This week in the law school life of XX, we watched a film called "Inside the Jury Room," in which a crew filmed the deliberations of 12 jurors in a criminal case involving a mentally challenged black man. The crime was possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The defendant clearly met all 3 prongs of the legal test on point: (1) he was a convicted felon; (2) he had a gun; (3) he knew he had a gun. (NOTE: Ignorance of the law is no defense.)
The jury on screen ended up with a not guilty verdict. The professor polled the class afterwards on our views. I fell strictly in the formalist camp - for me, the jury inquiry should have ended the second they decided that the 3 prongs had been met. But for many others in my class - as with the jury on screen - the role of the jury was more than mere application of the law to a set of facts. Some saw the jury's role as doling out mercy, or adding flexibility to the law, or acting as society's conscience.
So the formalist in me was utterly flabbergasted when the professor revealed that jury nullification - when a jury finds a criminal defendant not guilty despite their belief that there is no reasonable doubt that a violation of a criminal statute has occurred - is generally acceptable in the criminal context (though less so in civil cases). Judges and attorneys don't tell juries that they have this prerogative, but they don't reverse juries or declare mistrials when juries engage in such behavior.
Pros?
Historically, the colonists valued jury nullification as a tool of resistance against the tyranny of British laws. The Framers shared this valuation of the jury system, as shown by their enshrining the right to a jury trial in both civil (7th Amendment) and criminal (6th Amendment) trials into the Constitution.
I suppose jury nullification protects minorities against majoritarian tyranny (in some cases), and allows adjustments to the letter of the law to adapt to the demands of justice in a particular case. The jury acts as society's moral conscience - doling out mercy where the community deems appropriate and allowing exemptions where justice would seem to require it.
My Views
My problem with this romantic view of juries as the arbiter of justice is that, well, I don't trust juries in this role.
I admit I am a complete elitist on the question of juries in general. I favor striking the jury system all together in favor of a more managerial / inquisitorial judging system, as in Germany. (Of course, this is completely unrealistic insofar as it would require an overhaul of the judicial appointment system -- additional training, for example, and changes to the federal rules, and the not-insignificant task of amending the Constitution to wipe away the jury trial right.)
It's not so much that I'm uncomfortable with there being exceptions and exemptions to The Rule of Law - though that certainly makes me uncomfortable as well. (I, ... like Scalia, tend to prefer bright lines, nice boxes...)
I think I'm just uncomfortable with juries. I would trust judges - with modifications, per the German system - to act in this ... role of meting out justice, much more than juries, because juries are completely unaccountable. Judges, by contrast, would write their opinions down for all of posterity. They have, at a minimum, legal training and analytical ability. They would have some knowledge of precedent. They have the same cognitive and emotional biases as jurors, but they are checked both by appellate review and the requirement of the written opinion.
Perhaps I'm guilty of over-romanticizing the capabilities of a judge, and poo-poo-ing on the abilities of the common American man/woman... but... isn't it time for America to ditch the jury system? Or at least to ditch this jury nullification doctrine, or to hold juries more accountable?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Planning for the worst
Consider the following facts:
1) GM is running out of money and does not have the $$ to keep the company going.
2) Capital markets are frozen up and its difficult for GM to raise private capital.
3) There's a chance (but no guarantee) to raise public funds.
Well it seems like bankruptcy is on the table and everyone is talking about it except GM is not planning for it!
Look I know that you don't want to go bankrupt, but you have to at least consider it and plan for its eventuality. This arrogance (we're too important to die) just means that bankruptcy would be much more difficult if it does occur. They are too busy flying into Washington to lobby the politicians to actually talk about possible restructuring in bankruptcy. Their argument is that talking about bankruptcy will destroy consumer confidence in their products. Hate to break it to you, but there's no confidence in your company already.
Obviously management doesn't care since they wouldn't survive restructuring anyways, but everyone at the company should be outraged. If you won't consider possible contingency plans, well that sounds like poor/bad/idiotic management to me.
My opinion (and I've heard this be said of helping the banks raise capital as well so I can't claim this is an original idea): let GM go bankrupt. Make matching public funds available if GM can raise private capital in bankruptcy protection. This allows the government to be a silent partner to the private sector, prevents the government from running GM (this is a very bad outcome as well!), and makes funds available to the industry. To the extent that the problems at GM are caused by (2), there's a valid argument to helping the industry. If it's a deeper problem, then we need bigger changes and the government policy should encourage change, not provide short-term relief that will only delay the inevitable.
