He was somewhere down in Ole’ Miss, just not where you expected him to be.
**
Lucite is trendy and tacky. In 18 months time, the look will be as dated as Madonna’s outfits in last season’s lucite-heavy Versace ads.
I have a hate-hate relationship with Philippe Starck, and think his
Louis Ghost chair look is overdone. So, someone explain why I
like his Madamoiselle chair (in the green damask pattern, not the gaudy florals)?
Hm, methinks that the AG, Alberto Gonzalez (I didn’t notice that his
initials are actually “AG” until now, how fitting), is trying to earn
his conservative druthers with a crusade against pron. Why else would he pull people off the child crimes unit in coketastic Miami to fight material featuring adults:
This may be a more important battle, with both $$ and prurient
interests at stake than the legal foie gras wars. What a way to become a
First Amendment lawyer!
**
Edit: New knowledge acquired this weekend: one can use interoffice mail
to send packages to one’s friends in NYC; just have them pick up the
delivery at the Reception Desk in NYC. If the recipients work at
a big NYC firm, they’ll probably be able to send over a messenger.
Today is the first time that I heard the phrase “exposed roots” applied
to my teeth. This came from my hygenist, who explained that based
on the roughness of the exposed area, clenching was the likely cause of
the exposed roots. She explained that I fit the target
demographic for this problem, well-educated, middle-to-upper-income
women in the 20 to 45 age range experience this problem the most because they internalize their
stress, and clenching is one way in which this stress manifests itself
(women are also eight times as likely as men to clench). Great,
so, I have internalized my stress without even realizing it.
Law students love to complain that they don’t need three years of law
school. There’s a widely held belief that one year or eighteen
months of training would
suffice (by one’s third year, the hostility towards going to class is
collective and palpable). But the three-year slog through school,
its price tag,
and the oh-so-frustrating Bar Exam do have the added effect of reducing
professional competition, allowing my hourly rate and salary to remain
somewhat steady. Unlike the low entry barriers that make real estate careers less lucrative than they appear in this market.
**
On a different note, I picked up a variation of these Marc Jacobs ballet flats
(choco brown, not black, suede, not satin), discounted by 70% at Century 21. Why would anyone pay full price for Marc Jacobs
footwear? They’re priced in the $300 range, but their sale price
is a better reflection of their quality level (I’m scoffing at the very
idea of associating the word “workmanship” with his shoes).
Edit: Just to be clear, I am well aware that Marni is the new Marc Jacobs.
I’m sipping on one of my last cups of Torrefazione Italia coffee.
Friday is the last day for the downtown branch, and their owner,
Starbucks (who bought the chain 2 years ago), is shutting down the entire chain for failure to meet performance standards.
Torrefazione has such great coffee, and their lattes have perfect, let
me repeat that, perfect, foam. Even when I lived in Cambridge, I
use to lug my books over to Newbury street to study because the
Torrefazione there reminded me of home. I’m sure Starbucks will
end up marketing their beans as some sort of boutique label, but I’m
sad to watch the stores go.
So, another Starbucks boycott begins.
**
This outfit is like so me. Yep, eclectic and opinionated.
**
The Heyman Fellowship,
food for thought. They just upped the amount to $15,000.
Hm, sometimes I seriously wonder if I will lose friends when I halve my
salary. I don’t know what this means about some of my friends.
Anyone have a digital camera to recommend? Under $400, for simple
point and shoot use? Something a little bit durable if I take it
out hiking and drop it in the dirt. My little lomos don’t work
for casual outings and trips.
**
The urban planner in me is a little upset that there’s been some recent buzz about “Rural Chic”
as the next big housing development idea. Let’s dress up the
boonies and sell it to urbanites who want to get in touch with their
inner Thoreau or Emerson, and give it a label, such as “Cracker Modern”
(I’m not kidding, that phrase is taken directly from the Times
article). Yay, let’s pay money for a Viking stove near
hillbillies.
The only thing that I’ve found more offensive is Evil K’s abuse of the
phrase “Favela Chic.” When I was in Bush-family territory,
Kennebunkport, Maine, my jaw dropped from the sight of a shop, which casually bore the same name. Wow, the rich are different from you or me.
Perhaps they should include the SCOTUS nomination process in the
syllabus for Legal Professions. The coverage on Roberts is
forcing me to evaluate my decisions relating to law. I like this excerpt from Slate:
I actually remember being 19, and having this exact agonizing debate,
both internally and vocally with some of my goody-two-shoes pre-med
friends. Judicial career or satiate youthful curiousity?
God, what a nerd.
But now that I am 27, someone should bring on the trampy girls.
**
Otherwise, I donned a hairnet this morning, and spent a couple of hours putting salt and pepper packets on trays at Glide Memorial. My only comment: their cafeteria has a much better scent than the county jail.
Now, that the Big Media won the Grokster fight, they’ve shifted their attention to combat burning CDs . See, we’ve lost one battle, but the war continues.
**
My geekiness shines through: I don’t think there’s a published opinion, but I just came across this
case, In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation,
where they
alleged a world-wide cartel of MSG manufacturers who engaged in
price-fixing and market allocation. I wonder if the class is made
up of anyone who ate at a Chinese restaurant during the class period.
Much attention has been paid to the legal arguments that SCOTUS nominee
Johns Roberts made while working in Reagan’s solicitor general’s office
(most notably the footnote arguing for overturning Roe v. Wade in a
brief) and to his pro bono “advising” of gay rights groups in the Romer v. Evans case. As with this NYT Week in Review piece,
I believe this attention is a bit misplaced (and fueled by the scarcity
of opinions from his brief stint on the DC Court of Appeals).
Most of the time, unless the type of case is on the extreme end of the
moral repugnancy scale, lawyers are hired guns and willing to argue
both sides. While interning for the government, I’ve defended
child molesters. And in private practice, I drafted a pro-media
opinion piece in the MGM v. Grokster
case, and defended tenants in landlord-tenant cases (even though I
don’t have any peculiar sympathies on the tenant side). Taken out
of context, this could create a skewed legal portrait of me, when I
feel that my heart lies with the work that I did at the EFF and Berkman
Center (work that I actively sought out and completed without any
monetary renumeration) and my odd fondness for the dormant commerce
clause. Thus, when it comes time for my generation to step up to
the judicial plate (this time will come — one of my HLS section mates
clerked this year for Roberts, and is clerking next year for Kennedy),
I say look at our non-profit work/affiliations (to whom we donate time
and money) and our weblogs.
Edit: I find it funny that PETA is the group that would most vehemently oppose a Judge Chan nomination.