Saturday, May 25, 2013

Using Notepad to Edit html pages viewed in Chrome

I struggled this evening with the following task: develop the ability to edit an html page opened in the Chrome browser, using the notepad text editor, without having to download anything. No way I was going to progress to complexity beyond this fundamental, before first accomplishing the fundamental. I have been used to doing this with client-side html pages opened in Internet Explorer.

The problem is that the source code of pages viewed in Chrome cannot be edited to make changes in the page. You can follow a method involving view-page-source, right-click, inspect-element, right-click on <html> tag, edit-as-html to get an unmanageable jumble of code that does not word-wrap or line-break and that contains strange code that you yourself did not input into the source code. So what to do? 

I found that the correct solution had been posted by the genius 'Jr member Fistenharden', way back in November 30, 2011. It is truly stupefying how many clever people have been so confused regarding the solution, both before Fistenharden's astounding discovery and also during the 19 months that have elapsed since.

 Our Einstein, "Junior member Fistenharden", on November 30th, 2011, correctly stated (

"Talk about a chronic lack of lateral thinking, all one has to do to use notepad to edit a html document is; 

1) Fire up the HTML document from windows explorer 
2) Right click the icon you used to fire the document
3) Select edit from the submenu

[what the genius Fistenharden means in the above 3 points: Open the web page that is saved to your hard drive with Google Chrome by clicking on its icon (if Chrome is not your default browser, you may need to 'open with', then 'Chrome'), then right-click on the icon representing the web-page and click edit (if notepad is the default editor), or, right-click on the icon and then click 'open with'...'notepad'. Thereby you will be able to accomplish the miracle of very simply being able to edit a page that is opened in Chrome, in notepad]

...This works for Chrome and IE...I can't believe I as with everyone else overlooked such a simple method. Talk about relief. Also IE9 for some reason is doing what Chrome does, when you select veiw source from in browser it won't let you edit and save the code. Poo to that, just use the easy-peasy 3 steps above if you're a notepad freak and are trying to figure out why you can not edit the source code by right clicking on an opened document and selecting view source from the submenu".

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Mathematical Refutation of Snobbery

For the sake of argument, lets assume that there is a nation, nation X, that contains 3 million males, 3 million females, 2 million adult females, and 20 thousands adult females who are from the financial elite composed of those who are in the top 1% financially.

Furthermore, lets assume that the females from the financial elite and the females from the general population, are equal in terms of sexiness.

If you ranked the 2 million adult females in nation X for sexiness, from #2,000,000 the least sexy to #1 the most sexy, the laws of probability are such, that you would end up with something like this: #150, from financial elite; #s 149-#51, from general public; #50, from financial elite; #s 49 to #1, from general public. The Gold, Silver, and Bronze, so to speak, would go to the general public.

Given that the adult females from the general public and from the financial elite are equal in terms of sexiness, the laws of probability are such that one can expect #s 1 (the sexiest) to #49 (only 48 women more sexy than her in nation X) to be from the general public.

Suppose that the women of the top-1% financial elite were twice as sexy as the women from the general public. Then you would be looking at something like: #75, from financial elite; #s 74-26, from general public; #25, from financial elite; #s 24-1, from general public. This despite the fact that the incidence of sexy is twice as great in the financial elite.

Even if the incidence of sexy was twice as great amongst the financial elite, #s 1-24 would be occupied by members of the sub-elite general public; if you got rid of the non-elite members of the society, you would be getting rid of #s 1-24, the 24 sexiest women in the society.

I chose sexiness as a criteria to illustrate the argument, because it seems snobs are focused on the 'ugliness' of the public compared to the elites.

Yet this same argument holds true also if you were to rank persons based upon not their sexiness, but rather their voice, personality, appearance, or intelligence.

Snobs fail to realize that whatever criteria they hold dear, the public by force of numbers, wins the contest.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Blather: support Al Humayuna against Al Jahana

Senator Blather's office emailed me a draft version of a press release planned by Senator Blather. The Senator told me that the idea's expressed, are rooted in his admiration of the ideas expressed by Massachusetts candidates.

The press release describes how AL-HUMAYANA, and the AL-JAHANGIRA BRIGADES are currently at war with AL-JAHANA. The press release advocates military assistance for AL-HUMAYANA:

Home > Press > Press Releases 
Statement of Senator Billy Jo Blather  (R-Tx.) 
We must support Al-Humayuna against Al Jahana in the Middle East 

March 21, 2013

Ah arrived in th' Middle East today. It is mah fust viset as Senato' t'th' Islamastan area. Rather than prejudge whut kin be achieved by this hyar trip o' try t'tie th' President’s han's corncernin' th' Middle East, Ah's hankerin' t'simply make a few straightfo'ward points. 

We is now facin' a dangerous situashun in th' Islamastan, whar AL-HUMAYUNA, an' th' AL-JAHANGIRA BRIGADES an' others is currently at war wif AL-JAHANA. We sh'd provide 1.95 billion dollars in military aid t'Al-Humayuna. Ah previously stated thet we sh'd wait until we see which of th' groups fightin' Al Jahana is th' nicest, an' then suppo't thet one aginst Al Jahana. It has become clear thet Al Humayuna is th' nicess of th' rebel groups. 

Th' hoomin rights situashun in Al-Humayuna has been improvin': Th' surtax imposed on Christians is now down t' 73% of income, an' it's a flat rate; th' to'turers haf not boiled ennyone alive fo' 13 years now; residents of areas corntrolled by Al-Humayuna is allered t'say whutevah they be hankerin' t' say about th' Al-Humayuna soccer team; a clito'is is ampeetayted only eff'n it is mo'e than 0.5 centimeters in len'th; yo'ng wimmen is allered t'vote in referendums determinin' who they sh'd marry up wif; Hansum min are allowed t'visite college campuses an' cocktail lounges eff'n they wears a bag on over their face 'n haid. 

Ah quote Docko' Easterneuropinsky: "Al Jahana, vhum ve-a moost deesplece-a by sooppurteeng Al Humayuna, is soopereeur tu Al Humayuna in terms ooff hoomun reeghts. Hoowefer, ve-a moost nut be-a sofft und senteementel, zee fate-a ooff zee vurld cuoold be-a iffffected by oooor puleecies. Despite-a its strung hoomun reeghts recurd, Al Jahana moost be-a displaced by Al Humayuna". 

Al Jahana an' Al Humayuna is both scary, they is both terro'ist threats. Al Jahana boasts a 1.7 million man army compared t'Al Humayuna's 9 thousan' Jihadi martial artists. Hence Al Jahana is mo'e of a terro'ist threat t'us compared t'Al-Humayuna. 

Al Jahana's anti-semitism is evident in th' proliferashun, on Al Jahana TV, of female announcers wif european lookin' noses, negro lookin' behinds, an' east-asian lookin' sholders. 

Al Jahana's hoomin rights reco'd is better than Al-Humayuna's. Al Jahana allows hansum men to viset campuses an' bars so long as they wears a musstache an' does not wears a crost aroun' their neck. Shet mah mouth! Al Jahana's cornsteetooshun guareentees wimmen freedom of choice regardin' who t'marry up wif, so long as th' married up wif man kin kick a soccer ball 40 yards. Al Jahana's surtax on Christian income is only 5%. Al Jahana allows fo' freedom of speech so long as th' Gran' Vizier is treated wif respeck. Al Jahana's most severe to'ture involves th' culprit bein' smeared wif pork an' pareeded nude in front of uncircumsized white wimmen. 