It is an interesting situation: normally the union and management have much different incentives. In this case, they both are lobbying heavily for the same thing.
1) GM is running out of money and does not have the $$ to keep the company going.
2) Capital markets are frozen up and its difficult for GM to raise private capital.
3) There's a chance (but no guarantee) to raise public funds.
Well it seems like bankruptcy is on the table and everyone is talking about it except GM is not planning for it!
Look I know that you don't want to go bankrupt, but you have to at least consider it and plan for its eventuality. This arrogance (we're too important to die) just means that bankruptcy would be much more difficult if it does occur. They are too busy flying into Washington to lobby the politicians to actually talk about possible restructuring in bankruptcy. Their argument is that talking about bankruptcy will destroy consumer confidence in their products. Hate to break it to you, but there's no confidence in your company already.
Obviously management doesn't care since they wouldn't survive restructuring anyways, but everyone at the company should be outraged. If you won't consider possible contingency plans, well that sounds like poor/bad/idiotic management to me.
My opinion (and I've heard this be said of helping the banks raise capital as well so I can't claim this is an original idea): let GM go bankrupt. Make matching public funds available if GM can raise private capital in bankruptcy protection. This allows the government to be a silent partner to the private sector, prevents the government from running GM (this is a very bad outcome as well!), and makes funds available to the industry. To the extent that the problems at GM are caused by (2), there's a valid argument to helping the industry. If it's a deeper problem, then we need bigger changes and the government policy should encourage change, not provide short-term relief that will only delay the inevitable.
It is an interesting situation: normally the union and management have much different incentives. In this case, they both are lobbying heavily for the same thing.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I Once Again Realize...
... that I am the most reactionary, least liberal person in my class - at least when it comes to politics. Yesterday, my professor took a group of us out to dinner. The subject of conversation included, among other things: why Bush should be sent to Guantanamo Bay, why Joe Lieberman deserved to be shot (I kid you not!) for campaigning for John McCain, and prosecuting the President and Vice President for War Crimes.
These people are CRAZY.
Now if I didn't have a brief due soon, I'd blog about my views on the War on Terror, but ... that may have to wait. A quick summary, though: the zealous warhawks who want to deny all process to detainees are crazy, but so are the zealous "rights"-people who want to undermine the government's well-intentioned efforts to keep our country safe. The former respect the rule of law too little - even openly flaunting in the face of the Constitution. The latter respect the necessities of war - or quasi-war - time too little.
My general view - which runs counter to all of my other views on Respecting the Rule of Law - is ... if you're going to do something illegal to protect the country, don't let anyone find out.
It's horribly unprincipled, but I value my safety just as much as any other person. Any thoughts, XY?
(XY edit): Well I can't say that I'm surprised. Your Law School is incredibly liberal and far far far left. It seems to me that these `debates' always lose sight of the fact that Bush was trying to do what he thought was right. Obviously things didn't work out as anyone would have liked, but I don't think it's right to doubt his intentions. No, he's not the devil. Yes, he thought what he was doing would make the world safer for Americans. At the same time, saying that Lieberman should be shot because he endorsed McCain...and you wonder why a lot of people just view the Dems as elitists who don't understand the concerns of average Americans and don't feel they can communicate with them.
That said, Obama does represent a great chance to bridge a lot of these problems. He needs to govern from the center and rein in the far left elements of the party (people who make statements like this). So far his appointments to his cabinet seem to be accomplishing just that. There are a lot of things that everyone agrees need to be fixed - don't polarize the reforms with borderline offensive rhetoric. It will be a very successful presidency if the far left and the far right are disappointed.
These people are CRAZY.
Now if I didn't have a brief due soon, I'd blog about my views on the War on Terror, but ... that may have to wait. A quick summary, though: the zealous warhawks who want to deny all process to detainees are crazy, but so are the zealous "rights"-people who want to undermine the government's well-intentioned efforts to keep our country safe. The former respect the rule of law too little - even openly flaunting in the face of the Constitution. The latter respect the necessities of war - or quasi-war - time too little.
