Paul Hastings is learning this lesson the hard way. A few words to the semi-wise^*, so hopefully your company won’t have to:

1. If you need to lay people off, lay people off, but admit that you’re doing it to cut costs. Unless something drastic has happened in the last three months, don’t simultaneously insult both the outgoing employee’s work product and his/her intelligence by throwing together a few obviously pretextual, eleventh-hour performance reviews that fly in the face of every regularly scheduled performance review you provided before.
2. Hell, even if you did can the employee because you weren’t happy with his/her work, ask yourself if you have a credible, face-saving way to spin this as a non-performance based, “sorry, your position was eliminated” downsizing. If such an opportunity exists, take it.
3. If the person you’re thinking of laying off / shitcanning / etc. is pregnant, and hasn’t anything just about anyone would consider a hanging offense, think twice and then a third time before doing anything that will make you look like a total shithead.
4. If that same person just miscarried, don’t even THINK about it.
5. If, after reviewing rules 1 through 4, you are still convinced that simultaneously terminating and insulting the employee is a smart thing to do, don’t try to bribe that employee into not talking smack about you.
6. Last and least, if you are a famous national employment law firm, and your particular branch is located in a state that prohibits noncompete and non-solicitation agreements, don’t try to bribe that same employee into signing an agreement that violates that law, as well.[See update.]

^*I’ve never really been comfortable with the phrase “a word to the wise.” After all, if the guy you’re talking to is so damned wise, why did you need to tell him this stuff? Then again, I’ll grant that any potentially good advice assumes some wisdom on the part of the hearer; if you thought he was too foolish to listen, you’d probably save your breath.

More here, here, here, here and here.

UPDATE: After re-reading the “non-compete” provision, I think it’s not a non-compete after all, but a promise not to re-apply for work there. Not a likely violation of B&P Code 16600, but a violation of common sense if nothing else. If they don’t want to re-hire her a year from now, two years from now, or whenever, that’s their prerogative, but what’s the point in contractually barring someone from even applying for a job?

Can anyone think of a single business - on the web or anywhere else - where the phrase “Good Buy” is a warning rather than a selling point?

Of accolades from Patterico, Powerline, and anyone else who is either committed to victory in Iraq, or at least not so strongly committed to defeat that they’ll sacrifice every other issue under the sun for a promise we can lose the war rather than win. That’s OK, I’m sure that what he loses in support among conservatives, he’ll make up in newfound adulation from Andrew Sullivan types who aren’t conservatives themselves, but love to lecture conservatives on what “real” conservatism supposedly is.

Me, I’m mildly disappointed but not terribly surprised. I gave up on the guy a long time ago.

UPDATE: Beldar has more.

I still think Hillary wins the dubious distinction, but the competition for yesterday’s title seems to have been a bit stiffer than I thought. Via Patterico and Allah we learn that the New York Times has exhumed the time-dishonored debate that has dogged Chester Arthur, Lowell Weicker, Barry Goldwater and George Romney in the past: can you be a “natural born citizen” qualified for the Presidency if you were born outside the U.S.? The problem was obvious for Weicker and Romney, who were born in France and Mexico, respectively. It was more of a stretch for Goldwater, who was born in Arizona three years before it became a state but long after it had become a U.S. territory. Arthur was the most interesting of the four, as he was born in Vermont, whose status has yet to be determined. Now it’s an issue for John Sidney McCain, III, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone long before Jimmy Carter gave it away to Panama (but hey, he also gave us the Reagan revolution, so no hard feelings).

If you’re like most normal people, you’ve probably assumed that anyone born to one or more U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” for purposes of Article II, Section I of the Constitution. But according to the NY Times, there’s a “musty debate” on that question, even if they can’t find a single legal scholar willing to endorse the opposite view. Still, it’s noteworthy that while none of the individuals quoted in the article were willing ot endorse the view that only individuals born in U.S. state, none had the stones to dismiss it as frivolous, either. Allow me.

Let’s start with a brief civics lesson. Article II, Section I is part of the original Constitution, which was ratified in 1788 and took effect in 1789. Citizenship based on U.S. birth or birth to citizens abroad were soon codified in the statutes, but neither concept made it into the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. This leaves us with two possible interpretations of “natural born citizen,” leading to two very different conclusions, to wit:

1. A “natural born citizen” is whatever the statutes say one is. Therefore, Chester Arthur, Lowell Weicker, Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John Sidney McCain, III are or were all “natural born citizens” qualified for the U.S. Presidency.
2. A “natural born citizen” is only what the Constitution says one is. Therefore, from 1789 through 1868, there was no such thing as a “natural born citizen,” and every President from John Tyler through Andrew Johnson was illegitimate. [Earlier Presidents get a pass since they were U.S. Citizens at ratification.]

MDS sufferers, pick your poison.

Between this and the eight-year-old non-scandal involving McCain’s legislative favors that were not given in return for non-sexual non-favors from his non-paramour lobbyist, I’m beginning to wonder if the Gray Lady really likes McCain after all, and figured that the best way to help him shore up his base is to attack him.

Competition is always tough for Idiot of the Day here at damnum absque injuria but if this story is accurate, it definitely rises to the challenge:

I actually think that it’s unconstitutional, what the insurance companies are doing.

Mrs. Billary did not elaborate as to whether she believes the insurance companies in question own slaves or engage in bootlegging, the only two ways a private company could violate the Constitution if it wanted to.

‘Hat tips: Uncle and Sean Brainstead.

This dubious award goes to Neil Jorgensen of Kalona, IA, who managed to get himself fired from the Riverside Casino and Golf Resort by repeatedly requesting a prostitute at the same resort during his stay, and then appearing in the nude when hotel workers went to his room to ask him to stop. Jorgensen’s non-explanation:

The advertisement is that it’s just like Las Vegas, so I thought I was in Las Vegas.

Where, I might add, prostitution is also illegal. Oops.

It pains me to say this, but I think this brief pretty well puts a fork in the idea of linguistics as a science.

Ha, ha.

UPDATE: Ha.

I’m torn over which realtor is the greater asshole - the one who trademarked the word “realtor,” or the one who thought it would be a good idea to advertise square footage as a range rather than telling you the goddamned number. I mean, seriously, WTF? This guy wants to sell me his house, but all he’ll tell me about the square footage is that it’s somewhere between 2,800 and 3,400. The house itself looks OK, so I might could make him an offer of “I’m thinking of a number between $340,000 and $420,000.” I’m sure that won’t piss him off in the least.

If this is to be believed, it seems Duane “Dog” Chapman used the N-word because he thought he was black himself. Either that, or he heard so many black rappers and fellow inmates say the N-word that he thought they must be cool with it. Oops.