Nevahtheless, we muss Suppo't Al-Humayuna in its war aginst Al Jahana, on account o' Al-Humayuna is nicer than the Al-Jahangira Brigades, and Al Jahana compared to Al-Humayuna is more trimenjus, stronger, more of a terro'ist threat, an' more anti-Semitic. ' 

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Blather submits draft of Blather terrorism doctrine for comments

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:06 AM
Subject: Requess fo' opinion of draf' vahshun of Blather Terro'ism Dockrine 
David Virgil Hobbs,
Ah have been observin' th' Massachusetts political scene. Ah have been impressed by th' brilliant comments on fo'eign policy thet haf been prodooced by th' liberal Mass kindidates. HowevahAh cannot aller th' Mass liberals t'git ahaid of me in th' anti-terro'ist heroics. Ah have finished a draf' vahshun of mah noo 'Blather Terro'ism Dockrine'. Please send me yer comments on how th' draf' kin be improved.
Blather Terro'ism Dockrine
Th' wo'ld is composed of groups thet we is afraid of. Thar is no group in th' wo'ld thet does not frighten us. Tharfo'e all th' diffrunt groups in th' wo'ld, aside fum us, is terro'ist.
When two groups, terro'ist group A & terro'ist intity B is fightin' etch other, we sh'd back th' terro'ist group thet is less terrifyin', on account o' th' less terrifyin' group is less of a terro'ist threat t'us, compared t'th' mo'e terrifyin' group.
When terro'ist group A & terro'ist group B is fightin' etch other, & terro'ist group C is less of a terro'ist threat than terro'ist groups A & B, if terro'ist terro'ist group A's vicktory improves things fo' terro'ist group C we sh'd back terro'ist group A, & eff'n terro'ist group B's vicktory improves things fo' terro'ist group C, we sh'd back tero'rist group B.
An' so fo'th an' etcetera.
Whenevah a group develops frickshun wif another group, we sh'd intervene t'jack up th' violence as much as postible, on account o' all groups aside fum us is terro'ist, an' th' mo'e they fight wif etch other, th' better fo' us.

-- Senato' Billy Jo Blather
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:44 AM
Subject:  Re:Requess fo' opinion of draf' vahshun of Blather Terro'ism Dockrine
Senator Blather,
My response to your ideas:
The mere fact that you are afraid of a person or a group, does not prove that the entity you are afraid of, is terrorist.
Conceivably, it would be a superior solution, if we were to put our resources of time energy and money into activities that improve our defenses against attack by any terrorist group, be it A, B, or C.
Generally, strong groups are more terrifying compared to weak groups. If we habitually support the weak groups, this could end up putting us in an unfavorable situation; such could turn the weak groups into our allies, and the strong groups into our enemies, resulting in defeats for us.
Stirring up death and destruction in foreign nations, by way of supporting this or that terrorist group, could damage us economically. Often those who stay out of conflicts are more popular than those who become embroiled in conflicts they originally had no part in. It's hard to make the sale when you are unpopular.
Death and destruction lead to poverty. The impoverished are not able to buy the goods and services we sell.
Death and destruction reduce the productivity-per-hour rate. Thus the afflicted society has no time and energy to put into acquiring skills that would enable them to have an income level allowing them to buy the goods and services we sell.
There is a danger that one day the US could face a group that makes a proclamation:
"We, the nations of the world, are tired of the US stirring up strife, death and destruction in our nations. We are tired of the US stirring up strife, death and destruction in nations other than our own. We are tired of the US stirring up strife, death and destruction pitting nation against nation. We pledge ourselves to retaliate against the US. We pledge ourselves to take revenge upon the US. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We pledge ourselves to stirring up strife death and destruction in the US. We pledge ourselves to the destruction of the US leaders who have wreaked havoc amongst us".
We live in a time, wherein violence between nations that are far away from us, can easily result in damage to ourselves. Persons driven insane by war can turn against us. The winds, rain, ocean-currents, & rivers can carry poisons released by modern war to our shores.
Senator Blather, I know that you are a God-fearing man. Here are a few relevant scriptures:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth...Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy...Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool...As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool...He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears...Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth...As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife...Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.
-- David Virgil Hobbs

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Blather attacks 'career politicians'

Senator Blather has sent me a web-page describing a recent speech of his. The speech promotes a strategy for dealing with what Senator Blather considers to be a disease: "career politicians". I suspect that the speech was motivated by Blather becoming jealous of Gabriel Gomez the MA senate candidate. I do my best to reproduce the page sent by Blather here:

Home > Press

Statement By Senator Blather On Visit By Moms Demand Action Against 3rd-party Broadcasts In America

Monday, May 6, 2013                                                             Print E-Mail Share

DALLAS – U.S. Senator Billy Jo Blather (R-TX) today issued the following statement after the Texas Chapter of Moms Demand Action Against 3rd Party Political Broadcasts visited his state office to thank him for his support of 3rd Party Broadcast Control legislation.

"Mah brilliant noo ideas thet nobody thunk of befo'e, is like th' invenshun of th' wheel, Ah reckon. Two noo sech ideas: the USA is in decline on account o' career politicians haf taken on over; an', we need term limits t'prevent varmints fum developin' into career politicians.

Whuffo' does we haf "career politicians"?. Whut is th' roots of th' "career politician" problem? Docktor Easterneuropinsky an' Ah have scientifically looked into these matters.

We haf come t'some tentative emphatic cornclushuns. Our unnerstan'in' is at th' Phd level; th' analytical skills we haf applied is far superio' t'them of mere college grads. Ah quote fum Docko' Easterneuropinsky's latess publicashun:

Senetur Blather und I, now can see-a thet zee most impurtunt cause-a ooff cureersus politicus (cummunly known as "career politician") deeseese-a, is democracy (Easterneuropinsky,  et al, 2012, 2013a,b). Lookeeng at zee lifes ooff famous high-impact-on-society leeders, ve-a deescufered thet "career poleeticiuns" almust alveys rise-a up (p < 0.00001) in nations vheech are-a demucreceees. Ve-a can state-a veet a high degree-a ooff cunffeedence-a (p for trend = 0.13), thet compared tu zee rest ooff zee vurld,societies seetuated in zee Uneeted States ooff Emereeca, are-a much more-a inffected veet cureersus politicus. Zee subcohort composed ooff Persons vhu are-a emungst zee most admired in zee vurld, sufffers a very steteesticelly seegnifficunt (p < 0.00003), ixtremely high, rate-a ooff "career politician" deeseese-a. Cunfersely, zee subcohort composed ooff those-a vhu are-a zee most despised und hated people-a in zee vurld, injoy a low rate-a ooff cureersus politicus (99% C.I). Zee impleecashuns ere-a unmeestekeeble-a. For now ve-a cuncloode-a, thet ve-a must insteetoote-a zee followeeng meesures in oorder tu combat career puleeticiun deeseese-a: eradication ooff zee demucratic form ooff gufernment; ileeminashun ooff persuns living in zee Uneeted Stetes ooff Emereeca; leequideshun ooff admired persuns; und, zee prodocshun ooff persuns vhu are-a hated und despised. 