My general view - which runs counter to all of my other views on Respecting the Rule of Law - is ... if you're going to do something illegal to protect the country, don't let anyone find out.
It's horribly unprincipled, but I value my safety just as much as any other person. Any thoughts, XY?
(XY edit): Well I can't say that I'm surprised. Your Law School is incredibly liberal and far far far left. It seems to me that these `debates' always lose sight of the fact that Bush was trying to do what he thought was right. Obviously things didn't work out as anyone would have liked, but I don't think it's right to doubt his intentions. No, he's not the devil. Yes, he thought what he was doing would make the world safer for Americans. At the same time, saying that Lieberman should be shot because he endorsed McCain...and you wonder why a lot of people just view the Dems as elitists who don't understand the concerns of average Americans and don't feel they can communicate with them.
That said, Obama does represent a great chance to bridge a lot of these problems. He needs to govern from the center and rein in the far left elements of the party (people who make statements like this). So far his appointments to his cabinet seem to be accomplishing just that. There are a lot of things that everyone agrees need to be fixed - don't polarize the reforms with borderline offensive rhetoric. It will be a very successful presidency if the far left and the far right are disappointed.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Ab*rtion (gasp)!
I've been reading about the issue in my constitutional law class, and I thought I'd try to sort out some of my thoughts on this difficult subject. I'm starting to get all confused, and I'm not sure I like that.
To start with, I'd like to point out that it seems that, like much of public discourse, the great debate about Roe v. Wade rages on without anyone being particularly informed about the case, or the caselaw, or the Constitution. One recent telling example is Sarah Palin's acknowledgement in the Katie Couric interview that she thought there was a right to privacy in the Constitution, which showed that she clearly had no idea how Roe v. Wade had been decided...
Historical Background: Unenumerated Rights & the Lochner Era
In Lochner v. New York (1905), against a historical backdrop of industrialization and enamorment with laissez-faire, the Supreme Court struck down a law limiting the number of hours that bakers could work per week, on the basis that the law was an unreasonable and arbitrary governmental interference with the individual's "right to contract."
Nowhere in the Constitution is there an explicit "right to contract." The Lochner Court pretty much made up this unenumerated right by interpreting the "liberty" in the Due Process Clause to include the right to contract. (Note: Due Process Clause: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.")
The Court of that era struck down a slew of legislation aimed at economic regulation (e.g. minimum wage laws, maximum hour laws, child labor laws) on the basis of unenumerated rights. The approach was rather libertarian in that the Court basically said, you should be able to work for $0.50/hour if you're willing to!
... And then the Great Depression rolled around, and the Court took a reverse course, abandoning the Lochner doctrine of unenumerated rights. The Court pretty much stopped striking down economic regulations. Today, Lochner and its progeny are reviled by liberals and conservatives alike, though for different reasons (anti-worker philosophy and judicial activism, respectively).
Modern Unenumerated Rights
Roe v. Wade finds that, although the Constitution does not mention any right to privacy, the Court has recognized [in the past] that such a right exists under the Constitution. The Court relies on caselaw from, among others, a string of contraception cases to find that certain of the Constitution's guarantees have a 'penumbra' that creates a 'zone of privacy.'
The Constitutional basis for this 'penumbra' in Roe is the concept of personal "liberty" in the Due Process Clause... in other words... the same place the Lochner Court had located its unenumerated right to contract. (Note: This is not the case with some of the contraception cases, which locate the penumbra under, among others, the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.)
The Problem
I find the Roe decision hard to swallow, because it seems to me so ... weak. Conservatives love this, of course, because they can revile both Lochner and Roe on the same grounds - that zealous judges imposed their own personal viewpoints on society by making up rights that don't exist in the Constitution. Libertarians are all right in this, too, because they like both Lochner and Roe. But for me ... I think Lochner was wrongly decided, but I want to save Roe.
The whether-the-fetus-is-a-person / LIFE issue here is not my primary concern, as that seems to be a moral question, not a legal one. (Roe's cop-out answer, for those curious, is that (1) the word "person" as used in the Constitution only means postnatal people; and (2) the judiciary is not in a position to resolve what doctors, philosophers, and theologians have been unable to resolve (whether life begins at conception)). The moral question, of course, is what most of public discourse focuses on.
