I’m an attorney in Louisville, Kentucky who found a way to combine my passions for law, bourbon, and history. After stumbling upon the Pepper v. Labrot case from the late 1800’s and then learning the real truth about Col. E. H. Taylor, Jr., I knew that I had to tell this bourbon story and its connections with the development of American commercial law and the growth of the nation.
Discovery of the interplay between bourbon, law, and history led me to blogging as Sipp’n Corn®, which quickly developed into media credentials, collaboration with retailers to select private barrels, a brief role in a documentary, and ultimately to Bourbon Justice: How Whiskey Law Shaped America, which tells the real history of Kentucky’s famous spirit by using only historic lawsuits between the early distillers. These old lawsuits not only expose long-lost facts, but they also reveal the historical shenanigans and maverick mentality that are part of bourbon’s rich heritage. The old litigation fights involving distillers are the perfect way to learn about bourbon and American history.
No spirit can tell the story like bourbon does because only bourbon is distinctively—and legally—American, as recognized by Congress in 1964. Bourbon barons epitomized the American dream; they aspired to greatness, were ruggedly independent, resourceful, and highly competitive. Bourbon law shows how American distillers flaunted the law when deemed necessary, lobbied for new consumer protection laws or self-interested protectionism laws, and strategically stretched and used laws to gain an advantage over the competition.
There’s plenty more about Bourbon Justice and my other research on my website: https://brianhaara.com/
Bourbon Justice is available from my publisher, Potomac Books, here: Potomac Books
And on Amazon here: Amazon
I’m looking forward to your questions!
Earlier in contracts class our professor said the doctrine of unconscionability is a mess because more than often an unconscionable clause/contract can be reduced to consent issue, and consent has its own weight in contract law. Then later in criminal law when we talked about rape, the trend in eliminating the force element looks exactly like that rationale behind contractual unconscionability.
Also the wording in intentional torts (purposely, knowingly, recklessly) exactly mirrors the wording for mens rea in MPC.
I'm wondering if these theoretical treatments are interchangeable among areas of law.
Below is a thought experiment from Richard Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth (2009):
>Take a rabbit, any female rabbit (arbitrarily stick to females, for convenience: it makes no difference to the argument). Place her mother next to her. Now place the grandmother next to the mother and so on back in time, back, back, back through the megayears, a seemingly endless line of female rabbits, each one sandwiched between her daughter and her mother. We walk along the line of rabbits, backwards in time, examining them carefully like an inspecting general. As we pace the line, we’ll eventually notice that the ancient rabbits we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern rabbits we are used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we shan’t notice the trend from generation to generation, just as we can’t see the motion of the hour hand on our watches–and just as we can’t see a child growing, we can only see later that she has become a teenager, and later still an adult. An additional reason why we don’t notice the change in rabbits from one generation to another is that, in any one century, the variation within the current population will normally be greater than the variation between mothers and daughters. So if we try to discern the movement of the ‘hour hand’ by comparing mothers with daughters, or indeed grandmothers with granddaughters, such slight differences we we may see will be swamped by the differences among the rabbits’ friends and relations gambolling in the meadows round about.
>
>Nevertheless, steadily and imperceptibly, as we retreat through time, we shall reach ancestors that look less and less like a rabbit and more and more like a shrew (and not very like either). One of these creatures I’ll call the hairpin bend, for reasons that will become apparent. This animal is the most recent common ancestor (in the female line, but that is not important) that rabbits share with leopards. We don’t know exactly what it looked like, but it follows from the evolutionary view that it definitely had to exist. Like all animals, it was a member of the same species as its daughters and its mother. We now continue our walk, except that we have turned the bend in the hairpin and are walking forwards in time, aiming towards the leopards (among the hairpin’s many and diverse descendants, for we shall continually meet forks in the line, where we consistently choose the fork that will eventually lead to leopards). Each shre
Hey guys, as the title says. What is the definition of 'technical interrelatedness'? I have done some googling but it makes it even more hard to figure out. English is my second language so be nice please.
Cheers.
