Archive for September, 2004

LawMom writes about Banned Book

September 30, 2004 Comments off

LawMom writes about Banned Book Week.

In honor of fine literature everywhere, go read a banned book. Some that I’ll recommend:

  1. The Catcher in the Rye (the classic banned book)
  2. Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret
  3. Anything by Judy Blume, if you like young adolescent fiction, which I do. Her books appear on the most challenged books list yearly, and she is one of the most challenged authors. I particularly like Iggie’s House, Blubber, and Tiger Eyes.
  4. A Wrinkle in Time, which I can only imagine was challenged because it suggests that there may be life elsewhere in our universe, and does not attribute creation to God? Fact is, Madeline L’Engle is a remarkable author who, like C. S. Lewis, imbues her work with good old-fashioned Christian morality without coming out heavy-handed-ly and shoving it down the reader’s throats. In the last book in the series begun by Wrinkle, titled A Swiftly Tilting Planet, the entire Murray family sings dona nobis pacem around the Thanksgiving dinner table, while they pray for peace.
  5. Any book with frank discussion of adolescent physical changes. This would include number 2, above, as well as the What’s Happening to my Body? books.
  6. To Kill a Mockingbird, which I imagine is on the list because of its use of a particular ethnic slur. (Huckleberry Finn is on the list for that reason, too.)

Note a theme? Young adults, adolescents, children, are the ones whose literature is most affected by book challenges. Adults have the freedom to choose what to read and what to ignore, and the freedom to be as closed-minded as they wish. But children—children have such a small voice in these matters. Bless the American Library Association for recognizing that all books are worthy of being on library shelves, even those that parents may object to for ridiculous reasons.

Categories: of note, old blog, reviews

last minute preparations

September 27, 2004 Comments off

Today I panicked and realized that I did not have a timer I could use for the LSAT—the one I’ve been using for study is my kitchen timer that has a very loud beep.

$32 later (32 DOLLARS?? Unbelievable!!) I have The Silent Timer. Now I have to get used to it. I certainly has several features I won’t be using, notably the “push the red button after you’ve answered each question” thing, allowing you to track how many questions you’ve answered and how many you have left. That’s assuming you take the time at the beginning of the section to see how many total questions there are and plug it in. Mrph…that’s funny. Almost as funny as expecting me to push the red button after answering each question.

Categories: LSAT, old blog

short "hiatus"

September 26, 2004 Comments off

Since I sit for the LSAT in less than a week, and since my friendly writing and editing prof really wants to meet with me soon (like last week, so I’m seriously overdue) don’t expect much from me this week.

I’ll post my LSAT impressions on Saturday, sometime, since I fully expect that I’ll go from the test to either 1) the remainder of [Big Unnamed State] University’s football game (which starts at 11:30, damn them, rendering worthless my $55 ticket which I probably can’t even scalp for face value due to the opponent), or 2) the remainder of my friends’ tailgate party.

In either case, I will drink (somewhat) liberally, if only because it will be OVER. I’m looking forward to having the test behind me so that I can begin to concentrate on applications and my personal essay. No matter how much I say I’ve been working on it, I haven’t really been able to look past the damn standarized test. I think once I’ve taken it and the results are out of my hands, I’ll have a little more impetus to work on the rest of that law school stuff.

Meanwhile, if you have Payton Manning on your FF team, you are a lucky bitch/bastard. That’s all I have to say about that.

Categories: LSAT, old blog

Mildly shocking

September 24, 2004 Comments off

In today’s Straight Dope column, Cecil Adams writes two things I don’t thing I’ve ever read from him before: a small bit of profanity (mild: “son of a bitch”) and a psuedo-extreme sexual reference (“Does he give great head?”).

It was the latter, which comes first in the column, actually, that caused my jaw to drop open. I know that The Straight Dope is published in lots of papers—mostly of the free, alternative variety—but still, it’s published in many papers. The phrase “give great head” is not one I ever would expect to see in a newspaper of any stripe.

I’m not saying I’m offended—in fact, I think it’s hilarious, particularly in the context of the response (yet another reason to eschew vegetarianism, particularly the vegan variety)—I’m just a little astounded.

There’s your thought for the day.

seriously, these internet quizzes are spooky

September 23, 2004 Comments off

I’m Dogbert!

Dogbert’s not-so-secret ambition is to conquer the world and enslave all humans. He anointed himself St. Dogbert, and as such takes special delight in exorcising the demons of stupidity.

Which Dilbert character are you?

Categories: in the \'sphere, old blog


September 22, 2004 Comments off

Gmail is still pestering me with invites. If you don’t already have Gmail (and if you don’t, what rock have you been under? Unless, of course, you think Gmail is too creepy.) please, please, PLEASE take them away from me.

Oh, and if you’re going to ask for an invite from me, please have the courtesy to use it. Seriously, I want to get rid of them, and when I send you one and you let it expire, well, that’s just rude.

Categories: in the \'sphere, old blog

Bitter? Rich?

September 22, 2004 Comments off

Last night I went to study for the LSAT at one of my favorite watering holes—I was hungry and they have good pub food, and I also really wanted a beer.

So there I was, on the patio, drinking my beer and munching on my chicken strips, slogging through Kaplan’s LSAT 180. The table next to me was populated by two guys having a drink together, and I didn’t even notice them until one of them got up to leave and said something about having a mediation today. Ah, I thought, lawyers having happy hour.

The next thing I know, the remaining fellow intones over my shoulder, “Don’t do it.” I turn to look, and he’s got a sort of wistful smirk on his face. He says it again, “Don’t do it.”

Continuing, “We noticed as soon as you pulled out your books. We’re both 10-year litigators, and we’re already bitter. Don’t do it.”

I said, “Oh, I want nothing to do with a courtroom. I just want to teach.”

He replied, “Just watch out. We’re bitter. We have lots of money, but we’re bitter.”

What I can’t figure out is why anyone would go through the hassle of three years of law school, BarBri, junior associateship, and thousands in student loans if they don’t actually want to do what they are doing. Or, rather, I get it, but I don’t know that I appreciate the bitter species intruding on my happy (perhaps delusional) desire to teach lawyers to write better.

Categories: 0L, old blog