Ah translate th' last sentence fo' yo', into no'mal inglish :  "Th' implicashuns is unmistakeable. Fo' now we cornclude, thet we muss insteetoote th' follerin' measures in order t'combat career politician disease: eradicashun of th' democratic form of govment; eliminashun of varmints livin' in th' United States of America; liquidashun of admired varmints; an', th' produckshun of varmints who is hated an' despised".

Now fo' some examples of famous men of achievement who had real jobs an' were not career politicians, an' men of achievement who were pathetic career politicians.

Even Jesus Christ hisse'f, was defeated by Judas Iscariot. Now, a man who kin defeat Jesus Christ, is a real man, as enny fool kin plainly see. Judas, throughout his life, was nevah a career politician. He was a treasurer fo' a Christian group. Judas is on th' all-time most hated list. Judas was nevah a politician.

Benedick Arnold, who comman'ed Wess Point, is famous fo' betrayin' America durin' its war wif Britain. Befo'e he joined th' Conneckicut militia, startin' as a cappain, he was a hardwawkin' internashunal businessman, who protested aginst taxes an' refused t'pay taxes. Benedick Arnold was a real man, he recovahed fum advahsity in business, an' was a war hero. Benedick Arnold is on th' all-time most hated list. Benedick Arnold was nevah a politician.

Attila th' Hun, was was leader of th' Hunnic Empire, which stretched fum th' Ural Rivah t'th' Rhine Rivah an' fum th' Danube Rivah t'th' Baltic Sea. Attila is on th' all-time most hated list. Attila, was nevah a politician.

Durin' th' apostolic age th' Roman Empire was th' one great power of th' wo'ld. Th' Roman Empero' Caligula, reigned 37-41 AD. Caligula was known fo' his cruelty, extryvagance, sexual pervahsity, insanity, an' tyranny. Caligula is on th' all-time most hated list. Caligula was nevah a politician.

Vlad th' Impaler, known as Count Dracula, was a Romanian ruler of 600 years ago. He has been praised as a heroic fighter aginst th' Muslims. Prio' t'ascendin' t'th' throne of Wallachia, Dracula studied combat skills, geography, mathematics, science, Slavonic, German, Latin, an' th' classical arts an' philosophy. Dracula is on th' all-time most hated list. Dracula was nevah a politician, as enny fool kin plainly see.

So yo' kin see, how we haf evidence provin' thet th' wo'ld's most hated varmints, varmints who did not live in democracies, haf shown an impressive immunity, thet protecks them fum bea-comin' infecked by th' 'Career Politician' disease.

Now Ah provide evidence provin' our hypothesis, in th' fo'm of facks regardin' min who were career politicians.

Teddy Roosevelt became US President in 1901. He is on the dawgoned-est most admired Americans list. He was a politician fo' 21 years befo'e he became President.

Ole Man Franklin Delano Roosevelt became US President in 1932. He is on th' all-time most admired varmints in th' wo'ld list. He was a politician fo' 22 years befo'e he became President.

Abraham Lincoln became US President in 1861. He is on th' all-time most admired varmints in th' wo'ld list. He was a politician fo' 26 years befo'e he became President.

Winston Churchill became British Prime Minister in 1940. He is on th' all-time most admired varmints in th' wo'ld list. He was a politician fo' 40 years befo'e he became Prime Minister.

John-Boy Q Adams became US President in 1825. He is on the dawgoned-est most admired Americans list. He was a politician fo' 44 years befo'e he became President.

"Lookin' at these five politicians, yo' kin obsarve thet we haf evidence indicatin' thet th' 'Career Politician' disease is likely t'infeck, an' is spread by: American leaders, democracies, th' wo'ld's most admired varmints, an' Englishmen".

Wednesday, May 08, 2013

People's Pledge Endorsed by Senator Blather in Speech

Senator Blather has sent me a copy of a new web-page, which records a recent speech of his regarding the 'People's Pledge', which aims to reduce/limit 3rd party broadcasts dueing elections. I do my best to reproduce Senator Blather's speech below:



Classic Senate Speeches

Billy Jo Blather (1954– ).  Political Debates Between Blather and Blather.  2013. 
Speech of Senator Billy Jo Blather 
On the Ooccasion of His Public Reception at Chicago, Tuesday Evening, May 6, 2013, where he endorsed the 'People's Pledge', which limits 3rd party broadcasts. (Mr. Alberto Beauregard Blather Was Present.) 

Mr BLATHER said--

I, yer hard-wawkin' Republican Senato' Billy Joe Jo Blather, an' mah despicable liberal enemah Alberto Beauregard Blather, is embroiled in a bitter battle. Th' winner shall be th' noo US Senato'. Both of us haf agreed t'sign th' "People's Pledge", invented by th' brilliant Bay State lawmakers.

Ah suppo't th' denunciashun of th' 3rd party broadcasts in th' 'People's Pledge'. Th' People's Pledge makes clear, thet it quote "does not approve" unquote of independent advahtisements. Th' People's Pledge makes it clear thet it be hankerin' fo' independent 3rd part advahtisements t'quote immediately cease and desist unquote, which is admirable impressively intimidatin' expert legal language. May Ah suggess th' inclushun of th' Latin, "cesso, et desiit". Ah admire how th' People's Pledge, punishes them 3rd parties perpetrators who darest t'broadcast aginst kindidates, by makin' the perpetrators guilty of causin' financial losses fo' infuriated big-shot politicians.

Th' political amateurs who sleep through th' primaries an' wake up durin' th' main event, is examples of th' mentally retarded 85% lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity. We doesn't want them makin' th' excuse, 'we slept through the primary, now we don't like the candidates, so we don't want to send out videotape and money to one of the candidates, we want to buy a $1000 ad linking to ourwebpage presenting our video'.

When thar is a noo event durin' th' course of th' campaign, me, Republican Senato' Billy Joe Jo Blather, an' mah despicable liberal inemah Alberto Beauregard Blather, sh'd be th' only varmints allered t'broadcast opinions regardin' which kindidate is right o' wrong, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells! Th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity is so slow-witted, thet they will be able t'spout nothin' but foolishness durin' th' time between th' noo event an' eleckshun day.

Ah Billy Joe Jo Blather, an' mah bleedin'-heart lef'ist foe Alberto Beauregard Blather, does not be hankerin' t'be criticized regardin' thin's thet we agree wif etch other on, as enny fool kin plainly see. Aldo an' Ah are civilized men, we will not criticize etch other's posishuns regardin' an issue, when we is in agreement. Unfo'tunately same kinnot be said fo' th' uncivilized 3rd party savages, who will criticize us both, me an' Alberto, when me an' Alberto is in agreement. We haf th' common sense to, fo' example, not criticize etch other when we agree thet a statue of J Edgar Hoovah sh'd be erecked on th' groun's of th' govahno''s manshun. Howevah th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity has no common sense.

Ah Billy Jo, an' mah opponent Alberto Beauregard, is agreed thet we want t'control all broadcasts involvin' th' political contest between us.

We does not be hankerin' t'be both criticized while one of is endorsed, cuss it all t' tarnation. We doesn't want t'be criticized by our suppo'ters. We doesn't be want varmints talkin' about us as bein' like th' lesser of two evils. On account o' th' simple-minded public, does not unnerstan', thet thar is no sech thin' as a great leader who is not th' lesser of two evils.