"In spite of all humans' innate interest in the interrelatedness of all experience, long ago these world-power-structure builders learned to shunt all the bright intellectuals and the physically creative into specialist careers. The powerful reserved for themselves the far easier, because innate, comprehensive functioning. All one needs to do is to discover how self-perpetuating is this disease of specialization is to witness the inter-departmental battling for educational funds and the concomitant jealous guarding of the various specializations assigned to a department's salaried experts on each subject in any university." - Buckminster Fuller
As an example only: the entire structuralist movement was based on linguistic principles, then extrapolated onto how we get meaning from literature. Later, applied to psychology and philosophy explaining how we get meaning from EVERYTHING... or something like that.
The Wiki article says: "The structuralist mode of reasoning has been applied in a diverse range of fields, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, literary criticism, economics and architecture."
Does this affirm the interrelatedness of said fields, or is it simply stating that we use the same organ to understand them all?
I know there are many more examples. Is there a textbook that can better explain this? (not structuralism, but the interrelatedness of the humanities). I've run into something of a mid-college life crisis. I need an argument that affirms, or at least makes sense of, a dual-discipline study in literature and philosophy.
A defendant must not be convicted merely because he is an unsavory person. In Act 2, Scene 3 of Shakespeare’s Othello, Iago stated that reputation "is an idle and most false imposition, oft got without merit and lost without deserving." What Iago is saying is that a reputation means very little; it is often a fictional quality on the basis upon which people make assumptions and inferences that can be wrong. Our system of justice adheres to this long-standing premise; in a criminal case, the prosecution cannot attack a defendant's character unless the defendant brings his character into dispute. Even though the character evidence may be probative (at least in some cases), it is generally excluded because it is extremely prejudicial. There is a serious and legitimate concern that the jury will overvalue the evidence and convict the accused for who he is rather than for what he has done. The jury might conclude that the defendant may not be guilty of the charged crime, but that he must have gotten away with other crimes. One court summarized the arguments against admissibility this way: "(1) The overstrong tendency to believe the defendant guilty of the charge merely because he is a person likely to do such acts; (2) the tendency to condemn not because he is believed guilty of the present charge but because he has escaped punishment from other offenses; (3) the injustice of attacking one who is not prepared to demonstrate the attacking evidence is fabricated; and (4) the confusion of issues which might result from bringing in evidence of other crimes." Put simply, the danger in admitting such evidence is that the jury will pre-judge a person with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular charge.
The prosecutor has always been regarded as one of the most powerful officials in government. A prosecutor is not only an officer of the court, like every other attorney, but is also a high public officer, representing the people of the state, who seek impartial justice for the guilty as much as for the innocent. By reason of his office, the prosecutor usually exercises great influence upon jurors. The prosecutor's conduct and language in the trial of cases in which human life or liberty is at stake should be forceful, but fair, because he represents the public interest, which demands no victim and asks no conviction through the aid of passion, prejudice or resentment. If the accused be guilty, he or she should nonetheless be
... keep reading on reddit ➡The funeral director was asking us what we think Mum should wear in her casket.
Mum always loved to wear sarongs (fabric wraps that go around the torso and drape downward a bit like a long skirt would), so my uncle suggested that she wear a sarong in there.
The funeral director looked a bit confused, as did some of our family members, to which my uncle added:
"What's sarong with that?"
I started laughing like an idiot. He was proud of it too. The funeral director was rather shocked. We assured her, and our more proper relatives, that Mum would've absolutely loved the joke (which is very true).
His delivery was perfect. I'll never forget the risk he took. We sometimes recall the moment as a way help cushion the blows of the grieving process.
--Edit-- I appreciate the condolences. I'm doing well and the worst is behind me and my family. But thanks :)
--Edit-- Massive thanks for all the awards and kind words. And the puns! Love 'em.
I would have a daughter
But Bill kept the Windows
True story; it even happened last night. My 5-year-old son walks up behind me and out of the blue says, "hey."
I turn to him and say, "yeah, kiddo? What's up?"
He responds, "it's dead grass."
