Most people would rather wait for the object of their desire to fall into their laps, without any effort at all. Get real. The motto "good things come to he who waits" is actually a myth, and so if you want something you have to go out and get it. Restraining orders be damned.
6:46:34 PM
Thursday night I'll be at the Matrix Reloaded. Then this weekend I'm going to find time to go see A Mighty Wind. I hear that it's as funny as Spinal Tap.
5:43:23 PM
David writes about 'digital rights management' (DRM) in the latest online version of Wired magazine, and explains that the problem is that DRM doesn't allow for any 'wiggle room.' I agree and think he has pinpointed a major problem with DRM. But, I have a different view about one thing he brings up.
Mainly, I would not describe the legal system the way that he does:
"our legal system usually leaves us wiggle room. What's fair in one case won't be in another - and only human judgment can discern the difference."
Increasingly, the legal system is moving away from using human judgment. While few people would acknowledge this, the legal system is fascinated with the idea of constructing an elaborate system (sort of a legal 'artificial intelligence') that will solve all disputes without the need for human judgment.
This is why the federal courts are now using the sentencing guidelines. Why did we need the guidelines if judges could simply use their judgment to figure out the proper sentence in each criminal case? Supposedly it was unfair for judges to use their 'discretion' in sentencing. Too much leeway, if you will.
So now we have a grid, with formulas. Just do the right math and you get the right result. What a great system! Judges don't have to take heat for using their judgment improperly. The new grid system still has some major flaws (e.g. making the sentence for possession of LSD depend on the weight of the paper that the chemical is attached to, rather than the amount of the illegal substance, because it's easier to weigh paper than chemicals that are soaked into paper). But that's Congress's fault. And we'd still prefer a legislative solution than one imposed by a judge who exercises 'judgment.'
Why can't we just do away with judges? Well, we're working on it, but 'til then there is something that we can do. We can appoint federal judges who have an agenda. Agendas are better than judgment, of course, because agendas are more predictable. So we concentrate on picking judges with the 'right agenda.' And, friend, let me tell you that is a full time job.
When we aren't locked in legislative battles over picking the right judges, we have to crank out some more rules. The legal system has learned that rules are good to control behavior. And if 'rules are good,' then more rules must be better. (Of course, that's ludicrous. But no one seems to complain, certainly not the lawyers).
Using laws to control behavior is so hard. It would be better if we could use computers. They are so precise and predictable. Just like DRM.
David, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Leeway and human judgment are important. But if you are looking for those qualities in the legal profession, then you better hurry up because they're disappearing fast.