Billy Joe Public has this hyar attitude: "we don't like either candidate, we have critical things to say about both of them, we think one is slightly better than the other". Ah an' mah opponent is agreed, thet we doesn't want Billy Joe Public broadcastin' messages based on this hyar attitude. Us politicians will nevah be able t'proteck ourselves aginst Billy Joe Public, until we unite aginst Billy Joe Public. Billy Joe Public is indeed th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity, same thing.

Billy Joe Public is a clumsy political amateur. Th' amount of time inergy an' money he kin put into observin' th' political scene is limited. Hence he is at bess able t'develop expertise regardin' one o' two issues. As a result, he delights in broadcast ads thet focus on me o' mah advahsary bein' wrong about some issue, instead of which of us sh'd be voted fo'. Such amateur incompetence muss be discouraged.

Billy Joe Public says: "which would you prefer, when it comes to expressing yourself in the election? Buying a $100 internet ad that links to your own video presentation regarding the election, or giving your video and 100 dollars to one of the candidates, and letting him decide what to do with the video and the money?". Billy Joe Public fails t'trust our superio' expertise an' experience.

Most voters is lukewarm types who cornsider their favo'ed kindidate t'be a lesser of two evils type. They say: "we wish to express ourselves regarding the election contest, independently of either candidate. We wish to evince, a lesser of two evils attitude. We want to keep the candidate we favor at a distance. We consider the difference between our money and our edited censored or trashed videos being used by a candidate, to be significantly different compared to us independently expressing ourselves".

The danged-est recent events in th' US, haf alerted me Billy Joe BLather, an' mah antagonist Alberto Beauregard Blather, t'th' fack thet we muss cornfiscate 17% of th' wealth held by them who is beneath decamillionaire status. This hyar is necessary on account o' we is afraid of them, dawgone it. Us bein' afraid of them, means thet they is terro'ists. On account o' they terrify us. True, up until today, an' durin' th' primaries, Ah an' Alberto had not declared ourselves t'be in favo' of sech cornfiscashun; howevah, a Senato' muss allwus reack decisively t'noo events. Now is a time fo' united, expert ackshun. We doesn't want amateurs broadcastin' videos criticizin' Alberto an' us regardin' th' much-needed wealth cornfiscashun projeck. Whuffo' sh'd thar be a need t'criticize, when both sides is in agreement?

Ah Senato' Billy Jo Blather received two hundred thousan' votes in th' republican primary, mo'e than enny other kindidate, an' mah opponent Aldo Pierre Blather won th' democratic primary wif two hundred an' thirty five thousan' votes. An' reckon, it takes all day t'watch jest twenty five thousan' runners hoof it by when yo' watch th' Mareethon, as enny fool kin plainly see. Thus we is entitled unner natural rules of o'der, t'be th' only varmints allowed t'broadcast opinions regardin' which of us sh'd be chosen (Ed. note: the 200,000 votes for Billy Jo Blather constituted 1.8% of eligible voters; the 235% votes for Aldberto Beauregard Blather represent 2.1 % of eligible voters).

Ah's a believah in punishment. Th' sof'-on-crime liberals haf allered crime t'run wild. Th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity imbeciles who disgracefully failed t'vote in th' primaries, sh'd not be allered t'broadcast opinions regardin' which of us sh'd be voted fo'. They had their chance, t'decide a nominee fo' their party durin' th' primaries.

All political ideas muss be funneled through th' 'censor librorum', th' candidate. Th' can'idate shall decide, whut gits spoken, an' whut does not git spoken, how much money is put into a broadcast, an' whut th' message of th' broadcast is.

Billy Joe Public makes excuses like, "I was not in favor of any of the primary candidates; I didnt put time and energy into supporting any of them; I've been waiting for one of the candidates to succeed in impressing me". Wal, thass an insult t'th' fine leaders of our state. All them kindidates an' they kin't find one who they respeck. Such corntempp of court, is disreputayble. Lazy Billy Joe Public nevah has time o' inergy fo' ennythin'. An' he's so slow-witted, thet by th' time a kindidate impresses him, th' eleckshun is on over.

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

'People's Pledge' to be used by Blather to bankrupt rivals

Senator Billy Jo Blather has notified me that he has been awared the Rebel Prize in Political Genius for 2013. The Senator received the prize in recognition of a brilliant political strategy he has devised, which will take advantage of political candidates who have signed the made-in-Massachusetts 'People's Pledge', by way of forcing those who have signed it into political bankruptcy.

The Senator emailed me a web-page describing the occasion of his Acceptance Speech. I have done my best to reproduce the web-page here (the form of html used by blogger makes exact reproduction difficult):


The Rebel Prize in Political Genius 2013
Senator Billy Jo Blather, Sr.

The Rebel Prize in Political Genius 2013
Rebel Prize Award Ceremony

Billy Jo Blather
Biographical                 Photo Gallery
Bibliography                 Article
Banquet Speech          Other Resources

Acceptance Speech

Senator Billy Jo Blather's Acceptance Speech, on the occasion of the award of the Rebel Prize in Political Genius Oslo KY, May 5, 2013

Listen to an Audio Recording of Billy Jo Blather's Acceptance Speech (paragraph 2-7)** 
2 min.


To hear the recording you need Adobe Flash Player or Windows Media Player Copyright © Blatheristik23 Radio AB 2013 l

Yer Majesty, Yer Royal Highness, Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies an' Juntlemen:

Ah accepp th' Rebel Prize fo' Political Junius at a moment when th' Blather fambly of th' United States is ingaged in a creative battle t'end th' long night of liberal rebellion aginst th' Blather fambly. Ah accepp this hyar award on beha'f of a cornservative movement which is movin' wif determinashun an' a majestic scorn fo' risk an' danger t'establish a reign of freedom fum usurpashun an' a rule of jestice presided on over by Blathers. Ah's mindful thet only yessuhterday in Birmin'ham, Alabama, mah son Bismark Patrick Blather, competin' in th' NASCAR races, was fraudulently deprived of a medal, Ah reckon. Ah's mindful thet recently in Boston, Massachusetts, politicans were brutally attacked in Third-party broadcast advahtisements. An' only yessuhterday mo'e than 40 houses of wo'ship in Noo Englan' were spray-painted on account o' they offered a sanckuary t'them who'd not accepp 3rd party advahtisements. Ah's mindful thet debilitatin' an' grindin' 3rd party advahtisements afflick politicians an' chain them t'th' lowess rung of th' political ladder.

Thar is an eleckshun fo' govahno' a-comin' up in mah area, pittin' rodeo perfo'mer Jeb Stonewall fo' th' Republicans, agaisnt Congressman Calvin Luther King fo' th' democrats.

Jeb Stonewall beat out mah son Bizmark Patrick Blather, fo' th' republican nominashun. Whuffo'? On account o' Bizmark lost t'Jeb at th' NASCAR prelims in Chucksville. Ah cannot allow this hyar situashun t'continue. Th' Stonewall fambly, is a threat t'us Blathers, an' muss be financially defunded, cuss it all t' tarnation.

This hyar state's strongess ally, is th' Blather fambly. So of course our state muss corntinue t'suppo't th' Blather fambly. An' Ah of course kinnot aller th' liberal negro Congressman Calvin Luther Kin' t'grow in power either.

