Did I mention that other members of my tribe...

...really piss me off sometimes?

Am I the only one who remembers a time when vacation plans went awry, and people took it as the adventure it was? Whether things go according to plan, or the plan goes out the window, you make memories. After all, US SCARE really screwed to pooch when it came to getting my honeymoon started, and although it pissed me off royally at the time, and has occasionally seemed like a glimpse of things to come, it gave me a funny story to tell, and I like telling it. My point is this: Did I sue the airline for completely screwing my wedding night up so we didn't get to the hotel until midnight, after they had given our room away, and after room service closed, I had to leave our twin beds and go down to the front of the hotel because the delivery driver wasn't allowed in the hotel. I didn't hold the damn airline responsible for my happiness. I didn't bellyache. I didn't sharpen my pencil and draft a complaint. I dealt with it. In another day and age, a judge might toss this wanker out on his ear. Now I foresee years of protracted litigation. Ain't progress grand?


"Through its gross negligence, malfeasance and absolute incompetence, Mr. Roth holds Delta responsible for ruining his vacation," said the lawsuit, filed in New York state court.

How sad that he holds the airline responsible for his family's state of mind. What a freakin loser.

I finished my letter...

...to the Washington State Bar Association last night.

I'm still trying to decide whether to "Harry Truman" it or not. We actually have a rule in or rules of professional conduct that subjects us to discipline for saying things that can be considered offensive while in the course of performing out duties. I'm sure the letter would do just that. After all, I have the temerity to address their continuing "examinations" of certain topics that are thinly veiled approvals of positions that I and no sane person would ever approve of since they only remove certainty and logic from the law in a futile attempt to recognize the specialness of anyone who believes they are special, culminating in their latest offense in which a Muslim attorney lectures in three pages on how attorneys need to understand how Shariah differs from Washington's laws on how estates are to be distributed in the even there is no will when a believer passes on. I'm fairly confident that practitioners of other religions wouldn't be able to hold forth the same way in the pages of the publication, nor would I be in favor of them doing so. The law works because it treats everyone equally when it is administered with fairness and impartiality. When we start catering on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity, it will break down because of the inherent inequality. I see what my colleagues are doing, I can only surmise that it is deliberate, and they have decided to move beyond their role as officers of the courts to advocacy of political positions. Shame on them, and woe on to us all.