"all lawyers should spend a week in jail" . . .

I am, I have, and you're engaging in pointless hyperbole. Lawyers don't help to draft laws consistent with their personal beliefs (otherwise we wouldn't have many of these stupid laws), they help draft stupid laws because their clients instruct them to and they have an ethical obligation to carry out their client's instructions as to the nature of the representation.

But I agree that it's a difficult situation for many lawyers. Ability to make money practicing law to service your student loan debt while providing for a family v. engaging clients whose legal problems comport with your personal values. I for one haven't solved that one yet and have been unable to find gainful employment as a lawyer, in part, as a result (zero $ to hang my own shingle and have a choice of clients). Then again I firmly believe any party deserves adequate zealous advocacy, but the system in reality doesn't play out as the pursuit of justice between equally matched (resources, time, quality) parties to a dispute. That's a large part of why there is a two tiered system in this county--not because laws as written are necessarily unfair (though many are or incredibly biased in favor of a particular economic ideology) but because one side is always outmatched.

I wish all the high and mighty corporate lawyers in America gave a passing thought to the consequences of their representation just as prosecutors should exercise their discretion with a little more humanity and real world common sense (then again some might argue their hands are legally tied). Most of the lawyers I've met from multidiscipline corporate firms are decent by and large they just put their individual professional ambition above the pursuit of justice--it's about better lives for their family, lifestyle, career, not having to do "menial labor", intellectual challenge . . . I guess I was just dumb enough to believe it was actually about the pursuit of equal justice and live my material life accordingly. The problem in this country isn't lefty civil liberties loving plaintiff side and criminal defense lawyers (most don't make much more than the average civil servant), it's the lawyers for the rich and powerful entities and individuals screwing you despite popular right wing narratives to the contrary.

"stimulus = black hole" would that be like "tax cuts = unproductive upward restribution of wealth/black hole" . . . and by the way some of the "stimulus" is going to "health care" for some of the poorest and most recently unemployed. Who, thanks to reckless tax cutting and infantile economic ideology implemented over the last 35 years by your ideological brethren, and through little fault of their own, will lose their health care soon after they get their pink slips.

Maybe you should start by questioning Merrill Lynch's/BofA about the 1.2 million dollar office renovation and bonuses that were doled out right before they bit the dust/got bought.

You righties are unbelievable.

are you sure means rea means what you think it means? Mens rea is the requirement that "one intends (in the sense of volition) to commit a particular act" the actus reas "the proscribed act/action". It has nothing to do with whether or not someone has a "criminal" intent. You've heard of strict liability criminal offenses like statutory rape where intent is irrelevant.

Or howabout an example like the crime of robbery which is established when it is proved that an individual had the "intent to permanently deprive another of their property". If I think its my property and I take it and I can't establish that I not only believed the property to be mine but the property was in fact mine then I've still commited robbery (or theft or whathaveyou). Now if my mens rea is not to "permanently deprive" but to "temporarily borrow" then maybe I could make a compelling argument that I haven't commited robbery. But my state of mind is only relenvant in the sense of volition.

Been awhile since crim law but I think I'm right and your confusing the legal principle. I could be wrong. I'll wait to see if GG steps in.

descriptive of Bush and his henchmen's alleged lawbreaking. Vomitous, bilious, gag-inducing, sulferous, putrid, craptacular, gut-wrenching, inhumane, . . . almost anything but "fragrant" is a good euphemism (?).

Pomtinis for everyone. Euphemisms for the chosen ones. They'll be toe-painting in the rumpus room, jewlery exchange in the craft room, child care in the media room, Bush (including trolls generally) bashing in the kitchen and bar nearest the booze and mixer, cigar smoking out back on the deck, and indoor soccer in the garage . . . or is it still too cold in Ohio for hump day parties?

All I know is it's just about microbrew:thirty on the west coast. As to cultural and/or temporal norms in the heartland I would not venture a guess.

You forgot it was the "hat trick" of tone deafness at the NYT this morning--they had an article about pitying the poor poor pitiful "banker babes" (h/t the late Warren Zevon). "Ooooh, poor us, we need to set up a support group and blog about how we feel because our alpha male banker beaus can't afford to entertain our lifestyles or service our sexual desires because their self esteem is in the tank not getting the big bonuses and giving up golf . . . ." Cue acid reflux response.

Perfect snapshot of Nero's Rome. And to quote the only thing boy King George ever stated truthfully "this sucker [is] going to tank".

America is in very deep shit in a chickenwire canoe sinking fast and the MSM/GOP propoganda machinery is in hagiographic revisionist overdrive trying to drape this albatross around the neck of the Dems who are hell bent on bending at the waist to facilitate it.

I think it's the perfect time to hang my shingle and start my practice focusing on dissolution of marriage, consumer bankruptcy, and RIF age discrimination suits.