Tharfo'e, Ah have decided t'defund both of them, render them both financially bankrupp, by clevahly takin' advantage of th' fack, thet they haf signed th' admirable 'People's Pledge', which has been created by genius Bay-state lawmakers.

Af'er all, th' fack thet yo' sign a respeckable pledge, does not make yo' right about ev'rythin'. Jedidiah Warshin'ton signed our sacred cornsteetooshun, but nevahtheless he owned pitiable negro slaves who he kepp aginst their will, Ah reckon.

Tharfo'e, mah strategy durin' th' govahno''s race between Jeb Stonewall an' Congressman Calvin Luther King, both of whom muss be financially defunded, is this:

Blather interprises will fund a noo o'ganizashun named 'Positive Male Cheerleader Rebs' or PMCR. Th' o'ganizashun will spend a million dollars on ads endorsin' Jeb Stonewall, featurin' messages sech as "Stonewall now, Blather next". This will unner th' terms of th' 'People's Pledge', force Stonewall t'donate a ha'f-million dollars t'a charity of Congressman King's choice.

At th' same time, PMCR will buy a million dollars in ads featurin' th' message, "Congressman King fo' govahnor now, but Blather next when we grow up". Thet will force, unner th' terms of th' 'People's Pledge', Congressman King t'pay a half-million dollars t'charities chosen by Jeb Stonewall, Ah reckon.

Don't believe me? Ah quote fum th' text of th' noble People's Pledge:

"In the event that a third party organization airs any broadcast (including radio, cable, or satellite advertising that promotes or supports a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate, that Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposing Candidates choice".

An' also, brilliantly usin' lotsa wo'ds th' creato's of th' Pledge further elabo'ate:

"In the event that a third party organization airs any broadcast (including radio), cable, or satellite advertising that attacks or opposes a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate, the opposing Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposed Candidate’s choice".

Th' end of this hyar maneuvah, will be thet Congressman King an' Jeb Stonewall, will both be close t'bankruppcy, leavin' mah Blather fambly towerin' above its liberal opposishun.

Simultaneously, th' Blather Co'po'ashun will fund a second group, this hyar one will be called "Misanthropist Negative Libtards" or MNL. MNL will spend one million dollars attackin' COngressman King wif ads featurin' messages sech as "Don't vote fo' th' nigger, he's not white like Blather". This will fo'ce Jeb Stonewall t'pay a half-million dollars t'a charity of Congressman King's choice.

Also, our front group MNL, will buy one million dollars in ads delivahin' messages sech as, "Don't vote fo' Stonewall, Stonewall is a fag an' a hun, sign up wif Blather instead". Th' result will be thet Congressman King's campaign muss pay a half million dollars t'a charity chosen by Jeb Stonewall, Ah reckon.

Thus in total th' positive ads floated by PMCR, an' th' negative ones prodooced by th' MNL, will force Jeb Stonewall and Congressman King into bankruppcy, wif me Senato' Billy Jo Blather th' only man lef' stan'in', praise th'Lord.

Then on eleckshun day, we will grab th' limelight wif a parade of Blather inthusiasts, fo'm Redneck Common t'th' Blather Manshun we shall march, while singin' songs praisin' Senato' Blather fo' forcin' Jeb Stonewall an' Congressman King t'both donate a million dollars fo' charities.

At th' end of th' pareede, a gala event at th' Blather Manshun will be presided on over by Hilda Kelly Blather. Hilda Kelly is CEO & Chairman of United Licensed Charities of Flyover Country. Hilda Kelly will give a speech t'a wildly inthusiastic audience composed of representatives fum etch of th' various official licensed charities in our great state.

Monday, May 06, 2013

People's Pledge for Campaign Finance, Blather style

Not one to be left behind, my old friend Senator Billy Jo Blather, has sent me a 'Varmints Pledge'. I suspect because it is his idea of competing with the Markey/Brown/Warren 'People's Pledge'. I think maybe now I understand why the exact text of the 'People's Pledge' was so inappropriately hard to find, and copy into text format:

Billy Joe Blather's Varmints's Pledge

On account o' outside third party o'ganizashuns is airin' independent expenditure advahtisements an' issue advahtisements attackin' me Senato' Billy Joe Blather; an'

On account o' these groups is outta mah corntrol; an'

On account o' Ah do not approve of sech independent expenditure advahtisements made aginst me, an'

On account o' Ah do not approve of sech independent expenditure advahtisements made in beha'f of mah opponents; an'

On account o' Ah's hankerin' them advahtisements t'eemeejutly cease an' desist fo' th' durashun of th' 2012 eleckshun cycle; an'

On account o' Ah's hankerin' them independent expenditure advahtisements t'eemeejutly cease an' desist fo' th' durashun of th' 2012 eleckshun cycle; an'

On account o' Ah's hankerin' them advahtisements sponso'ed by mah tretcherous wife Isabella Natalia Blather t'eemeejutly cease an' desist fo' th' durashun of th' 2012 eleckshun cycle; an'

On account o' Ah's hankerin' them advahtisements sponso'ed by mah tretcherous dotter Hilda Kelly Blather t'eemeejutly cease an' desist fo' th' durashun of th' 2012 eleckshun cycle; an'

On account o' Ah's sick of bein' betrayed when mah wife an' dotter buy ads in favo' of mah political opponent; an'

On account o' Ah trust thet tretcherous as they are, mah wife an' dotter will remember t'do a lousy job of suppo'tin' mah dastardly liberal political opponents:

Ah on beha'f of mah respeckful campaign hyarby agree t'th' follerin':

In th' event thet mah cheatin' wife Isabella Natalia Blather airs enny broadcast, thet attacks me when Ah face a political opponent in an eleckshun, mah opponent, shall pay 50% of th' money spent by mah wife on th' ad, t'a charity of mah choice.

In th' event thet mah cheatin' wife airs enny broadcast, thet suppo'ts mah opponent when Ah face a political opponent in an eleckshun, mah opponent, shall pay 50% of th' money spent by mah wife on th' ad, t'a charity of mah choice.

In th' event thet mah beloved but rebellious dotter Hilda Kelly Blather airs enny broadcast, thet attacks me when Ah face a political opponent in an eleckshun, mah opponent, shall pay 50% of th' money spent by Hilda Kelly on th' ad, to a charity of mah choice.

In th' event thet mah beloved dotter Hilda Kelly Blather airs enny broadcast, thet suppo'ts mah opponent when Ah face a political opponent in an eleckshun, mah opponent, shall pay 50% of th' money spent on th' ad, t'a charity of mah choice.

In th' event thet mah cheatin' wife Isabella Natalia Blather airs enny independent expenditure broadcast, thet opposes me when Ah face a political opponent in an eleckshun, mah opponent, shall pay 50% of th' money spent by mah wife on th' ad, t'a charity of mah choice.

In th' event thet mah cheatin' wife Isabella Natalia Blather airs enny independent expenditure broadcast, thet promotes mah opponent when Ah face a political opponent in an eleckshun, mah opponent, shall pay 50% of th' money spent by mah wife on th' ad, t'a charity of mah choice.

In th' event thet mah beloved but rebellious dotter Hilda Kelly Blather airs enny independent expenditure broadcast, thet criticizes me when Ah face a political opponent in an eleckshun, mah opponent, shall pay 50% of th' money spent by Hilda Kelly on th' ad, t'a charity of mah choice.