But as a pro-choice wanna-be-lawyer, my primary concern is the law. I'm having a bit of a hard time trying to articulate why - what legal basis there is for saying - the government cannot proscribe abortions. (Note: A law without an exception for the mother's health might be unconstitutional for not being narrowly tailored. But that's a different issue than the one here.)
It seems to me that there has to be a libertarian-style privacy line drawn somewhere - one that even conservatives would find intuitive. For instance, I should think that everyone would find something wrong with a law that mandated that husbands and wives were only allowed to have sex on every third Monday. Or a law that required everyone to wear only black clothes. Or a law that required all children to go to public school. Or a law that allowed each family only one child. Or a law that mandated sterilization after age 33. My intuition is that the Constitution must protect against such intrusion... somewhere.
But where...?
Solutions??
I don't like the Court's approach of drawing the line with the due process "liberty" clause.
Perhaps the line was meant to be drawn, at the federal level at least, with Article I's enumerated powers of Congress - a restriction that was essentially blown wide open by the Court's dramatic expansion of the Commerce Clause. But even with Article I restrictions, state governments would still have had the power to intrude on the personal lives of its citizens.
Perhaps the line was meant to be drawn by the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."). But that clause was gutted by the Slaughterhouse Cases...
Or the 9th Amendment? ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") I have no idea, but it seems like we'd have a slippery slope issue if we opened the 9th Amendment to all sorts of rights....... rights to privacy, rights to contract... In other words, this would have the same problem as Lochner.
My best hope is that my con law professor comes up with some brilliant way to defend the right to choose under Equal Protection, or something like that. But I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what such a defense might look like...
... and my biggest fear is that I won't be convinced that there is a viable legal justification for the right to choose.
To start with, I'd like to point out that it seems that, like much of public discourse, the great debate about Roe v. Wade rages on without anyone being particularly informed about the case, or the caselaw, or the Constitution. One recent telling example is Sarah Palin's acknowledgement in the Katie Couric interview that she thought there was a right to privacy in the Constitution, which showed that she clearly had no idea how Roe v. Wade had been decided...
Historical Background: Unenumerated Rights & the Lochner Era
In Lochner v. New York (1905), against a historical backdrop of industrialization and enamorment with laissez-faire, the Supreme Court struck down a law limiting the number of hours that bakers could work per week, on the basis that the law was an unreasonable and arbitrary governmental interference with the individual's "right to contract."
Nowhere in the Constitution is there an explicit "right to contract." The Lochner Court pretty much made up this unenumerated right by interpreting the "liberty" in the Due Process Clause to include the right to contract. (Note: Due Process Clause: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.")
The Court of that era struck down a slew of legislation aimed at economic regulation (e.g. minimum wage laws, maximum hour laws, child labor laws) on the basis of unenumerated rights. The approach was rather libertarian in that the Court basically said, you should be able to work for $0.50/hour if you're willing to!
... And then the Great Depression rolled around, and the Court took a reverse course, abandoning the Lochner doctrine of unenumerated rights. The Court pretty much stopped striking down economic regulations. Today, Lochner and its progeny are reviled by liberals and conservatives alike, though for different reasons (anti-worker philosophy and judicial activism, respectively).
Modern Unenumerated Rights
Roe v. Wade finds that, although the Constitution does not mention any right to privacy, the Court has recognized [in the past] that such a right exists under the Constitution. The Court relies on caselaw from, among others, a string of contraception cases to find that certain of the Constitution's guarantees have a 'penumbra' that creates a 'zone of privacy.'
The Constitutional basis for this 'penumbra' in Roe is the concept of personal "liberty" in the Due Process Clause... in other words... the same place the Lochner Court had located its unenumerated right to contract. (Note: This is not the case with some of the contraception cases, which locate the penumbra under, among others, the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.)
The Problem
I find the Roe decision hard to swallow, because it seems to me so ... weak. Conservatives love this, of course, because they can revile both Lochner and Roe on the same grounds - that zealous judges imposed their own personal viewpoints on society by making up rights that don't exist in the Constitution. Libertarians are all right in this, too, because they like both Lochner and Roe. But for me ... I think Lochner was wrongly decided, but I want to save Roe.
