ndmckinney|net

I will be in Baltimore for the next few days taking the Maryland state bar examination. The exam is two days long with the first day consisting of essays. After that, it’s pretty much downhill.

If you need to reach me, you won’t be able. I will be tuning out the outside world until Thursday morning.

For those who really hate themselves, you can simulate my pain by going to the state board of law examiners‘ website and downloading old exam questions. If you’re thinking about becoming a lawyer, this is a good way to dissuade you.

I will be in Baltimore for the next few days taking the Maryland state bar examination. The exam is two days long with the first day consisting of essays. After that, it’s pretty much downhill.

If you need to reach me, you won’t be able. I will be tuning out the outside world until Thursday morning.

For those who really hate themselves, you can simulate my pain by going to the state board of law examiners‘ website and downloading old exam questions. If you’re thinking about becoming a lawyer, this is a good way to dissuade you.

The Economist magazine has a write-up on “e-government”, or technologically sophisticated government bureaucracy. The focal point: the District of Columbia.

While the Economist may be taken by governments that spend less by using Google (a huge privacy problem, if you ask me) instead of Microsoft and iPhones instead of police-band radio (making two parties — DC and AT&T — immune to suit in the event of a communications breakdown instead of one) does not seem like the best of long-term decisions.

Further, the service provided online by are not the utopia that the Economist suggests. While it is much simpler now to renew a driver’s license in the District, you are still dependent upon a corrupt, slow-moving bureaucracy to actually perform those services.

And to say that the police are not corrupt anymore is not to have lived here.

I’m happy to see that dc.gov is moving more services online and away from the crowded offices; I just wish that they would do

[From Making it happen | Economist.com]

Congratulations to Barack Obama for obliterating Hillary Clinton in Maryland, Virginia, and the District. Now that you’ve won the delegates in the District (90% registered democrats), we won’t be seeing you again until January 20, 2009.

I know it seems like I’m really against Hillary Clinton for President, and maybe I am. But in reality, the rationale for voting for Clinton isn’t much more than “well, she’s a woman.”

Take, for example, this page from the BBC. The Beeb posted photos and testimonials from Baltimore voters. The woman in this photo pretty much encapsulates why I hate Clinton supporters:

[Obama]‘s more of a visionary but it’d be very exciting to have a woman in the White House.

If I understand her point of view, she’s voting for Clinton not because she think’s Hillary’s the best candidate, but because she thinks a woman would be “exciting”?

To be fair, motivations for voting for Obama aren’t always fair, either. Consider this post from the same BBC spread.

*sigh*

I’ve been going through the DC Voter Guide for the primary election on the 12th. In the booklet, each candidate has the high-school-student-government statement about “why I should be president”.

For comparison:

Barack Obama

At this defining moment, we need to unite this nation around a common purpose. That’s why I’m running for President.

I’m running to tell special interests that their days of setting the agenda are over. I’ll invest in jobs and affordable housing. I’ll forge bipartisan solutions, and pass universal health care. I’ll make world-class education affordable from birth through college. And I’ll end the Iraq war.

Over my two decades in public service, I brought people together to solve problems and make a difference in peoples’ lives. Let’s stop settling and reach for what we know is possible.

Hillary Clinton

Hilary Rodham Clinton, 60, graduated from Wellesley College in 1969 and Yale Law School in 1973. She was the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1992 and the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. She was elected twice, in 2000 and 2006, to the U.S. Senate to represent New York. She is a proud supporter of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act and the No Taxation without Representation Act. She believes District residents should have the right to elect two Senators and a Representative whose political powers equal those of other Members of Congress.

That’s right, Hillary Clinton just copied and pasted from her resumé. I haven’t gone looking for similar statements in other states, but I image the template looks something like this:

Hillary Rodham Clinton:

[insert resumé material here]

[Reference Bill Clinton here]

[If not in south, Mention I live in New York]

[Insert pandering state issue #1 here]

[Insert pandering state issue #2 here (space permitting)]

Vote Obama, DC. He’s not running as ‘First Lady’.

There is presently a debate in Maryland over whether to allow speed detection cameras in Howard County. I, for one, applaud the effort to install these cameras, and hope to see them installed statewide.

Worse, the use of only intermittent traffic police only encourages risky behavior, since many drivers tend to think they can “beat the system”. Even if a driver is caught, the penalty is usually not sufficient to deter subsequent behavior.

The unblinking eye of the speed camera changes that equation. The camera will be in the same place at the same time. If there are enough cameras, then the incentive to speed disappears and behaviors change.

According to the Washington Post (see linked article, above), a Federal Highway Administration study showed that the use of red-light cameras caused a substantial decrease in drivers ignoring intersections (though, as the Post notes, incidents of rear-end collisions increased dramatically).

Issues of privacy, raised by many [speeders] argue that the . However, from a legal perspective, I don’t see where privacy becomes an issue. The cameras sole function is to catch individuals who are in violation of posted speed limits; there is no difference between a camera (mechanical device) observing the behavior and a uniformed officer (biological device) doing the same.

Today marked the something-th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. I hate this ruling.

I don’t hate it because it attempts to legislate from the bench (read: trimester rulings). I don’t hate it because it creates new rights from the 14th Amendment (which it doesn’t do). No, I hate this decision because it brings hordes of irrational and obnoxious protesters to Washington, DC.

Every year, the nearby Catholic high schools (and, I suspect, children even younger) bus scores of children in to serve as pawns in their “we don’t agree with your policy so we’re going to shout slogans on the steps of the Court” agenda. High school children do not have a valid say in the nation’s abortion policy, despite what they say. If you’re concerned about “family values”, don’t let your child wander around Union Station (where they’re interfering with my commute) unattended and unruly. Children who dress like prostitutes to protest abortion are not being taught the right lessons.

I’m not saying that the outcome of Roe was incorrect; but I’m not so sure that this is an issue where the federal government should be getting involved.

I’m sure that I’d fail this question if it came up on the bar exam, so don’t take my word for anything.