Random thoughts on the season finale of Once Upon a Time

Ok, so last night I watched the season finale of OUaT with my husband. I have some thoughts and questions.

First, I hate Greg and Tamara. Their story line and motivation is stupid. Case in point: what was with Greg tossing papers from a file into a fire in a trashcan, then pitching the accordion file folder into the back of a trailer? Did anyone else catch this? It was just before Charming and Hook caught up with them to get the bean, IIRC. It was as though Tamara told him “quick! Destroy all the incriminating evidence, but leave the folder because I don’t want to stop at Office Depot later!”

Why was he burning things anyway? The town was about to be completely destroyed.

I told my husband how much I hate Greg and Tamara, and he said “they kidnapped Henry! They are heroes!” I don’t mind Henry so much. A little annoying, sure.

How did Peter Pan know about Henry before his mother (and maybe even grandmother) was born?

Why did no one think to check the bag from Hook to make sure it actually contains what he said it contained? Because Hook is oh so trustworthy.

Why do people keep trying to save Regina? After Snow and Emma returned from the Enchanted Forest, Emma invited Regina to the taco dinner at Granny’s and Snow was all “have you forgotten that she tried to kill us? Yesterday?” But it must not bother Snow so much that Regina is always trying to kill her because she keeps setting herself up to be almost killed by Regina.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Rush Limbaugh recently reminded the world of what an asshole he is after Jason Collins came out. Limbaugh predictably made homophobic remarks then complained that people weren’t being tolerant of his intolerance.

A school in Missouri recently told students that they weren’t allowed to wear certain t-shirt made to honor the one year anniversary of a fellow student’s death. Did I mention that the shirts have the Confederate flag on them with the ridiculous proposition that it stands for “heritage, not hate.” Dude, you really could have designed the shirt without the flag and your attention whoring appologism. But no, you wanted to stir shit while honoring your friend. Asks a parent “Why do I have to be tolerant of everyone else’s view and no one has to be tolerant of mine?”

I’ve heard this argument before. I thought we were supposed to be tolerant! Why can’t you tolerate my bigotry? Which makes me ask, ok, then why can’t you tolerate me calling you a fucking bigot? Why can’t you tolerate a dress code?

But here’s the mature answer: because tolerance is defined as “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward differences.” It breaks down when we lose the fair, objective, and permissive part. It does not require acceptance of bigotry, an unfair and inpermissive attitude.

And ultimately, here’s where I think the idea of tolerance as a virtue itself breaks down: my niece was baptized last weekend. My family is half Catholic and half Jewish. Certain Jewish members of my family declined to go to the baptism, which hurt the feelings of other members of my family. And these certain Jewish family members were told that tolerance works both ways.

Yes, in an ideal world, tolerance works all ways, tolerance being defined as “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude.” But I just said above that tolerance only works to accept fair, objective, and permissive attitudes. You are not required to accept bigotry to be tolerant.

I don’t want to call the Catholic Church bigots (shocking, since I know I had some choice words for the new pope earlier), but I won’t argue against it if someone else does. Anyone who would take this stance has plenty of ammo. The Catholic Church wants to deny people their fundamental rights to get married and have bodily integrity. The Catholic Church has covered up rape. The Catholic Church has allowed women to die. And this was all this century. Last century, the Church did nothing while mass murder was committed and ran slave labor institutions. Before that, it committed mass murders. With that in mind, I can’t fault anyone, especially a person who has a family history of being victimized by the Church, from not wanting to go to a baptism. If tolerance works all ways, you also have to accept that some people don’t want anything to do with that.

So here’s why I don’t think a policy of tolerance works: if we don’t have to accept opinions that demonstrate bigotry, does this mean we don’t have to be tolerant of Catholics or other religions that preach hate and oppression? And if we then form a group and say we don’t want to have anything to do with Catholics, are people allowed to shun us because we are intolerant?

I kind of think this is why we have the First Amendment. The framers knew that the religious could be assholes, so they said, ok, I’ll let you be assholes, but just don’t shove it in my face.

I’ll continue to be intolerant of those I see preaching bigotry and know that I’m being fair and objective and thus tolerant. The First Amendment will protect my intolerance from doing any real harm.

My 4 year old cheats at Candyland

I’m not a competitive person. I play games for fun. Sure, I keep score, but its more important to enjoy the game than to win. So with that perspective, I don’t really care that I lose at Candyland when I play with my 4 year old. I do care, however, that he cheats.

For those of you not hip to toddler games, this is the game I’m talking about:

A minute to learn. A lifetime to master.

To play, you put a many sided die under the train and push the train along the track. You lift up the train at one of the four colored Candyland stops, and if the color of the die matches the color of the stop, you get a piece of cardboard candy. The person with the most candy at the end of the the game (ie, when your toddler gets bored) wins.

My kid and I play this quite a bit. Recently, he started wanting Piglet to play with us.

He may look innocent, but he is a hustler.

So after I take my turn, my kid will push the train around using Piglet’s hand and Piglet will collect his own cardboard candy pieces. But then halfway through the game, Piglet will get tired and not want to play anymore. Ok, fine. Kid and I continue the game. But then Piglet will give his cardboard candy pieces to the kid, doubling the amount of tokens the kid collected and ensuring a win. I called him on it and told him that wasn’t fair, and he told me Piglet was just sharing.

As I said in the beginning, I don’t care that I lose at Candyland. Sadly, I know some people that really do have to beat their kids at games. But I do care that he’s cheating. Yeah, he’s 4, this is not a big deal, but I see him talk about winning before we even start the game, and I wonder, is that the only fun part for him? On one hand I’m impressing that I’m raising a kid smart enough to come up with this scheme, but I’m worried. Is he becoming too competitive? Does he even know he’s rigging the game to ensure a win?

My nerd dream

I’m a nerd. This should surprise no one. I love fantasy, and I love learning. Especially learning the law. It has been my dream for some time to create a blog explaining legal concepts using pop culture references (99 Problems totally explains the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement), but I haven’t had the energy.

A friend of mine is starting law school in the fall, and I am just so excited for her! I know I hold the minority opinion, but I really enjoyed law school. What can I say, I love learning. I met a lot of great people, did a lot of exploring, and spent a lot of time in the library while this guy looked down on me.

I only regret that I have but one life to lose to my law degree. Notice the Mardi Gras beads. Nathan Hale was a party animal.
Photo from wikimedia commons

One of the great people I met was this friend. What? I met a great person at law school who will be starting law school in the fall? Yes. The great people I met were not law students (well, maybe some of them were). I hung out with a lot of undergrads and med students.

One class I did not like in law school was Contracts I. My professor was not so great. I did well in the class, but I’m convinced my success was due not to him, but to Harry Potter and my sexcapades. And so, I made a Contracts I outline explaining issues with contracts through pop culture (and my weird sexcapades) dedicated to this friend. It’s not quite done (I’m still looking for some nerdy examples to explain some things) but I’m just so excited that I had to share! And maybe you can help me finish it. Without further ado, everything you ever wanted to know about contracts as explained by JK Rowling and other writers. And a few for realsies case law references too:

I. Formations
    A. Offer
         1. An offer is a manifestation of an intent to be bound.
         2. Objective manifestation. What would a reasonable 
            person believe?
         3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Harry, Ron, 
            and Hermione offered the Sword of Gryffindor to 
            Griphook. In consideration, Griphook would help them 
            break into Gringotts. Harry et al. had the subjective 
            intent was not to give Griphook the sword until they
            were done with it. How would a reasonable person 
            interpret the term of this contract?
         4. Is an advertisement an offer? Usually no. 
              a. Leonard v. Pepsi Co., 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000). 
                 For an ad to be an offer, it must use specific 
                 language (like “first come, first served”) or 
                 request a particular performance. In Leonard, a 
                 reasonable person would have understood that the 
                 ad was a joke. 
              b. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. 
                 Fred and George offered a discount to students 
                 who would use their products to get rid of
                 Umbridge. Was it reasonable to assume that this 
                 was a binding offer?
    B. Consideration
         1. An exchange or payment that makes the offer a 
            contract rather than a promise.
         2. Can be a benefit to the offeror (I’ll give you my 
            car for $100. $100 is the consideration) or a 
            detriment or surrender of a right to the offeree 
            (I’ll give you $100 if you quit smoking. Quitting 
            smoking is the consideration)
         3. Consideration must be bargained for. A contract is  
            a bargained for exchange. Offer and consideration  
            must bear the reciprocal relationship of motive and 
            inducement. 
         4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Harry gave Fred 
            and George his Triwizard money and made them promise 
            to use the money to buy Ron new dress robes. Not 
            valid consideration because Harry would have given 
            them the money anyway. No reciprocal relationship.
    C. Acceptance
         1. Generally, words like “I accept,” evidence intent to
            accept.
         2. In a unilateral contract, the contract is formed 
            when one side performs. Lily Potter offered her life 
            in exchange for Harry’s. Contract was formed when
            Voldemort accepted through his performance.
    D. Terms of the contract
         1. The terms of the contract must be reasonably certain 
            in its essential terms
         2. Once Upon a Time. Mr. Gold and Emma entered into a 
            contract to allow Ashley to keep her baby (Ashley 
            had promised to give her baby to Mr. Gold in exchange 
            for money). Ashley would be allowed to keep the baby, 
            and Emma would have to perform a favor for Mr. Gold.
            The contract would likely fail because “favor” it 
            too uncertain.
    E. Defenses against formation. (If this was true at the time 
       of formation, no contract was entered into)
         1. Duress
              a. A contract made under duress—violence, threat, 
                 or pressure—is not enforceable.
              b. The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon forced Leonard 
                 into a new roommate agreement under threatening 
                 to tell Priya’s parents about Leonard and Priya. 
                 It is arguable that the contract would not be 
                 enforceable.
         2. Lack of capacity
              a. law forbids a person from entering into the 
                 contract due to age or mental illness
              b. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. My problem
                 with the Goblet being a "binding magical
                 contract" aside, Harry was underage and probably
                 should not have been bound
         3. Undue influence
              a. one person takes advantage of his position of 
                 power over the other
              b. Once Upon a Time. Probably every contract 
                 Rumplestiltskin entered into. He's the freaking
                 Dark One. Damn right he wields undue influence!
II. Not real contracts
    A. Quasi-contract and unjust enrichment
         1. A benefit given with the expectation of some sort
            of compensation
         2. Four questions
              a. Was a benefit conferred?
              b. Was there appreciation or knowledge of the 
                 benefit?
              c. Did the party have the opportunity to refuse 
                 the benefit?
              d. Did the acting party have reason to expect 
                 repayment?
         3. My friends and I called one other law student "unjust
            enrichment" because when I hooked up with him, he got
            an orgasm and I didn't
     B. Quantum meruit--what one has earned. 
         1. Payment for the reasonable value of services rendered.
         2. Three elements:
              a. the defendant was given a benefit
              b. at the plaintiff’s expense
              c. good conscious require that the defendant makes 
                 restitution
         3. The Princess Bride. The Six Fingered Man tells 
            Domingo Montoya he will give him only what he 
            believes the sword is worth.
III. Interpretation
    A. Objective. What a reasonable person would believe. Not 
       subjective.
    B. The role of custom in the industry the contract relates to.
         1. Smith v. Boyd, 553 A.2d 131 (R.I. 1989). “We shall 
            consider, among other things, the practice of the 
            trade or profession, the prior practice between the 
            parties, whether the written contract was to be 
            drawn up by persons other than the parties, and
            statements made during the negotiations.” In real
            estate, contract is formed at closing.
         2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The  
            Unbreakable Vow. There was no consideration, but  
            the custom was that the parties intended to be bound.
    C. Contracts should be interpreted against the drafter.
        1. U.S. v. Seckinger, 397 U.S. 203 (1970) (writing “the 
           general maxim that a contract should be construed most 
           strongly against the drafter.”)
        2. The Big Bang Theory. Priya interprets an ambiguity in 
           roommate agreement against Sheldon.
IV. Performance
    A. In a unilateral contract, performance is acceptance. Lily 
       Potter and Voldemort again. Lily said “kill me instead of 
       Harry,” and he did. Thus contract formed.
    B. Substantial performance. Partial performance of 
       consideration may fully satisfy the contract if there was 
       no ill will by the actor in the failure to complete
       performance
         1. The Little Mermaid. Ariel turning mostly into krill
            before Ursula stopped her should have fulfilled her 
            obligation
         2. Mardi Gras. I was in the French Quarter, and I
            wanted a rubber chicken! So this guy had a whole 
            bunch, and I asked him for one. He said ok, but I 
            had to kiss his friend (apparently this is some Mardi
            Gras game). I demanded payment upfront. I leaned for 
            the kiss, and someone else said “wait, let me get a 
            camera,” and the guy pulled back. So I said “sorry, 
            I substantially performed,” took the chicken, and
            left.
    C. Breach. Non-performance by one party. Breach may be 
       excused in some circumstances.
         1. Frustration of Purpose
              a. An unforeseen event occurs which undermines a
                 party's purpose for entering into the contract.
                 Both parties must know this underlying purpose
                 before entering into the contract.
              b. Once Upon a Time. Regina and Jefferson enter 
                 into a contract. Jefferson will get his hat to
                 work once more to open a portal into the 
                 Enchanted Forest so Regina can get the poisoned 
                 apple to give to Emma. In exchange, Regina will 
                 rewrite Jefferson’s daughter’s memory so they 
                 can be together. Jefferson performs and gives 
                 the apple to Regina. Regina bakes it into a
                 turnover and gives it to Emma, but Henry eats 
                 it. When Jefferson later goes to Regina and 
                 asks her to make good on the contract, she says 
                 no because Emma was supposed to eat the turnover, 
                 not Henry. She tried to argue that her purpose 
                 for entering into the contract (to poison Emma) 
                 was frustrated. I think this is a poor argument, 
                 since Jefferson’s performance was completed when
                 he delivered the apple. It wasn’t his fault that 
                 Regina messed up.
         2. Illegality
              a. A contract to perform something illegal is not 
                 enforceable.
              b. Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black 
                 Pearl. Will gets Jack free from jail, Jack will 
                 bring Will to the Black Pearl. Jack will give 
                 Barbossa 15% of his plunder and Barbossa gets to 
                 introduce himself as “Commodore.” A contract to 
                 perform something illegal (busting Jack from
                 jail, piracy) is not enforceable.
         3. Unconscionability
             a. Terms excessively unfair to one party.
             b. Shrek—Happily Forever After. Shrek gives 
                Rumpelstiltskin a day of his life so he can be an 
                ogre for a day. But the day Rumpel takes is the
                day Shrek was born, so Shrek dies after the 
                contract is fulfilled.
         4. Mistake
             a. a party erroneously believes a certain fact is 
                true prior to entering into the contract.
         5. Misrepresentation
             a. a false, material statement knowingly made by one 
                party with the intent to induce the other into 
                the agreement.
         6. Impracticability
             a. performance becomes unfeasibly difficult
         7. Impossibility
             a. a change in circumstances regarding an underlying 
                assumption of the contract which makes
                performance impossible
         8. Unclean hands
            a. The party that has performed has acted unethically 
               or in bad faith and so is not entitled to a remedy
               by the court.
            b. Once Upon a Time. PRETTY MUCH EVERY CONTRACT 
               RUMPELSTILTSKIN ENTERS INTO! Though he does give
               fair warning (ad nauseam) that all magic has a
               price.
            c. Once Upon a Time. Regina and Jefferson enter into  
               a contract whereby he will take her via his hat  
               through the lookingglass to retrieve something  
               and she will give his daughter anything she wants.
               They go through the lookingglass, but Regina traps 
               him there, as was her intent from the beginning.
V. Third Parties
    A. Beneficiaries—a person not a party to the contract who 
       nonetheless receives a benefit from it.
         1. Intended beneficiary
            a. Original parties agree to provide consideration to 
               the third party. There is an intent to benefit the 
               third party.
            b. Intended beneficiary can sue for breach
            c. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Assuming that 
               Fred and George buying new dress robes for Ron was 
               valid consideration, then Ron would have been able 
               to sue to enforce the contract between Fred and 
               George and Harry.
            d. Night Watch. Anton caught Alisa doing a 3rd or 4th 
               degree intervention. In exchange for not punishing 
               her, Zabulon told Anton he could do a 2nd degree 
               intervention. Alisa was the intended beneficiary 
               of the contract between Zabulon and Anton.
         2. Incidental beneficiary
            a. Someone who stands to benefit though that was not 
               the intent of either contracting party.
            b. Does not have the right to sue for breach
    B. Assignment
         1. the transfer of rights under a contract to a third 
            party.
         2. valid as long as the person receiving the new 
            contract rights has notice.
    C. Novation
         1. Replacing with an obligation under the contract 
            with a new obligation
             a. Once Upon a Time. The contract between Cora 
                and Rumplestiltskin originally was to give 
                Rumple her first born child. The contract was 
                changed so that she would give him their first 
                born child.
         2. Replacing one party with a new party
             a. Once Upon a Time. To allow Ashley to keep her 
                baby after she had agreed to give it to Mr. Gold, 
                Emma agreed to perform a favor for Mr. Gold. 
                Replaces the obligation and a party.
         3. Valid only with the consent of all parties
             a. The Little Mermaid. Agreement between King Triton 
                and Ursula was not a novation of the original 
                contract between Ariel and Ursula because Ariel 
                did not consent.

Any thoughts on this? Any suggestions to help me fill in the blanks?

Wikipedia sux

I won’t try to hide my hatred of wikipedia. Ok, fine, I like it as a consolidated database for just about anything and a good place to start a research project. But there are inherent problems with the idea of it. It’s newest problem: there are too many American novelists with vaginas. Wikipedia is currently in the midst of a project to remove all female American novelists from the list of American writers and put them on a list called “American women novelists.”

The explanation at the top of the page is that the list of “American Novelists” is too long, and therefore the novelists have to be put in subcategories whenever possible.

Kudos to Americans for producing so many novels, but I can think of a million more relevant subcategories to use to divide American novelists. What about by genre? What about by time period? What about by region in the US they are from? What about by who made the NTY Best Seller’s List? You know, perhaps a meaningful distinction in the list other than just anatomy that might even tell us something about the book. Do you really care about the genitals of the writer when you’re picking up a new book? Do you read George Eliot?

I think one of the reason I am so upset about this is because of the whole idea of a “George Eliot.” The Brontes also wrote under masculine pen names. As did Louisa May Alcott. This is not an issue only from the 1800s. Joanne Rowling wrote under the androgynous initials “J.K.” because publishers didn’t think boys would buy her books otherwise.

Of course, on the wikipedia talk page, women are reminded to take that girl power stuff someplace else.

How does it not have the effect of “othering” women? How is it is not a reminder that women aren’t full participants in publishing? Or the rest of the country?

Gender in speech

I’m not well-versed enough to be able to comment intelligently on this piece from NPR about the use of a gender neutral pronoun, though I’m fascinated by it. Apparently, middle and high school aged students in Baltimore are using the word “yo” as “he” or “she,” even when they know the person’s gender. From the article:

So Troyer began to study her students. She gave them blank cartoons and asked them to fill in the captions — many of the cartoon characters were androgynous.

Troyer found the kids used “yo” instead of “he” or “she” when they didn’t know the gender of the character. But they also used “yo” as a substitute even when they did know the gender.

“They said things like, ‘Yo put his foot on the desk.’ So it was clear from this that they knew it was a male person, but they were just using ‘yo’ to refer to the person,” says Troyer. “And then in other sentences they would use ‘yo’ to refer to a female as well.”

On feminist blogs, I’ve read a lot of “hir” or “ze” or similar. But these have always been used by people who are very aware of what they are writing, if that description makes sense. The fact that “yo” is used so frequently by mainstream Baltimore kid suggests, according to the piece from NPR, that the students “have a view of the world that is, in many ways, gender neutral.”

Meanwhile, with me, what’s been bugging me for years was an article I read about male v. female speech patterns. Unfortunately, I can’t find anything about it online now. From what I remember, women are more likely than men to speak in less certain terms, using terms like “maybe” or “I think” or to just sound less definitive. I remember thinking two things when I read it: (1) I need to cut that shit out when I’m doing legal writing. I need to sound definitive. And (2) I wonder how many women were denied their right to an attorney because of this.

Under the 6th Amendment, we have the right to an attorney in a criminal proceeding and even during an investigation. But the police aren’t going to just give it to us. We have to ask for it. And we have to ask for it clearly and unequivocally.

[I]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning.

From Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994). Thus if a suspect says “I think I might need a lawyer,” that might not be enough to make the questioning stop.

It scares me how easily women might be denied this right just because of how we were raised to speak.

Eureka! I’ve done it! Or, how to fold a fitted sheet.

A few days ago I learned how to fold a fitted sheet, and I am still so jazzed about it that I just had to share! I watched this helpful video that I can’t embed, and yeah, that’ll do it! The trick is to line up all the corner seams (turning some inside out) and making the “L” shape with the fitted sides.

To prove to you that I’ve done it, I’ve taken before and after shots of my linen closet.

Before

Looking back at it, I’m so embarrassed my closet ever looked like that.

After

All those things on the left (except for the bottom two) are beautifully folded fitteds. There is so much more room in my closet now! The only reason that white fitted thing on the right is still a monstrosity is because it’s a heated mattress pad. The video didn’t teach me how to fold those. The only problem is now it’s difficult to tell which is a fitted sheet and which is a flat sheet. The other night, my husband wanted a new flat sheet and went to the closet to get one. He grabbed the first one he saw, started to spread it on the bed, then got all annoyed when he saw it was fitted. Then he smushed it back in the linen closet in a heap, leaving me to do the folding again. Argh! But at least now it’s the most rewarding housework ever!

Here’s another helpful video on folding fitted sheets if the method in the first one didn’t work for you.

Thanks to Greenleftyidealist for pointing me in the direction of the video. I know this wasn’t at all the point of her post, but it’s hard for me not to be excited about the fitted sheet thing also.

Edit: And thanks to booksnobbery for telling me about the Byronic Man.