I'm really confused and trying to figure out what's wrong and what he wants from me. "What? There's dead grass? What's wrong with that?"
.
.
.
He says, totally straight-faced, "hay is dead grass," and runs off.
You officially hit rock bottom
Sect is a fundamental concept in astrological tradition. Despite its importance, it got lost in transmission. For some reason, sect never found itself in modern astrology. Rulerships transferred, but sect did not. Most people who get into astrology are unaware of what sect means. Sect comes from the latin noun secta, meaning “a way, a road.” Sect is division. Sect creates groups. In astrology, sect refers to the division of planets and signs into the polarities of diurnal (day) and nocturnal (night). Studying traditional astrology, you may hear “day sect” “night sect.”
Day sect refers to diurnal planets: Sun, Jupiter, Saturn.
Night sect refers to nocturnal planets: Moon, Venus, Mars
Each sect includes a luminary planet (Sun, Moon), a benefic planet (Jupiter, Venus), and a malefic planet (Saturn, Mars). Sect was important to traditional astrology because it implored which planets would be helpful and destructive to the individual’s fate and fortune.
We are “born” into a sect depending on the position of the Sun in our natal chart. You may hear someone has a day chart, or a night chart and that is referring to sect. A day chart means that you were born during the day so the Sun is placed above the ASC/DSC axis which is the horizon line. A night chart means you were born during the night so the Sun is placed below the ASC/DSC axis. If you were born close to sunrise or sunset, you have to look at whether your Sun is above or below your ASC/DSC degree. Knowing whether you are a day or night chart, allows you to understand which planets are working for you and which planets are working against you or not quite tapped into. On an episode of the strology show, astrologer Jason Holley viewed sect as two streams of consciousness. Some of us may be tapped into a more diurnal consciousness while others are tapped into a more nocturnal consciousness.
The Day sect emphasizes the importance of a target and public relations. The sky during the day only includes one pervasive light: the Sun. Our sight is more clear so day charts tend to be more outward or seen by the public. These are people who are goal oriented. These are people who may be devoted to one particular thing. Depending on other factors, these people may have an easier time assimilating into expectations. The Day sect includes planets Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn, which all have a role in society-building. They are rational focused. They are the laws of society. They are the public.
The Night s
... keep reading on reddit ➡And then you will all be sorry.
Now it’s syncing.
He replied, "Well, stop going to those places then!"
I will find you. You have my Word.
She said how do you know he was headed to work?
“thank you for your cervix.”
...sails are going through the roof.
Made me smile
Mods said I'm a cereal reposter...
A taxi
But now I stand corrected.
Wait. Sorry, wrong sub.
Wookie mistake.
Theoretical Fizz-ics
Because you can’t ‘C’ in the dark
> I’m an attorney in Louisville, Kentucky who found a way to combine my passions for law, bourbon, and history. After stumbling upon the Pepper v. Labrot case from the late 1800’s and then learning the real truth about Col. E. H. Taylor, Jr., I knew that I had to tell this bourbon story and its connections with the development of American commercial law and the growth of the nation. > > Discovery of the interplay between bourbon, law, and history led me to blogging as Sipp’n Corn®, which quickly developed into media credentials, collaboration with retailers to select private barrels, a brief role in a documentary, and ultimately to Bourbon Justice: How Whiskey Law Shaped America, which tells the real history of Kentucky’s famous spirit by using only historic lawsuits between the early distillers. These old lawsuits not only expose long-lost facts, but they also reveal the historical shenanigans and maverick mentality that are part of bourbon’s rich heritage. The old litigation fights involving distillers are the perfect way to learn about bourbon and American history. > > No spirit can tell the story like bourbon does because only bourbon is distinctively—and legally—American, as recognized by Congress in 1964. Bourbon barons epitomized the American dream; they aspired to greatness, were ruggedly independent, resourceful, and highly competitive. Bourbon law shows how American distillers flaunted the law when deemed necessary, lobbied for new consumer protection laws or self-interested protectionism laws, and strategically stretched and used laws to gain an advantage over the competition.
