lieberman leaves the Connecticut for Lieberman Party and rejoins the Democratic Party.

Here’s the punchline: Fairfield University professor John Orman joins the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, elects himself chairman (as sole member of the party), and adopted bylaws that allow anyone critical of Joe Lieberman may seek the Connecticut for Lieberman Party nomination in future elections.

[From Happyscrappy.]

November 26, 2006

Finally.

Filed under: Personal — Chris @ 6:41 pm

After several senseless months of waiting, I am officially a lawyer.

November 23, 2006

Thanksgiving.

Filed under: Personal — Chris @ 10:22 am

After eight days of working, I need a break. Good thing Thanksgiving so helpfully situated. Four day weekend! And awkwardness with distant relatives to boot.

Fax machine.

Filed under: Print Media — Chris @ 10:20 am

“No, I ain’t got a fax machine! I also ain’t got an Apple IIc, polio, or a falcon!”

I started bobbing along with Ray (in Achewood’s latest), thinking what a great point he was making. Fax machines are old fashioned and ought to go the way of the Telex. But then I remembered I recently purchased a fax machine so that I could apply for jobs with the federal government. Ugh.

November 22, 2006

Robert Altman.

Filed under: Film — Chris @ 8:50 am

As I mentioned when John Spencer died, I don’t usually get all weepy-eyed when famous artists (or at least celebrities) die. Which is why I find it somewhat odd that the shock of seeing the news of Robert Altman’s death actually happened. I’m not a huge Altman booster. Many of his films were overlong, overcomplex, and overacted. But unlike some other long-filming luminaries of the film industry, Altman was a talented fuck, and did manage to get some very good performances out of people. He’ll be missed.

November 19, 2006

Busting up a SarbOx.

Filed under: Law — Chris @ 8:57 am

Dale, Jeff and I were enrolled in a Securities Regulation class during our final semester. The individual who was teaching it was a practicing securities lawyer from Boise, and so I can only assume he knew the law he was meant to be teaching. He was an unmitigated disaster as a teacher, however. To suggest no one enrolled learned a great deal from the class would be an understatement.

However, I do at least remember that there is a statute known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that was enacted in response to the explosion of WorldCom that seemed to have a great deal of impact on the securities law world. I think the impact had something to do with increased reporting requirements and penalties for auditors who aren’t good men, and thorough. I think the reason I even remember that much is because Sarbanes-Oxley is nicknamed by some securities lawyers “SarbOx,” which is a funny word.

In any event, some group of federal legislators pondering relaxing some of the requirements. Does this mean the end of SarbOx as we know it? Perhaps.

You may ask why, given my lack of interest in securities law, I even bothered writing this post. First, I think SarbOx is a funny word. Second, my brother came up with the title of this post by way of a misunderstanding and our shared digging of Mike Doughty, and I thought it too clever to leave on the table.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress