It was in a legal writing class 7 years ago when an earth-mother-triathlete-come-adjunct-law-professor introduced me to the tactical necessity of kissing rocks:

When kayaking through whitewater, and upon the discovery of a big honking rock in way, one must bear down and turn into the obstacle in order to avoid it.  By embracing the obstacle, or, indeed, confronting it head-on early in proceedings, you can manage your way around it.  waiting too long or doing too little...you're sure to crack your head, get stuck, drown, or at least dislocate a shoulder. 

This technique, naturally-bleached blonde opined, is urgently necessary when presenting any kind of legal argument.  there are going to be bugs in your case.  So address it early, briefly, honestly, and give people the chance to forget about it.

I am hoping that the dems, when whining about cost of health care reform, are just kissing rocks.

There's been a bit of a  hullabaloo about banning clove cigarettes (and not menthols!) because those pesky cloves come mostly from Indonesia.  Some argue (including repugs in Congress) that such a ban has a disproportionate impact on foreigners and, therefore, much be protectionist and in violation of our WTO commitments.

The general rule of Free Trade is that governments must treat "like" (similar) products the same way, no matter where they come from.  However, regulators can get away with trade-restrictive regulation that impacts "like" products differently (e.g., those pesky environmental laws) so long as the interest being protected is compelling enough and so long as the regulation is applied evenly across the board.  If you don't implement evenly, it's likely to be (according to the WTO) protectionism in an envrionmental-protection costume.  As an example: under the GATT, you *can* slap a quota on indonesian tuna if indonesian fisherman don't adequately protect dolphins -- even though the indonesian tuna is "like" American dolphin-safe tuna. 

However, if you ban fossil fuel product x because it has toxic chemical y, and y only comes from canada, but you DONT ban toxic chemical z (which is just as toxic as y) which comes from the US, the WTO is likely going to find that you're implementing illegal protectionism. 

Okay, fine.  So hypocrisy is not tolerated by GATT or NAFTA.  But we seem to get tripped up on those incremental measures that *do* have a disproportionate impact on a foreign industry but, had we the time and polictical momentum, would be bigger, better and more widely applied -- and then would smell less like protectionism.  We can't, for example, ban all fossil fuel vehicles all at once, but maybe we can ban luxury cars that use too much fuel.  Well, let's say all those luxury cars come from Germany.  You can't really say that this is protectionist--it's just a first step that happens to have a disparate impact.

Or so the argument goes.  I would suggest a change in the treaty language that allows for this slipperyness in domestic politics. 

My day job is the sort of job populated by floundering ex-Biglaw-types and pays by-the-hour-with-no-benefits (and you thought such employment could only be spyed loitering around McDonalds and Wal-Mart!) and feels more like a grindhouse than a law practice (a term, I had thought, that implies the involvment of some kind of art and expertise). 

I look around my office and I feel both shame and pity.  And not just for the dying, cancerous plaintiffs that we accidentally step on while we throw elbows at the dasterdly incomeptent, lazy and slippery plaintiff lawyers while exploring the nuances of practicing as little law as possible and minimizing overhead (non-billable) expenses while NOT commiting malpractice.  Yes, insurance companies screw over their lawyers, too. 

At my day job, there are two kinds of older men I interact with on a daily basis --  all other men of a certain age are, well, men that happen to be a certain age (or just aren't old enough yet).  Okay, three: "too cranky and important to acknowledge your existence, you silly female peon."  I can't tell if the "female" part is important there.  Anyway, here's my genus-species:

Type 1: Exhibits shameless flirtation, mixed in with some half decent advice on why the job sucks and how to avoid the worst of it, while planning the thirteenth vacation for the year with wife of 30 years; engenders in young female professional both discomfort because of outrageously non-pc statements and affection for the genuine support and encouragement; embraces the fact he can't win, being old, white, and male.  Tells the "gals" they're beautiful as he stops by for chit chat and the usual water cooler fare while at the same time asks for somewhat intelligent input on work-related subjects.  Definite tendency to hang out around the younger female crowd.  But all members of such crowd are part-timers with outside lives and thus necessarily more interesting than their overstressed bill-80-hours-a-week male counterparts.

Type 2: unintentionally sexist ("but you guys are so much BETTER at typing and organization"), the kind that calls young female coworker's name from down the hall, crooks finger at her ("come dog!"), to ask her (politely) to check his emails for him when he's not in office, and why not make a few photocopies (so much for the law degree) while she's at it.  When (perceived?) unintentional sexism is bluntly identified to him (after a particularly bad day), this species feels the need to thereafter, forevermore constantly describe his (alleged*) friendly acquaintence with a plethora of smart accomplished women (including the aggrieved female in question, as a cherry) along with the occasional vivid verbal illustration of his former habitation in hippy-friendly part of philadelphia and involvement in civil rights marches 40 years ago.   Note, incidentally, his lack of interaction (willing or otherwise) with any junior male associates.  Gives young professional female decently interesting work, and compliments her on good work, but is too scatterbrained (or dumb? or lazy? or important) to actually look at such work, requiring instead  endless correction and verbal explanation.  Makes young female feel like priceless hungarian porcelain teapot that cracked and got glued back together with a few missing pieces, yet still must serve hot beverage with a smile.

See, I need to know which I am allowed to be mad at.  Because if I talk to the men I know, type 1 is disgusting and type 2 is misunderstood and unjustly maligned.  But No. 2 definitely makes me angrier. As the reader likely perceives.

And why, if we have "two ends of the hallway" here, one being female, and the other male, and both are equally and perpectually terrifying, brusque, and frustrated, is the female one "scary"? Or is it just me, and she really is just scarier?  I think she is louder, at least.  and the reason I  haven't been fired after blowing a gasket.  she blows more.

* I am an attorney, after all.  No apologies.