All Hail Slapcast

So you've probably head about this “podcasting” thing, and now that Notes from the (Legal) Underground and Jeremy Richey are getting into it, I thought I'd give it a try. And while creating podcasts sounds like it could be very complicated, thanks to Slapcast.com, all you need is a phone! Here's all you need to do:

1. Create a free account at Slapcast.com.
2. Call an 800-number and leave a message (up to 5 minutes).
3. Log in and enter the phone number you called from. Slapcast finds your recording via caller-id.
4. Give your recording a title and write some comments about it if you want.
5. Publish your recording (or Slapcast can just do that automatically).

That's it! Slapcast does the rest—it converts your recording to mp3 format, creates a webpage and RSS feed with enclosures for you so that people can subscribe to your podcasts, and it can automatically post a link to your podcast on your blog (supporting MT, Livejournal, Blogger, Radio, and WordPress so far) and/or email the mp3 file to you. If you want to get funky you can add sound effects to your recording like Jeremy has done, then re-upload it so it sounds more professional and entertaining. (According to the Slapcast creator, there may soon be an option to do something like this automatically via the slapcast web interface.) So hey, what are you waiting for? We all want to hear what you have to say! Oh, thanks so much to Mother and Sister Imbroglio for humoring me in my early experiments with this. The imbroglio is now seeking jokes, funny stories, deep thoughts, political or social commentary, legal criticism, or anything else you'd like to record. Send me your number (via email) and I'll call you and record and publish what you have to say through the magic of 3-way calling. Or maybe we could do 4-way calling or more -- imagine what two minutes of conversation between Energy Spatula and Soupie might be like. Whoo! UPDATE: Via Memory's Outbox I just also discovered Audioblogger, which allows audio-posting by phone to Blogger blogs (including all you Blogspot kiddies). Of course, I'd like to see Slapcast take off b/c it's multi-platform and b/c I've met one of the developers and he seems like a good guy. But hey, either way, posting by phone can be fun. Just ask Lawrah! (See the post from today, 2/13/05; I can't find her permalinks if they're there.)

Posted 11:07 AM | Comments (4) | life generally meta-blogging

Lynn Stewart Day Of Outrage

From the National Lawyer's Guild:

The National Executive Committee of the NLG calls on all Guild chapters to organize and to take part in local actions as part of a “National Day of Outrage” in response to yesterday's Lynne Stewart verdict, which we see as an attack not only on our cherished colleague and fellow NLG member but also on all members of the legal community who represent unpopular clients and causes. We are calling for this coordinated day of action to be held next Thursday, February 17 in your cities, towns, and, if you are a law student, at your school. We are putting together a list of suggested actions to take and will send this out ASAP. Please begin making arrangements and stay tuned for more information. This will be just one step in our ongoing support for Lynne Stewart and in defense of all of those who take on controversial cases.

Find your NLG chapter here. Read more from the NLG about the Stewart decision, and more coverage from all over the place. UPDATE: See also some good thinking points from Carey and Heidi, and “Selling Indulgences” on Slate, which compares what Stewart did to what Alberto Gonzales and the other “torture lawyers” in the Bush Administration did:

For the Torture Lawyers, the political polarities are reversed, but their gut-level affinity with the client's politics is the same, as is their willingness to bend (or break) the law to make their client's wishes come true. The torture lawyers' protestations that they never sympathized with a pro-cruelty agenda, or with abuses like those at Abu Ghraib, sound very much like Stewart's defense. Both believe that being a lawyer conveys a certain moral immunity. Fortunately for us all, it doesn't.

To me that's really the problem. It seems fairly clear that Stewart broke an agreement she'd made with the court about not speaking about this case. However, that's cause for professional discipline, not a criminal conviction. Meanwhile, the torture lawyers have not been censured in any way for their gross breaches of both professional ethics and basic norms of human rights. This is why the Stewart conviction is outrageous—it reveals the way the law has been manipulated for political purposes and the way the Bush administration continues to get away with murder (literally and figuratively) under cover of its “war on terror.” Instead of putting on their “reasonable” hats and saying, “well, Stewart really did break the rules,” legal professionals of conscience should be outraged at double-standards that make a mockery of both professional codes and the law.

Posted 10:17 AM | Comments (6) | ai action alerts

Leading by Example. Not.

I had two interviews yesterday, both of which went much better than the horror of last week, even if they were perhaps not for jobs I'd like as much. Who knows? Maybe I'd like one of these jobs even more? But the interviews were part of the GW/Georgetown Public Interest/Government Interview Program, and since the US Army and Air Force JAG Corps were there interviewing, the program marked their names with an asterisk followed by this disclaimer:

This employer discriminates against gay, lesbian and bisexual persons under the authority of 10 U.S.C. section 654. The George Washington University Law School policy on equal opportunity prohibits unlawful discrimination. The Association of American Law Schools — of which George Washington University Law School is a founding member — and the National Association for Law Placement each have policies forbidding discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual persons. The presence of this employer at the George Washington University should in no way be construed as an endorsement of this employer's practice of discrimination.

While I was pleased to see this disclaimer, and also pleased that it is so bluntly worded (“this employer discriminates”), I still wish there was more GW could do. And since GW and Georgetown were in this together (GULC had its own disclaimer, more or less similar), it seems they could take this as an opportunity to “make a federal case” out of this. I mean, these are big law schools; what if they gave the JAG Corp the finger and dared the federal gov't to take away all federal funds? I'm thinking the case would probably make it to the Supreme Court and the Solomon Amendment would be history. Or maybe not. Can someone clarify what is going on here? I mean, I see here that the Solomon Amendment was found unconstitutional, yet GW and GULC still apparently fear its consequences. So what gives?

Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (5) | general politics law school

Lawyers Investigate DC Arrests

From the DC City Desk:

Lawyers Susan Dunham and Dan Schember are investigating the arrests of approximately 72 persons in the Adams Morgan neighborhood in the District of Columbia on the night of January 20, 2005. Their investigation is on behalf of several persons who were arrested and who have sought their advice. The purpose of the investigation is to assess whether a civil lawsuit on behalf of those arrested should be filed against the District of Columbia for money damages, expungement of arrest records, and change in police practices. If you were arrested in Adams Morgan that night and would like to consider joining others in filing a civil suit, then please contact Susan and Dan by email at dclaw@radix.net and dunham_susan@hotmail.com. Please include “J20 Arrest” in the subject heading of your email message and provide your name; current address; permanent address (if not the same as current); telephone number(s); a narrative of your experience; and a list of any documentary evidence you have, such as film, photographs, and arrest or release papers. Please preserve these documents! As an alternative to email communication, you may call their office, 202/328-2244, and leave a voice mail message for Susan Dunham. Your communications seeking legal advice will be confidential. If you were not arrested, but witnessed the arrests in Adams Morgan that night, please contact Susan and Dan, as stated above, indicate you saw the arrests, but do not include a narrative account of what you witnessed. Susan will call you to interview you by phone.

I have no idea if this investigation will turn up anything illegal, but it's good to see someone looking into it. I think. I mean, I know DC recently lost a sizeable class action suit against the local police force for its conduct during a 2002 IMF/World Bank protest, so perhaps these attorneys are just gold digging here. Then again, I'd rather they investigate than not, even if it's only to find that the police acted perfectly appropriately.

Posted 07:29 AM | ai action alerts