The whether-the-fetus-is-a-person / LIFE issue here is not my primary concern, as that seems to be a moral question, not a legal one. (Roe's cop-out answer, for those curious, is that (1) the word "person" as used in the Constitution only means postnatal people; and (2) the judiciary is not in a position to resolve what doctors, philosophers, and theologians have been unable to resolve (whether life begins at conception)). The moral question, of course, is what most of public discourse focuses on.
But as a pro-choice wanna-be-lawyer, my primary concern is the law. I'm having a bit of a hard time trying to articulate why - what legal basis there is for saying - the government cannot proscribe abortions. (Note: A law without an exception for the mother's health might be unconstitutional for not being narrowly tailored. But that's a different issue than the one here.)
It seems to me that there has to be a libertarian-style privacy line drawn somewhere - one that even conservatives would find intuitive. For instance, I should think that everyone would find something wrong with a law that mandated that husbands and wives were only allowed to have sex on every third Monday. Or a law that required everyone to wear only black clothes. Or a law that required all children to go to public school. Or a law that allowed each family only one child. Or a law that mandated sterilization after age 33. My intuition is that the Constitution must protect against such intrusion... somewhere.
But where...?
Solutions??
I don't like the Court's approach of drawing the line with the due process "liberty" clause.
Perhaps the line was meant to be drawn, at the federal level at least, with Article I's enumerated powers of Congress - a restriction that was essentially blown wide open by the Court's dramatic expansion of the Commerce Clause. But even with Article I restrictions, state governments would still have had the power to intrude on the personal lives of its citizens.
Perhaps the line was meant to be drawn by the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."). But that clause was gutted by the Slaughterhouse Cases...
Or the 9th Amendment? ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") I have no idea, but it seems like we'd have a slippery slope issue if we opened the 9th Amendment to all sorts of rights....... rights to privacy, rights to contract... In other words, this would have the same problem as Lochner.
My best hope is that my con law professor comes up with some brilliant way to defend the right to choose under Equal Protection, or something like that. But I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what such a defense might look like...
... and my biggest fear is that I won't be convinced that there is a viable legal justification for the right to choose.
Friday, November 14, 2008
I've Mailing You A Present!
It's a felon! See Inmate escapes German jail in box, wherein a convicted drug dealer successfully mails himself out of prison.
In other news, Charles Krauthammer rails against the auto industry bailout, and I realize my uncle works for GM...
In other news, Charles Krauthammer rails against the auto industry bailout, and I realize my uncle works for GM...
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Notorious
The secrets of aXXo, BitTorrent's top movie pirate - The Internet's most prolific supplier of pirates is now even more famous!
(xy edit): The issue of piracy on the internet is tricky one. It would be hypocritical of me to condemn pirates but the economist in me believes that property rights must be protected. This does bring to mind one a series of science fiction novels I've read by Dan Weber. His books are readily available online and can be downloaded free of charge. The publisher and author believe that the free publicity more than offsets any loss of sales. While I can't speak for the total impact, I know that I've been taking advantage of the freedowloads and did not purchase the books. Additionally, since I try to hide my science fiction predilection, I'm not giving them any additional buzz.
Note to xx: stop telling my friends my habit of reading trashy star wars novels! The Timothy Zahn trilogy is quite good as are his other star wars novels. I made the mistake of trying a few others, and once I start a series I must finish to the end! Do I tell your embarassing hobbies/habits to others? I think I can think of a couple...:)
(xy edit): The issue of piracy on the internet is tricky one. It would be hypocritical of me to condemn pirates but the economist in me believes that property rights must be protected. This does bring to mind one a series of science fiction novels I've read by Dan Weber. His books are readily available online and can be downloaded free of charge. The publisher and author believe that the free publicity more than offsets any loss of sales. While I can't speak for the total impact, I know that I've been taking advantage of the freedowloads and did not purchase the books. Additionally, since I try to hide my science fiction predilection, I'm not giving them any additional buzz.
Note to xx: stop telling my friends my habit of reading trashy star wars novels! The Timothy Zahn trilogy is quite good as are his other star wars novels. I made the mistake of trying a few others, and once I start a series I must finish to the end! Do I tell your embarassing hobbies/habits to others? I think I can think of a couple...:)
Monday, November 10, 2008
And the Dems Roll In...
I'm slightly left of center, and not too crazy as far as lefties go (at least I don't think so!), so this WSJ headline certainly makes me unhappy: Obama Prods Bush to Aid Detroit. Just say no, Obama, just say no.
