Gold Card

Today I purchased enough beverages on my Starbucks Card to qualify for a Gold Card. I am awesome. I don't find it problematic at all that I've purchased 30 drinks at Starbucks over the past two and a half months. I'm really saving money since all my extras like syrup and soy are free. And every 15 drinks I buy, I get a free one. Things are fine. "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." You can't even be addicted to caffeine. It's just psychological. And required among law students.

I finally filed by state taxes. It's a lot more gratifying than it really should be. Now all the administrative work I have to do is filing my bar application. Great. Who wants to write me a recommendation? As far as I can tell the only qualification is that you cannot be a family member. And you can't lie about my criminal record. So you can't say I have one. I would also prefer it is you overlooked some of my indiscretions like anything mentioned on this blog. It's likely only a matter of time until you have to disclose all blogs and social networking sites you operate to the board of bar examiners.
How do you become a member of the board of bar examiners? Do you get paid for that? Seems like an easy job, if a bit sadistic.

My Antitrust professor will now get to review to possible train wreck that is my paper. On the flip side, it could be pretty good. I'm not sure, so I guess that I'm happy to get preliminary feedback on it. It has math in it and an appendix containing graphs and charts! This is some high school stuff, in the way that it is stuff I haven't done since high school. Now I am preparing to be disappointed when I get a comment saying "This is high school-level legal reasoning." Hrm. Upon consideration, that is the comment I would give to my Trust & Estates professor about his class. Can't wait until course evaluation time!

I don't get Google+. Can someone explain why I need one?

You know how homosexuals aren't a protected class? Well I clearly think it is ridiculous. I think that we should give protections to any class that Hitler persecuted. If Hitler hated them, they are doing something right. That's how we should determine things.

The more law school I get through, the angrier I get when I listen to non-lawyers talk about legal issues as if they are totally assured of what they are saying. Most recently prompted by a discussion about Supreme Court justices recusing themselves about the health care case.

Taking Tax was really helpful. I can tell people that lottery winnings are definitely not taxed at a different rate than income from your job. That's just false. It's all income (and then there's capital gains, but let's not get into it). Look at the tax brackets; nothing is taxed even close to 50%

The Game Is Afoot

Last week was busy; this upcoming week will be busier. I have a meeting almost every night and then I have to help out with the first year moot court competition over the weekend. Let us discuss things I am not interested in doing. On the flip side, my note is coming along nicely and is maybe 5 hours of work from completion. Alright, I will probably put in 7 hours, but whatever. I have 8 days. If my calculations are correct, that is less than an hour a day. Hold on, I am doing the math on my computer calculator. Yeah, I was right. (Channeling Mark Zuckerburg in "The Social Network" over here.)

Speaking of stealing ideas, do not steal this one. I want to pitch it to Steve Jobs myself. A "Read A Mat, Eat and Learn" place mat for adults. The iMat. It will send convenient facts and world news right to your place mat. Spill mashed potatoes on an image of Vice President Biden's head. Yeah, I know it is not a perfect plan. Really, I just miss educational place mats. My "Read A Mat" of presidents had George H. W. Bush as the current president. Those were the good old days.

Last week I was fascinated with a minor point in Tax. Two correctly decided cases about the tax consequences of prenuptial agreements and divorce settlements resulted in a logical flaw combined. (The flaw has to do with calculating the basis for the right to sue for divorce, if you were wondering, which I am sure you were since everyone finds the income tax code so interesting.) I was actually so interested in it and its broader implications that I went to my professor's office hours. I also went because I like him a lot and wanted to see if he would crack similar jokes one on one as he does in front of our class of 140. He did. I also think it is generally a good idea to get to know some professors. At the very least, it can't hurt. He was super nice and somehow got to valuing future property interests, which led to a(n) (tenuous and likely flawed but still interesting) entrepreneurial idea about valuing and purchasing risky property interests a la buying out life insurance policies. It's just crazy enough that if nothing goes the way I plan, I might try to make it work. Or you take my idea. Idea stealer. Don't steal the iMat though.

Don't be a drag. Just be a queen? Wish that song were not stuck in my head.
I also wish I knew how to Dougie. Many people refused to teach me. The Cali Swag District tried in an online video, but I don't think it is too helpful. All I got is there is a little head brushing move that is essential to the dance. I am afraid that I am starting to not understand kids these days.

In Taboo (the game), Kerry described a cannoli as a "cream-filled taco." Reza, who was not on the same team, got it instantly, but somehow the rest of the team could not conceptualize it. I thought it was the perfect description.
Speaking of Mexican food (tacos, not cannoli, I know), I found more people in DC who recognize the amazingness of Anna's Taqueria. Oh, how I miss those delicious burritos and quesadillas. Someone please complete the Anna's Challenge: eat three super burritos in one sitting. I dare you. If you do it, I will pay for your meal (if you are lucky, and if you manage to keep it all down).

In other news, my distaste for my Criminal Procedure class continues to grow. Although, Thursday's class did see New Gunner getting 100% completely shut down by the professor for asking a question that had been answered two minutes earlier. Also, someone needs to tell him that if he is compelled to make a comment in class that begins with "I think," or "In my experience," then he should not be making that comment at all. Those sentence starters come straight from Law School Gunning 101: What Not to Say.

I made chicken as part of dinner tonight. I wanted to tenderize it, and a hammer was my best tool for the job. It happened. Creative kitchen utensils.

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.

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.