In th' event thet mah beloved but rebellious dotter Hilda Kelly Blather airs enny independent expenditure broadcast, thet suppo'ts mah opponent when ah face a political opponent in an eleckshun, mah opponent, shall pay 50% of th' money spent by Hilda Kelly on th' ad, t'a charity of mah choice.

I, Senato' Billy Joe Jo Blather, agree t'continue t' wawk t'limit th' influence of third party advahtisements an' t'close enny loopholes (includin' covahage of ads paid fo' by mah tretcherous wife an' dotter) thet arise in this hyar agreement durin' th' course of th' campaign, as enny fool kin plainly see.

bar exam ny essay question-- my answer, 'superior answer'

Here I present:

A) One of the 3023 NY State Bar Exam essay questions.

B) My answer to the question (I've never studied NY state law, this is the first Bar exam question I have ever attempted to answer). I took more than 36 minutes to answer the question (never been a law student, & before reading the 'superior' answer.

C) an example of an answer to A) that the NY Bar considers "superior". This answer was generated in no more than 36 minutes.

My answer to 1A, generally disagrees with the 'superior' answer; I conclude that the court should have sided with Sam, the 'superior' answer concludes it should have sided with Connie. My answer to 1B, generally agrees with the 'superior' answer, we both agree that Dale was wrong, and that the court made a mistake in siding with Dale. My answer to 2, agrees with the 'superior' answer, in that we both conclude that the property should now belong to both Brett and Steve.


NY State Bar Exam, July 2012 Essay Question 1
 (tests knowledge of NY State Law)
Dale was the owner of Blackacre, a commercial building. Part of the building was leased to Sam, who operated an antiques store in the leased premises. On July 15, 2010, Connie visited Sam’s store and purchased an antique desk for $12,000. Connie paid for the desk in full, and told Sam that she would arrange to pick the desk up later that week. Sam moved the desk from the showroom to his storeroom in the leased premises, wrapped it and labeled it “Connie’s desk -- to be picked up at her convenience.”

That night a fire of unknown origin occurred, damaging the building and destroying the desk. Sam did not carry insurance on his inventory. Although Dale had insured the building with Fire Insurance Co., the insurance did not cover the contents of the leased portion of the building. When Connie arrived a few days later to pick up the desk, Sam told her that it was destroyed. He refused Connie’s request for a refund, advising Connie that he did not have any insurance to cover her desk and was not liable for its loss.

Connie thereafter commenced an action against Sam to recover the purchase price of the desk. Connie’s complaint alleged the above relevant facts. Sam moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The court (a) granted Sam’s motion.

Immediately following the fire, Dale had called Fire Insurance Co. and reported the fire. Art, the adjuster who was assigned by Fire Insurance Co. to the claim, inspected the property to assess the loss. After the inspection, Art and Dale negotiated a settlement of Dale’s claim. In exchange for a payment of $925,000, Dale duly executed a general release, releasing Fire Insurance Co. from “any and all claims for damages, known or unknown, arising out of the fire that occurred at Blackacre on July 15, 2010.”

When Dale later undertook repairs to Blackacre, he discovered that the damage was more extensive than had been realized and specifically included irreparable smoke damage to portions of the air conditioning system that would cost $50,000 to replace. While damage to the air conditioning system was known to both parties at the time the release was signed, neither party knew the extent of the damage, and Dale assumed it could be repaired at minimal cost by cleaning the ducts.

Dale commenced an action against Fire Insurance Co. to recover the cost to replace the air conditioning system. Fire Insurance Co. raised the release as an affirmative defense. Dale moved to strike the affirmative defense on the ground of mistake. The court (b) granted Dale’s motion. The action was thereafter settled.

Dale subsequently conveyed Blackacre “to my son, Brett, and my daughter, Debra, as joint tenants.” In August 2011, in a duly recorded deed, Debra conveyed her interest in Blackacre to her son, Steve. Debra died in December 2011.

Brett now claims that he is the sole owner of Blackacre, asserting that Debra’s deed to Steve was inadequate to sever the joint tenancy, and that he succeeds as sole survivor to the entire fee interest in Blackacre. Steve claims that he owns Blackacre as a tenant in common with Brett.

1. Were rulings (a) and (b) correct?

2. Who now owns Blackacre?


My answers:

1 Re Ruling A

1. Ruling (a) correct or incorrect, involves knowing if Connie's complaint included merely the relevant facts only, or the relevant facts and a 'cause of action' also. The fact that according to Connie's adversary Sam, Connie failed to state a 'cause of action', does not mean that a 'cause of action' was indeed omitted.

Perhaps NY state law requires declaration of a formal 'cause of action' that Connie failed to fulfill.

Alternatively, the law is not designed to punish persons who have the facts on their side, but are not sophisticated enough to include with their facts, a 'cause of action' (one suspects given the balances of powers and the conflicting regulations law to a certain extent stands with those whose facts are on their side but who fail in terms of some legal technicality).

To say that Sam should be forced to re-imburse Connie for the table, is like saying that if I allow someone to park his bike in my driveway, and then a lightning-bolt hits the bike and destroys it, I should be forced to reimburse the owner of the bike.

Sam's insurance did not cover the valuables in his shop. Sam would have had to pay extra in order to insure these valuables. In order for insurance to have covered Connie's table, Same would have had to pay the extra insurance fees, and Connie would have had to contribute something towards the insurance fees for the days that the table sat in Sam's shop. Yet Connie made no arrangement whereby in exchange for a fee, Sam would reimburse her in the event of the destruction of the table. Connie did not take out any insurance on her table when she bought it. So Connie justly bears the financial burden of the loss of the table, just as the kid who I allowed to park his bike in my driveway justly bears the financial loss of his bicycle.

If Sam had explicitly contractually agreed with Connie that he would be financially responsible for the table in the event that a fire destroyed the shop, then Sam should have to reimburse Connie for the table. If he did not so agree, he should not have to reimburse Connie for the table. We cannot assume the unusual and eccentric to constitute unwritten unspoken law taken for granted without being written out on paper and signed. Unless I signed a piece of paper whereby I took financial responsibility for the kid's bike that was parked in my driveway, it should be assumed that I did NOT take such responsibility.

The odds were against Connie insuring the table for the time it was in Sam's shop, being a profitable thing to do. That does not mean that the law is on Connie's side. The odds were against Connie not storing the table immediately at home, ending up backfiring on her. That does not mean the law is on her side.

1 Re 'Ruling B'

Ruling (b)'s correctness has to do with whether 'mistake' trumps contract. The contract specifically states, "known and unknown". Hence Dale agreed to excuse Fire Insurance Company from compensating him for unknown damages, a category that the smoke in the ac neatly fits into. Hence, 'mistake', does not trump contract. If people like Dale continue to win in the courts, the economy will suffer because contracts will not be trusted.  

2 Who Owns Blackacre 

The question is, whether the deed trumps the 'joint tenancy'. This would have to do with the terms of the 'joint tenancy', the terms of the 'deed', and NY state law regarding 'joint tenancy', 'deed', and the interaction thereof.

Common sense declares that given the absence of specific provisions to the joint tenancy declaring otherwise, Debra's son Steve should now own half of Blackacre.