I'm no economist by any sense of the word, but to me, this just stinks of bad policy. I favored The Bailout Plan, but I think the financial industry and the auto industry are easily distinguishable, and demand different approaches. The former demanded a government intervention; the latter demands a quick death at the hands of the market, followed by complete company overhaul and a new gameplan. Oh, and possibly breaking up that nasty autoworkers union, too.
It seems to me that the U.S. auto industry meltdown started long before the subprime mortgage crisis; its causes are deeper and more problematic than its current liquidity shortage. What problems? Ohhh, say, for example, the industry's inability to make cars that people want to buy. That might present a problem.
If Obama goes down this path, then he'll confirm my fears that he would pander to nativists / protectionists by giving a government leg up to U.S. industries that cannot compete with their better run, better managed foreign counterparts.
Again, just say no, Obama. Toyota 4eva.
I'm no economist by any sense of the word, but to me, this just stinks of bad policy. I favored The Bailout Plan, but I think the financial industry and the auto industry are easily distinguishable, and demand different approaches. The former demanded a government intervention; the latter demands a quick death at the hands of the market, followed by complete company overhaul and a new gameplan. Oh, and possibly breaking up that nasty autoworkers union, too.
It seems to me that the U.S. auto industry meltdown started long before the subprime mortgage crisis; its causes are deeper and more problematic than its current liquidity shortage. What problems? Ohhh, say, for example, the industry's inability to make cars that people want to buy. That might present a problem.
If Obama goes down this path, then he'll confirm my fears that he would pander to nativists / protectionists by giving a government leg up to U.S. industries that cannot compete with their better run, better managed foreign counterparts.
Again, just say no, Obama. Toyota 4eva.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Inaugural Entry: Stereotypes at the Pharmacy
So XY and I are heading to the pharmacy after a scrumptious sushi dinner, on a mission to find birth control. The CVS parking lot is empty, save for some garbage and a MacGyver-style Jeep. We enter the automatic doors, with only a brief glance at the security guard posted solemnly in the corner. We proceed past the premature Christmas displays to the family planning aisle...
... where the condoms are locked in a glass cabinet -- to prevent theft, no doubt. Welcome to The Ghetto. I start laughing when I realize we'll have to ask at the front desk for the keys to the condom cabinet.
Luckily, someone has beat us to it. We stand aside as the CVS salesperson opens the condom cabinet for a ginormously tall African American man wearing baggy jeans, a gold chain, a camouflage-style jacket, and one of those black bandanas over his skull.
The black guy immediately reaches for a pack of MAGNUM condoms and struts toward the register. Suppressing snickers, XY and I, ever the stereotypical Asians, quickly dive in for an Economy Pack - 36 premium latex. (What a bargain.)
[/edit] My cohort points out that they were, in fact, MAGNUM XL. My mistake, my mistake!
(xy edit): That's an unusual use of cohort. When I think of cohort, I always think of a division of a Roman Legion - but I guess it could refer to an accomplice. I think I would have preferred `better half'. And could our icon be any more stereotypical? I want to point out that people often don't even think I'm Chinese and often believe that I'm part caucasion or other asian ethnicity. Could you make my eyes less slanty?
... where the condoms are locked in a glass cabinet -- to prevent theft, no doubt. Welcome to The Ghetto. I start laughing when I realize we'll have to ask at the front desk for the keys to the condom cabinet.
Luckily, someone has beat us to it. We stand aside as the CVS salesperson opens the condom cabinet for a ginormously tall African American man wearing baggy jeans, a gold chain, a camouflage-style jacket, and one of those black bandanas over his skull.
The black guy immediately reaches for a pack of MAGNUM condoms and struts toward the register. Suppressing snickers, XY and I, ever the stereotypical Asians, quickly dive in for an Economy Pack - 36 premium latex. (What a bargain.)
[/edit] My cohort points out that they were, in fact, MAGNUM XL. My mistake, my mistake!
(xy edit): That's an unusual use of cohort. When I think of cohort, I always think of a division of a Roman Legion - but I guess it could refer to an accomplice. I think I would have preferred `better half'. And could our icon be any more stereotypical? I want to point out that people often don't even think I'm Chinese and often believe that I'm part caucasion or other asian ethnicity. Could you make my eyes less slanty?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)