Why am I toying with this idea?
Friday 18 April 2014, 6.00am HKT
5.23pm local time, 26°C (79°F), overcast and cool
‘Hopeless’ by Roy Lichtenstein, 1963 (via Wikipedia)
HERE’S the thing, I’ve had a hard time trying to figure out how to write about this particular chapter of my life without turning it into a total bitch session.
* * *
Ever since leaving law school (or any kind of school, thankyouverymuch), I’ve been toying with the idea of doing a law blog. But seeing that so many others have done it already, I just went back to my usual wine, women and song.
But now, I’m on the verge of starting one. Knowing me, bank on a diff’rent take on things. Now is the time to show some goddamn initiative, just to keep the Ark sailing.
Your opinions (and concerns) deeply appreciated. Leave hate speech in the comments.
* * *
VOTE FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER
TO HELL WITH THE DETAILS! Nothing sells like a good name. A bad name is an uphill struggle, no matter how good everything else might be.
“ ‘The Naked Listener’ was brilliant, eye-catching to say the least. To come out with another stream of writeups and to have a name that exceeds the ‘sound-power’ of ‘The Naked Listener’ is quite challenging, LOL.”
(hat tip to E.C., 13 APR 2014, 9.33pm)
- First two polls, limitless multiple answers — tick any that pleases you
- Final poll, one answer only
- All polls allow repeat voting
- One suggestion from you (if you have several, leave them in as comments)
- No IP tracking, so you’re safe
- Possible problems for Chrome users; switch to Firefox, Opera or something else
(Hat tip to all who contributed name ideas)
THIS BLOG STAYS ON
Perhaps to the dismay of some, this blog will stay on regardless.
My other one (Learn English or Starve) stays on too, in its near-comatosed default state.
MY EXCUSE FOR DOING IT
If I’m going ahead with this caper, it boils down to one reason.
The stuff of law papers and textbooks is failing its mission because it’s unreadable even to sophisticated minds.
There are loads of serious, serious-sounding and srsly serious law sites and blawgs on the Internet. There are loads of written legal works, textbooks, worksheets, etc, published every year in the Outernet (a.k.a. real life).
Lots of us have massive trouble just physically eyeballing this finely crafted crap, never mind understand it. Leaving aside the purely legal terminology, the presentation and language of describing cases don’t relate to anything in life even for the legal eagles. Many of us come away with a deficient — and warped — picture of the law.
Ask your favourite lawyer for an alternative opinion.
IMPORTANT TO DO THIS BECAUSE…
Decades of this legal stuff. Learners don’t get it. Legal working stiffs are jaded by it. Only the enforcement lackeys have the common sense to ignore it — because it’s unreadable.
TIME FOR A RETHINK. Or it’s back to the amphetamines and barbiturates just to plough through this weasel puke.
The subject of Law — like History — is bound to get harder to learn year after year as events and cases keep accumulating. The ashcan of unreadability is replete with the fag-ash butts of cases that form the very foundations of law and nationhood of any country.
Even ironing out differences between jurisdictions and countries, a law student anywhere has to learn 5,000 cases per law degree, split into 300 cases per module (area of law). The LL.B. degree of any jurisdiction typically lasts three or four years and has 12 to 15 modules.
All it takes is a simple recasting of the presentation. I have literally witnessed students and the legally qualified waste a whole night (six hours at least) over a SINGLE paragraph. What might actually be a simple enough scenario (but for it being worded in a difficult way) could be transformed from hours into literally minutes of reading and comprehension time.
(Adapted by me from The F1 Broadcasting Blog)
- 50% serious (I’ll move heaven and earth for 50% humorous)
- Caselaw (precedent cases) only
- No hardtalk on legal principles or topical legal issues
- Both Common Law and Civil Code jurisdictions throughout the world
- Thinking differently INSIDE the box (I can’t think outside the box anyway)
- Gives different (not alternative) conceptual presentation of each case
- No dilution of facts or factualness of each case, regardless of above (or the humour)
- No set posting frequency (once a week or every two weeks?)
- Aimed at everybody, not just legal eagles
- Depending on your definition of ‘humour,’ should have something for everyone
I would want the blog to have a diff’rent take without going all-pants-down humorous. But I don’t want it to be serious either — far too many ‘serious’ law sites out there already. The fact that this stuff still isn’t understood well means the serious approach is dead in the water.
COLLABORATORS AND TRAITORS
(via Nevill Feast)
Some actual, living, breathing lawyers have been shanghaied into collaborating (with me, that is) for this caper.
Either because they’re out of work, or the blog will serve as their escape from reality of having to work with hormonally imbalanced Wall Street shemale corporate lawyers.
And it prevents me from going in over my head (and spin out of control for just about every post I write, as
you all all of you well know).
Not included in this post because it’s TL;DR — otherwise this post becomes incredibly longwinded, and it might also interfere with the polling. I’ll post the sample case brief a day or two after this post.
For the sampler, I’ve chosen the English contract action of Adams v. Lindsell (1818) to give a fair idea of what I intend to do. The case is quite thoroughly understood in both Common Law and Civil Law countries, and all law students know it by heart — just that it isn’t what they seem to think it is.
Sunday, 25 Dec 2016
© The Naked Listener’s Weblog, 18 APR 2014.
DocID: B14112 (1,023 words)