Interpretation of the constitution itself has been based upon attempts to divine the mind of the writers of the constitution. Obviously Dale's intent was that Brett and Debra should split the ownership of Blackacre; hence, obviously, Debra should have the right to pass on her ownership to her son Steve.

There remains the possibility that Dale's intent was that the joint ownership should devolve to Brett alone, in the event of the demise of Debra. Given the absence of explicit declaration to such effect in Dale's conveyance of Blackacre to Brett and Debra, it is reasonable to assume that Dale's intent, was that Debra should be able to, in the event of her death, dispose of her half of the ownership as she she's fit. In this case (adopting rustic dialect), Brett is being a pig, trying to grab property bequeathed to his sister's half of the family for himself.

Normally speaking, if you give someone something, it is assumed that the person you give the thing to, can do with it what he will, UNLESS an explicit condition of the gift, is that joint ownership must not be abrogated, or that upon the death of the recipient, the donated thing must be given to a designated individual.

Society's ability to function productively, is impaired when, regarding unspoken-of elements in contracts, the abnormal and eccentric is assumed to be the unspoken unwritten law, whilst the normal and usual is not.

I am confident that a case can be made along these lines building upon conflicts between various laws and between various powers; if not, new precedent replacing the old can be established.


'Superior' Answer provided by

("sample candidate answers that received scores superior to the average scale score awarded for the relevant essay"):


1. a. The issue is who bears the risk of loss in a sale of goods contract between a merchant and a buyer.

Under the CPLR, a failure to state a cause of action is an affirmative defense that can be raised in a pre-answer motion to dismiss, in an answer, or through trial. The court grants a failure to state a cause of action when, assuming all facts in the complaint are true, there is no possibility of relief under the relevant law. All inferences are made in favor of the non-moving party.

Recovery of purchase price for a sale of goods contract will be governed by Article 2 of the UCC. Under Article 2, the elements of recovery for purchase price where the goods were destroyed are to show that there was an enforceable contract and that the other party bore the risk of loss. For there to be an enforceable contract, there must be a valid offer, acceptance, consideration, and for the sale of goods $500 and over, there must be a writing signed by the party charged with breach that states the quantity of goods. An exception to the requirement of a signed writing is if the goods have been accepted and paid for. There also need to be no defenses to formation for a contract to be enforceable. In a contract for a sale of goods between a merchant (one who regularly sells goods) and a buyer, the merchant bears the risk of loss until possession changes hands. If the seller was not a merchant, the risk of loss passes when the goods are tendered, meaning that the goods were made available for the buyer to pick up.

The party who bears the risk of loss will have to return any payment tendered on the contract and may also be liable for consequential damages, damages that were foreseeable at the time the contract was made, though seller's cannot recover consequential damages until Article 2.

Where goods are identified as belonging to the buyer are then destroyed through no fault of either party, a seller who bears the risk of loss will be excused from further performance by impracticability. However, this does not change that the seller, if a merchant before possession is transferred, bears the risk of loss and will have to refund any amount paid.

Here, Connie and Sam have an enforceable contract between there was offer and acceptance for the antique desk at $12,000. Although there is no signed writing, the contract is enforceable because it was paid in full and the goods were accepted by Connie because she had a chance to inspect the desk. There do not appear to be any defenses to formation.

The fire was an unforeseeable act of god that destroyed the antiques desk, though no fault of either party. Because Sam had identified the desk as "Connie's desk," he will be excused from further performance under the contract, meaning that he does not have to provide Connie with a new desk. However, this does not change Sam's obligation to return the purchase price. Because Sam bore the risk of loss, there is a valid cause of action for return of the payment price.

Sam is a merchant because he owns and antiques store and regularly sells antiques. Sam bore the risk of loss because he had not transferred possession of the desk to Connie. Even though the desk was to be picked up at Connie's convenience, Sam bore the risk of loss until she did so because he was a merchant.

Therefore, the court incorrectly granted Sam's motion.

b. Court granted Dale's motion to strike the affirmative defense on the ground of mistake.

The issue is whether a mistake of cost will prevent an affirmative defense of release from being effective.

Under the New York CPLR, release is an affirmative defense that can be raised in the pre-answer motion to dismiss or in the answer. The plaintiff then has the opportunity to reply. A valid release occurs when there is an enforceable settlement between the parties. A valid release prevents means that the party who settled has given up their claim against the other settling party, who is now free from that claim, and also cannot seek or be liable for contribution. Settlements are governed by contract law principles and are enforceable if there was an offer, acceptance, consideration, and no defenses to formation. One defense to formation is the ground of mistake.

Under New York law, mistake is a valid defense to formation of a contract where both parties make a mistake on a material part of the contract or where one party makes a mistake and the other party has reason to know of the mistake. A mistake as to value of the claim is generally not considered material. Therefore, where both parties underestimated (or overestimated) the cost or value of a promise, there is nonetheless an enforceable contract.

Here, Art and Dale negotiated a settlement of Dale's claim. Because it was duly executed, there was valid offer and acceptance. There was also valid consideration of the $925,000. Dale raised the ground of mistake because he had assumed that the air conditioning system could be repaired for minimal cost, when it will actually cost $50,000 to replace. Dale does not have a valid claim for mistake for several reasons. Although both parties did not know the extent of damage, courts generally do not consider that mutual mistake as to cost to be material. If Dale says that it was not a mistake as to cost but actually as to damage, the mistake was nonetheless not material because $50,000 is a relatively small amount of money relative to the overall size of the settlement ($925,000) and is unlikely to be considered material.

Because neither party new of the extent of the damage, this is not a situation where Dale's mistake will void the contract because it was known by the other party. It was either a mutual mistake that was not material as addressed above or a unilateral mistake that was not known to the other party.

Finally, the language in the release that Dale was releases Fire Insurance Co from damages "any and all claims of damages," "known or unknown" suggest that this was a risk that the parties understood that they were taking. Rather than a mistake, it was part of the benefit of the bargain to Fire Insurance Co.

Therefore, the court incorrectly granted Dale's motion because he did not have a valid claim of mistake.

2. The issue is whether a unilateral conveyance by one party of a joint tenancy severs the joint tenancy.

Under New York law, a joint tenancy is created when two or more parties are given a right to jointly possess property. There are four required unities for a creation of joint tenancy to be effective. The parties must take their interest at the same time, they must take their interest from the same title (though New York, unlike common law, does not mandate straw conveyers for a party to retain a share), they must have the same interest -- meaning that each is a joint tenant with right of survivorship, and each must have the right to possess the whole. Under a joint tenancy, there is a right to survivorship, meaning that if one joint tenant dies, the remaining joint tenants continue as joint tenants or, if there is only one joint tenant left, take the whole property. Therefore, an interest in a joint tenancy is not devisable or descendible, meaning that it cannot pass by will or intestate.

A joint tenancy can be severed by mutual conveyance to another party, petitioning the court for a forced sale or partition in kind, or when one party duly conveys their interest to another party. When one party duly conveys their interest to another party, that party takes as a tenant in common. If there are multiple joint tenants remaining, the joint tenancy will continue for those parties, with the new owner as a tenant in common. If there were only two original parties, the new owner and the original party that did not convey their interest will be tenants in common. Under the tenancy in common, there are no survivorship rights and the interests are freely alienable (transferable), devisable (can pass by will), and descendible (can pass intestate). Each tenant in common has the right to use and possess the whole.

