I think this draft of the note has been fully written. It now just requires editing. A lot of editing. A week's worth of editing? We'll see, but I wouldn't be surprised.
On Friday I went to see Darkest Hour at the 9:30 Club. The venue was really nice, and it has been a long time since I went to a show. But it was awesome. Wall of death - front line. Darkest Hour was amazing; the songs they played from their new album sounded really good. After the show I went to a bar with Jen and Jared, who accompanied me to the show, and I could not stop smiling. Jen wanted to know what was wrong with me. I got a bruise on my arm, my ears were ringing, and it was all fantastic. According to Jen, I am not allowed to look that excited.
I have health insurance, that means that my insurance company will pay for doctors. Well next time I go to Safeway and purchase a Dr. Pepper I am going to hand them my insurance card. If they argue with me, I'll tell them to take it up with Blue Cross Blue Shield. How much is the copay? The same goes for Dr. Brown's Cream Soda and the new Dr. Dre album.
Dr. Dre, do you perchance have an expertise in oncology? That would be useful. Do you think he is the best-paid doctor in the country? I bet he is not. But he should be - he has to pay back school loans too!
Spring Break - begin. But the only wet t-shirt contest that happened was because I accidentally spilled egg yolk on my shirt when eating a breakfast sandwich. True (messy) story.
Aristotle's golden mean is important. Not very important, but not unimportant either.
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
SCOTUS Day
Today was SCOTUS day. I woke up at 5:30, got to the Supreme Court by 6:30, and waited in the cold to get in until around 9, with a brief interlude to visit the Supreme Court cafeteria. It is one of the most regal cafeterias I have ever sat in. It was also warm, quite crucially. Tracy and I were 17th and 18th in line, respectively. It was early enough to be sure we would get in. Had we come even fifteen minutes later we would not have had such a reassuring position. I am not certain of how many people from line got in, but my guess is between 35 and 45. We got to sit in on the Court's proceedings. Two decisions were announced, new members of the Supreme Court Bar were sworn in, and we got to listen to two oral arguments. The first was Freeman v. U.S., which had to do with the retroactive application of modified sentencing guidelines in sentences reached through a particular type of plea bargain. The second was Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB, which was about the proper state of mind requirement for inducing patent infringement. I know they sound very compelling, but the second was actually fairly interesting. It turned out that I knew a lot about its background from some of the intellectual property cases we studied in Property class last year. All of the lawyers were incredibly good, even the ones who were pretty clearly on the losing side (given the justices' demeanor). Being questioned by the Supreme Court is sort of like the hardest cold call you will ever receive.
No, Justice Thomas did not say anything. Though he did whisper with Justice Breyer a good amount.
All of the justices impressed me greatly with their intellect. They asked difficult, probing questions and called the advocates out on their weakest arguments. Justice Breyer led one attorney into a terrible trap; Justice Scalia was blunt in tearing down poor arguments. I don't know, there were lots of highlights.
Between Tracy and me, there was a lot of law nerd-ing out.
It was early, but it was worth it.
I need a new toothbrush. This blog just became my CVS shopping list. I think I patronize CVS too much. I don't like seeing the receipt that tells me how much I've spent using my Extra Care card.
Wow, I need to sleep.
Rock on Wisconsin and now Indiana. Don't let them bust the unions.
Between those two states and Northern Africa, I would like to ask: what is going on??? Is there something going on with the temperature? Something in the water? Lots of protesting. I'm not hating, just commenting.
No, Justice Thomas did not say anything. Though he did whisper with Justice Breyer a good amount.
All of the justices impressed me greatly with their intellect. They asked difficult, probing questions and called the advocates out on their weakest arguments. Justice Breyer led one attorney into a terrible trap; Justice Scalia was blunt in tearing down poor arguments. I don't know, there were lots of highlights.
Between Tracy and me, there was a lot of law nerd-ing out.
It was early, but it was worth it.
I need a new toothbrush. This blog just became my CVS shopping list. I think I patronize CVS too much. I don't like seeing the receipt that tells me how much I've spent using my Extra Care card.
Wow, I need to sleep.
Rock on Wisconsin and now Indiana. Don't let them bust the unions.
Between those two states and Northern Africa, I would like to ask: what is going on??? Is there something going on with the temperature? Something in the water? Lots of protesting. I'm not hating, just commenting.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
About Time
I am a law student in DC. The Supreme Court is a mere cab ride away. So tomorrow is the day that I finally abandon my excuse of "I have to get up too early," and go see an oral argument. Assuming I get there early enough to get in. That's why I am waking up at 5:30 and getting to One First St. at 6:30. I am meeting my friend Tracy there. While in line the plan is to read the briefs for both petitioner and respondent for both of the cases being argued tomorrow. I know, I know, coolest kids ever.
Today was one of those days in Crim Pro. Everyone was going wrong. People were saying saying dumb things, the professor was humoring them, and the kid next to me had a stuffy nose and kept sniffling. He always sniffled in multiples of three seconds. Why? I don't know. Why do I know that? Because I couldn't help but keep time in my head. It was very annoying and maybe a little weird.
This week is writing my note, with lots of other distractions.
Today was one of those days in Crim Pro. Everyone was going wrong. People were saying saying dumb things, the professor was humoring them, and the kid next to me had a stuffy nose and kept sniffling. He always sniffled in multiples of three seconds. Why? I don't know. Why do I know that? Because I couldn't help but keep time in my head. It was very annoying and maybe a little weird.
This week is writing my note, with lots of other distractions.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Chilean Miners
Yesterday I saw a headline in the New York Times that said "Chilean Priest Found Guilty of Abusing Minors." My initial thought was "He abused those Chilean miners that were trapped? Weren't they underground? This seems odd and terrible." Then I realized it was minors, not miners. Whoopsies!
Editing competition over.
My Tax casebook contains the phrase, "In an O. Henry ending..." Who writes a casebook like that? I like it. It keeps you on your toes.
Editing competition over.
My Tax casebook contains the phrase, "In an O. Henry ending..." Who writes a casebook like that? I like it. It keeps you on your toes.
Friday, February 18, 2011
I'm still here, I promise
I know I have been negligent keeping up this blog for the past week and a half. I'm not writing a full entry, I'm just writing an entry to acknowledge that I've been shirking my blogging.
I am currently in the midst of the editorial board competition for my journal. It requires me to do textual and citation edits at a rate of over one mistake per sentence on average. I would say the average is closer to two and a half edits per sentence. This lovely exercise must be completed within 48 hours. My time ends at 8 tomorrow night. So much for enjoying the lovely weather which Friday promises to bring.
I am spending some quality time with the Bluebook and with the Chicago Manual of Style. We are bffls.
It's really just as well that I am doing this competition now. I've had a sore throat for the past few days, and while I am fighting it off it is better for me to stay at home than go out and rage (against the machine).
This seems to be turning into a more full entry than I anticipated. Hrm. Maybe that is because I am not ready to go to sleep.
Today's Criminal Procedure class was frustrating, to put it politely. One particular incident stood out to me. We were discussing plain view doctrine. In order for the police to invoke the plain view doctrine to seize evidence, the police must have a lawful right of access to the location and the illegality of the object must be immediately apparent. So we were doing hypotheticals in class: what if there is a sawed off shotgun? Then that is clearly under plain view doctrine. What if it is a video tape? Probably not, need a search warrant to view the video.
What about a cell phone in sleep mode?
A student raises his hand and answers, "Yeah, I think a cell phone would fall under plain view doctrine." The professor clarifies that the phone is in sleep mode so the screen is black and one of the requirements for invoking plain view is that the object's illegality be immediately apparent. The student responds, "Yeah, I mean drug dealers use cell phones so if the police think its a drug dealer it is immediately apparent that the cell phone could be evidence." This continued for about two full minutes; the professor kept guiding him towards the obvious answer that a cell phone does not immediately appear illegal, and the student kept spouting nonsense and proudly displaying his ignorance.
I nearly spewed smoke from my ears, buried my face in my hands, and did deep breathing exercises as expletives flowed through my mind. "Immediately apparent" is not a legal term of art. Just pause for a moment and think about the plain English meaning of those words Just think. For a minute. And you will see that you could not possibly be more incorrect.
(Even thinking about it now I have to take deep breaths.)
My professor is too nice. She should have cut him off and told him to think before he speaks in class. Instead, she just continued to try to guide him to the correct answer. But he was having none of it.
In Tax on Monday, my professor called on a student who raised his hand. He looked at his seating chart to try to correctly identify the student and asked, "Are you Christian?" "I'm Alex," the student responded, and then proceeded to ask his question. A few minutes later another student from that part of the room raised his hand and was called on. Again, my professor tried to identify the student and asked, "Are you Christian?" "No, I'm Steve." At which point my professor felt the hilarious need to clarify that he was not inquiring as to students' religious preference, but rather whether their name was Christian. The next day he called on another student: "Julie. Are you Christian? Jewish? I'm just kidding!" Maybe you don't think Federal Income Tax is the happy, fun class, but I think my professor is hilarious.
Some good news: fantasy baseball is starting again. Make fun all you want, but that is one of the best parts of the year.
Well, somehow this became a real post. So there it is. I'm back from my week and a half hiatus.
I am currently in the midst of the editorial board competition for my journal. It requires me to do textual and citation edits at a rate of over one mistake per sentence on average. I would say the average is closer to two and a half edits per sentence. This lovely exercise must be completed within 48 hours. My time ends at 8 tomorrow night. So much for enjoying the lovely weather which Friday promises to bring.
I am spending some quality time with the Bluebook and with the Chicago Manual of Style. We are bffls.
It's really just as well that I am doing this competition now. I've had a sore throat for the past few days, and while I am fighting it off it is better for me to stay at home than go out and rage (against the machine).
This seems to be turning into a more full entry than I anticipated. Hrm. Maybe that is because I am not ready to go to sleep.
Today's Criminal Procedure class was frustrating, to put it politely. One particular incident stood out to me. We were discussing plain view doctrine. In order for the police to invoke the plain view doctrine to seize evidence, the police must have a lawful right of access to the location and the illegality of the object must be immediately apparent. So we were doing hypotheticals in class: what if there is a sawed off shotgun? Then that is clearly under plain view doctrine. What if it is a video tape? Probably not, need a search warrant to view the video.
What about a cell phone in sleep mode?
A student raises his hand and answers, "Yeah, I think a cell phone would fall under plain view doctrine." The professor clarifies that the phone is in sleep mode so the screen is black and one of the requirements for invoking plain view is that the object's illegality be immediately apparent. The student responds, "Yeah, I mean drug dealers use cell phones so if the police think its a drug dealer it is immediately apparent that the cell phone could be evidence." This continued for about two full minutes; the professor kept guiding him towards the obvious answer that a cell phone does not immediately appear illegal, and the student kept spouting nonsense and proudly displaying his ignorance.
I nearly spewed smoke from my ears, buried my face in my hands, and did deep breathing exercises as expletives flowed through my mind. "Immediately apparent" is not a legal term of art. Just pause for a moment and think about the plain English meaning of those words Just think. For a minute. And you will see that you could not possibly be more incorrect.
(Even thinking about it now I have to take deep breaths.)
My professor is too nice. She should have cut him off and told him to think before he speaks in class. Instead, she just continued to try to guide him to the correct answer. But he was having none of it.
In Tax on Monday, my professor called on a student who raised his hand. He looked at his seating chart to try to correctly identify the student and asked, "Are you Christian?" "I'm Alex," the student responded, and then proceeded to ask his question. A few minutes later another student from that part of the room raised his hand and was called on. Again, my professor tried to identify the student and asked, "Are you Christian?" "No, I'm Steve." At which point my professor felt the hilarious need to clarify that he was not inquiring as to students' religious preference, but rather whether their name was Christian. The next day he called on another student: "Julie. Are you Christian? Jewish? I'm just kidding!" Maybe you don't think Federal Income Tax is the happy, fun class, but I think my professor is hilarious.
Some good news: fantasy baseball is starting again. Make fun all you want, but that is one of the best parts of the year.
Well, somehow this became a real post. So there it is. I'm back from my week and a half hiatus.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
One of those days
It was just one of those days. Something dumb happened at every turn. The day started out well in Crim Pro, with two police officers coming in to talk to the class about Terry stop-and-frisks. A student volunteer frisked one of the officers in an attempt to find all the weapons concealed on his body. She did an admirable job, but only found about 7 of the 15 weapons he had. She totally missed the small knife he had clipped to the back of his tie. But hey, I probably would not have found that either.
After the officers left, things went down hill. In addition to the usual "jibba-jabba" that goes on in that class, including New Gunner's incessant attempts to appear smart, people who I generally consider to be intelligent began making moronic comments. A friend was attempting to argue against a distinction that the Supreme Court made between predictive and descriptive anonymous tips, but made the crucial mistake of not thinking before he spoke. He had to be reminded that "predictive" indicates future action. That's just part of the definition of predictive, you don't have to be a law student to get that. (Thus, giving a description of a black male wearing a plaid shirt at a bus stop is not predictive, whereas describing a woman who will leave a specific apartment at a specific time and travel in a particular car to a particular motel is predictive. See Florida v. J.L. But this distinction was apparently lost on my friend.)
Then a student who was clearly not paying attention got cold called in Tax. He was first unable to recall the only important phrase from a case we read despite the professor having repeated it approximately a dozen times. And even after the professor gave him the answer, he was unable to remember it or use it when given hypos to answer. It was awful and made the other 139 people in the class give a collective eye roll. It would have been a horrible class period had my professor not saved it by regaling us with a story about drinking beer and playing darts at a bar in Wyoming.
As I said today, I thought that when I went to college I would get rid of all the stupid people around in high school. Then there were stupid people in college. I thought when I went to law school I would get rid of the stupid people in college. Then there were stupid people in law school. (More than in college, really.) Now, I am beginning to accept that I will never be rid of stupid people.
Hey, there are some not stupid people in the world. Caitlin just got into vet school, so congratulations to her. You will soon need her services, you are a sick puppy.
Tomorrow will be a lovely, long day featuring 7:45 am class and a 7:30 pm meeting. They are both for journal. For some possibly insane reason I am seriously contemplating participating in my journal's editorial board competition so that I can be an editor next year. Why? I don't know. It's a resume line? It could be interesting? Emphasis on could. For some reason I have a compulsion towards resume lines and "achievement." It is disturbing to me.
My 7:30 meeting will happily include giving constructive feedback to other students on my journal about the first draft of their notes. I will likewise receive feedback on my first draft. My major challenge for tomorrow night is finding a polite way to explain to a fellow student that citing Alan Dershowitz for historical facts about Israeli-Palestinian relations is not legitimate. He is neither unbiased nor a historian, and as a reader I become skeptical of any argument relying on the Middle East according to Alan Dershowitz.
Remember that time he tried to debate Jimmy Carter? Yup, he should probably remember that he is a lawyer, not a foreign policy expert.
After the officers left, things went down hill. In addition to the usual "jibba-jabba" that goes on in that class, including New Gunner's incessant attempts to appear smart, people who I generally consider to be intelligent began making moronic comments. A friend was attempting to argue against a distinction that the Supreme Court made between predictive and descriptive anonymous tips, but made the crucial mistake of not thinking before he spoke. He had to be reminded that "predictive" indicates future action. That's just part of the definition of predictive, you don't have to be a law student to get that. (Thus, giving a description of a black male wearing a plaid shirt at a bus stop is not predictive, whereas describing a woman who will leave a specific apartment at a specific time and travel in a particular car to a particular motel is predictive. See Florida v. J.L. But this distinction was apparently lost on my friend.)
Then a student who was clearly not paying attention got cold called in Tax. He was first unable to recall the only important phrase from a case we read despite the professor having repeated it approximately a dozen times. And even after the professor gave him the answer, he was unable to remember it or use it when given hypos to answer. It was awful and made the other 139 people in the class give a collective eye roll. It would have been a horrible class period had my professor not saved it by regaling us with a story about drinking beer and playing darts at a bar in Wyoming.
As I said today, I thought that when I went to college I would get rid of all the stupid people around in high school. Then there were stupid people in college. I thought when I went to law school I would get rid of the stupid people in college. Then there were stupid people in law school. (More than in college, really.) Now, I am beginning to accept that I will never be rid of stupid people.
Hey, there are some not stupid people in the world. Caitlin just got into vet school, so congratulations to her. You will soon need her services, you are a sick puppy.
Tomorrow will be a lovely, long day featuring 7:45 am class and a 7:30 pm meeting. They are both for journal. For some possibly insane reason I am seriously contemplating participating in my journal's editorial board competition so that I can be an editor next year. Why? I don't know. It's a resume line? It could be interesting? Emphasis on could. For some reason I have a compulsion towards resume lines and "achievement." It is disturbing to me.
My 7:30 meeting will happily include giving constructive feedback to other students on my journal about the first draft of their notes. I will likewise receive feedback on my first draft. My major challenge for tomorrow night is finding a polite way to explain to a fellow student that citing Alan Dershowitz for historical facts about Israeli-Palestinian relations is not legitimate. He is neither unbiased nor a historian, and as a reader I become skeptical of any argument relying on the Middle East according to Alan Dershowitz.
Remember that time he tried to debate Jimmy Carter? Yup, he should probably remember that he is a lawyer, not a foreign policy expert.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
"O'er the ramparts we watched" - Remember?
And so comes and goes another Super Bowl. I did not care particularly about the outcome, although my preferred team did end up on top. There was some good football I got to watch, and some commercials I got to critique. But for me the highlight of the broadcast came before the first kickoff when Christina Aguilera fumbled the words to the National Anthem. That seems like a fairly large gaffe. Some of the commentary is saying, "Well at least she was actually singing." I think it is a sad day when "actually singing" is something to be commended rather than something to be expected. Her lyrical lapse and her poor vocal performance were poor, to say the least.
Another great part of the Super Bowl was the shot of Cameron Diaz feeding Alex Rodriguez in the stands. This will not be forgotten come the baseball season.
For Jason and Gavi's Super Bowl party I made my own buffalo sauce and used it to make buffalo quesadillas. They were pretty good, but I made an abundance of them and am now the proud owner of about a pound of them. I guess I will bring them to school tomorrow to see if anyone wants them? Should that fail, do you think homeless people like buffalo quesadillas?
According to the Chicago Manual of Style it is proper in all settings, formal and informal, to use only one space after a period at the end of a sentence. I was always taught two, but Rule 6.7 of the Manual corrected me: "In typeset matter, one space, not two, should be used between two sentences—whether the first ends in a period, a question mark, an exclamation point, or a closing quotation mark or parenthesis."
Also, the Chicago Manual of Style has free 30 day trial subscriptions online. Just in case anyone was interested.
Facebook Scrabble has been frustrating of late. I am gradually coming to loath the letters "C," "I," and "K." Together they spell ick, which is generally what I think when I have too many of them.
Another great part of the Super Bowl was the shot of Cameron Diaz feeding Alex Rodriguez in the stands. This will not be forgotten come the baseball season.
For Jason and Gavi's Super Bowl party I made my own buffalo sauce and used it to make buffalo quesadillas. They were pretty good, but I made an abundance of them and am now the proud owner of about a pound of them. I guess I will bring them to school tomorrow to see if anyone wants them? Should that fail, do you think homeless people like buffalo quesadillas?
According to the Chicago Manual of Style it is proper in all settings, formal and informal, to use only one space after a period at the end of a sentence. I was always taught two, but Rule 6.7 of the Manual corrected me: "In typeset matter, one space, not two, should be used between two sentences—whether the first ends in a period, a question mark, an exclamation point, or a closing quotation mark or parenthesis."
Also, the Chicago Manual of Style has free 30 day trial subscriptions online. Just in case anyone was interested.
Facebook Scrabble has been frustrating of late. I am gradually coming to loath the letters "C," "I," and "K." Together they spell ick, which is generally what I think when I have too many of them.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Remember the band POD? They were terrible.
I am having an unsurprising amount of trouble focusing on my reading on this Friday afternoon. So I have decided to blog rather than read for Federal Income Tax. Is this shocking?
Yesterday I got to see Nina Totenberg interview Justice Ginsberg (in a sit-down style reminiscent of Josh Lyman's interview in "Celestial Navigation"-West Wing nerd alert). Considering that I go to law school and she is a Supreme Court Justice, that was pretty awesome. It's not every day you get to see the rockstars of your profession. She talked a lot about her career before becoming a judge as a crusader for gender equality in the law. She also talked about her family and late husband, her (perhaps surprisingly good) relationship with Justice Scalia (Nino, as his friends refer to him), and the workings of the Court. She was asked the obvious question about retirement and gave an interesting answer. Apparently Justices get access to a number of Smithsonian collections to decorate their chambers and Justice Ginsberg had one painting that she adored which was removed from her chambers because it went out on loan to a museum. She told the audience that she was promised the painting would return to her chambers in 2012, so she has to be around the Court for that. She also threw out a few references to Louis D. Brandeis (what what!) and mentioned that he stayed on the Court until he was 83, so she has a little ways to go. Justice Ginsberg is currently 77, I believe. 1 justice down, 8 to see. Well there is one that I have really no interest in seeing ever, so we can knock it down to 7. I'll let you figure it out - it ain't rocket science.
I started tutoring a 1L in Property and it is already rewarding. And not monetarily (yet). I just got an email from the 1L saying:
Yesterday I got to see Nina Totenberg interview Justice Ginsberg (in a sit-down style reminiscent of Josh Lyman's interview in "Celestial Navigation"-West Wing nerd alert). Considering that I go to law school and she is a Supreme Court Justice, that was pretty awesome. It's not every day you get to see the rockstars of your profession. She talked a lot about her career before becoming a judge as a crusader for gender equality in the law. She also talked about her family and late husband, her (perhaps surprisingly good) relationship with Justice Scalia (Nino, as his friends refer to him), and the workings of the Court. She was asked the obvious question about retirement and gave an interesting answer. Apparently Justices get access to a number of Smithsonian collections to decorate their chambers and Justice Ginsberg had one painting that she adored which was removed from her chambers because it went out on loan to a museum. She told the audience that she was promised the painting would return to her chambers in 2012, so she has to be around the Court for that. She also threw out a few references to Louis D. Brandeis (what what!) and mentioned that he stayed on the Court until he was 83, so she has a little ways to go. Justice Ginsberg is currently 77, I believe. 1 justice down, 8 to see. Well there is one that I have really no interest in seeing ever, so we can knock it down to 7. I'll let you figure it out - it ain't rocket science.
I started tutoring a 1L in Property and it is already rewarding. And not monetarily (yet). I just got an email from the 1L saying:
"The talk we had last night was sooo helpful!!!!
For the first time maybe I didn't miss anything in class!!!! lol"
Direct quote. As much as I strongly dislike law school, I am happy making it at least a little bit better for someone else. And if that entails explaining nuisance liability then so be it.
From what I gather in the news, now is not a good time to visit Cairo. Just a friendly travel warning in case you were unaware.
All Nas needs is one mic. Beck has got two turntables and a microphone. I think they can work something out.
Direct quote. As much as I strongly dislike law school, I am happy making it at least a little bit better for someone else. And if that entails explaining nuisance liability then so be it.
From what I gather in the news, now is not a good time to visit Cairo. Just a friendly travel warning in case you were unaware.
All Nas needs is one mic. Beck has got two turntables and a microphone. I think they can work something out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)