Here, Dale conveyed Blackacre to Brett and Debra "as joint tenants." Because he specifically used the language of "joint tenants," he created a joint tenancy even though he did not mention the right of survivorship. Brett and Debra took as joint tenants because they took their interest at the same time (at the time of the conveyance) and in the same deed. Additionally, they each had the right to use and possess the whole and had equal interests as joint tenants. Thus, the four required entities are present.

When Debra conveyed here interest in Blackacre to Steve, she severed the joint tenancy. The joint tenancy was severed because Debra conveyed her interest during her lifetime, four months before her death in December 2011. Debra will have severed the joint tenancy even if Brett was unaware of the transfer and even if Steve did not give consideration for the transfer because it was a unilateral act of conveyance by a joint tenant.

Because there is only one remaining original joint tenant, the tenancy will be converted to a tenancy in common, with equal interest to Steve and Brett. Therefore, Brett and Steve own Blackacre as tenants in common.

Sunday, May 05, 2013

Confusing anti-Gomez ad stirs up bitter acrimony


Anti-Gomez ad by Markey
Meet Gabriel Gomez: Just Another Republican - YouTube
by Ed Markey
uploaded may 2 2013

Vid Attacked by Markey ad
Dishonorable Disclosures - YouTube
Published at youtube aug 15.

A bitter dispute has broken out between Gomez and Markey (candidats for MA senate) regarding a Markey ad that Gomez has labeled 'despicable'. The low-quality, confusing nature of the ad in question, seems to have produced an atmosphere allowing for bitter but somewhat confused denunciation of the ad.

Gomez and his supporters evidently believe the ad attempts to visually send the message that Gomez and Osama Bin Ladin have much in common.

Actually the ad's visuals do not send the Gomez=Bin-Ladin message, though they could seem to be doing so if someone was paying minimal distracted attention as is often the case when ads are observed.

During the ad,the caption-text argues that Gomez has attacked ('swiftboated') Obama. The video shows Gomez on left of screen, and first President Obama and then Bin ladin on the right of screen. The first scene is of Gomez and the heroic prez admired by the advertisement's sponsor; the second scene is of Gomez and the villainous enemy of everyone, Bin Ladin.

Hence, the ad is actually not following a rule wherein when person A and person B are both shown simultaneously on screen, the intended visually-based argument is that the two are similar. If the ad was following such a logical rule, the imagery would be delivering the message that Gomez, President Obama, and Bin Ladin, are all similar-- like the three stooges.

The ad follows a logical rule whereby photos of different characters involved in the story are simultaneously presented on-screen. Fact is, often on TV, two opposing characters or groups are presented on the screen, one on the left and the other on the right. The two juxtaposed entities could be two nations at war, two teams playing each other, two individuals fighting each other in boxing, two opponents in a debate, the military leaders of two armies at war.

Nevertheless, Gomez had grounds for grievance, because: the intro text quoted from the MSNBC announcer states, "A new organization, Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund or OPSEC for short, is going after  the President for one of the biggest achievements of the Obama administration, the capture and death of Osama Bin Ladin."; and, this is followed by, the showing of Gomez on one side of the screen and Bin Ladin on the other.

(this para added 12:24 PM 5/12/2013) Conceivably, the series of faces shown on screen could be interpreted thus: the scene showing Gomez on the left and Obama on the right indicates that first Gomez was aligned with Obama; the scene showing Gomez on the left and Obama on the right indicates that next Gomez was aligned with Bin Ladin. The feasibility of this interpretation, combined with the beginning words of the ad marveling at Gomez attacking Obama when Obama succeeded against Bin Laden, gives cause for concern-- a reasonable interpretation is that all this put together is an attempt to paint Gomez as an ally of Obama because Gomez criticized Obama with regards to the Bin Ladin raid.

The fact that party X criticizes the performance of party Y during military operation Z, does not mean that party X opposes the goals of military operation Z.

The ad seems to reflect a mindset wherein it is always wrong to criticize or to negatively judge the combat-type performance of one's countrymen (the ad derides such conduct as 'swiftboating').

My reaction: soldiers, battalions, regiments, divisions etc. being criticized, or praised, or ranked is nothing new in the military. Aside from the alleged wickedness or virtue of the world-war Two era German Waffen SS, it is interesting to note how the SS' reputation (and the reputations of other combat groups) in the eyes of the German military, rose and fell during the war. The Germans evidently did not see anything wrong with praising or criticizing the performance of soldiers, regiments, etc. German military performance during WWII has been generally admired, aside from the question of whether Germany was right or wrong morally speaking.

As for the criticism of a president, one suspects that if criticizing a president becomes something unacceptable, the performance of presidents will be impaired.

In sports we see how when players are allowed to frankly exchange opinions re the weaknesses and strengths of their fellow players, this creates an environment which makes it easy for players to improve (compared to the situation wherein players are not allowed to criticize each other).


1 The Markey ad is simple-minded in that, it's premise is that a) since Gomez' group was criticized by a top officer, Gomez is guilty; and, b) since Gomez' group criticized Obama, Gomez is guilty;
2 The ad appears infected with the idea that if a MSNBC announcer scoffs at Gomez' group, Gomez is guilty (as if MSNBC was headquartered on Mount Olympus).
3 The ad implies that it has been determined, beyond doubt, that those ('Swiftboaters') who criticized Kerry were false. Despite the fact that the ad's sponsors seek to attract the 'undecided' amongst the voters.
4 The ad implies that criticism of the performance of the President of the US, is the same thing as criticism of the field performance of a Navy Lt.
5 Bombarding the viewers of a short advertisement that cannot be stopped or replayed, and that is mentally attended to distractedly using only about half the mind, with: split screen images, ambiguous voice-over, and two different text captions all at the same time, seems to border on insanity, causes confusion.
6 The ad assumes that the people watching: know the meaning of 'swiftboating'; and, are able to mentally conjure up an understanding of the term quickly while at the same time being bombarded with text captions, audio, and video.

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Blather re MA Senate election

This email just in from Senator Billy Jo Blather, regarding the April 30 2013 Massachusetts Senate Special election:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 3:58 AM
Subject:Th' Massachusetts Senate Eleckshuns
The esteemed Dave Virg Hobbsey:
Ah have been watchin' th' hono'able kindidates fo' Senato' in Massachusetts wif great conservative interest, an' Ah's pleased t'note thet they is unanimously in favo' of gay marriage.
We haf pushed through th' legalizashun of gay marriage. So now, all yo' single macho dudes out thar who haf a brotherhood-type non-sexual friendship wif some man who is like a brother t'yo', now haf a great noo oppo'tunity.
Eff'n yo' git married up wif t'yer buddy, yer buddy kin now git on t'yer health insurance plan fo' free! An' eff'n yo' git married up wif t'yer buddy, yo' an' yer buddy kin git tax breaks!
But eff'n yo' corntinue on in th' old-fashioned way, like they used t'have when taxes an' wages were high, featurin' yo' an' yer buddy jest bein' like non-sexual pre-pubicoid brothers an' not gittin' married, why, no health insurance fo' yer buddy! Fry mah hide! An' eff'n yo' corntinue on jest bein' unmarried up wif buddies, why, no tax breaks fo' yo'!
-- Senator Billy Jo Blather