Sunday, July 22, 2007

Lame Parents

I love this article. I myself have never been asked what the author is asked, but I agree with her other observations.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

I Wonder What PETA Would Think Of This

Good Times

Despite the navigational mishaps suffered on the way back, my trip to a classmate's wedding was quite enjoyable.

I may or may not have worn my sexy red heels:

I may or may not have drank everything in this picture (and then some):

I may or may not have been a sight to behold on the dance floor:

I may or may not have sponsored a cleavage-baring contest:

I may or may not have repeatedly referred to a handsome teenage groomsman as Zac Effron.

I may or may not have woken up with a temporary tatoo of Eve and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden:

Friday, July 20, 2007


If you were driving on a road trip and you, despite having driven TO the destination, didn't know which highways and interstates you want to be on and when to change to them, would you ask the people in the backseat who have written directions, or would you say nothing and drive 80 miles in the wrong direction until the people in the backseat take a break from their headphones and movie-watching to realize that they're on the wrong highway and have been for some time, and in fact are in a state that they did not know or want to be in?

Furthermore, after losing three hours to correct above problem, would you nevertheless again drive past a crucial interchange? Despite signs that say the town where you want to go? Or is it the fault of the person in the backseat who intended to take a short nap and fell asleep and didn't wake up until said interchange had passed because she did not tell the driver beforehand that change needed to occur at said location? DESPITE THE FACT THAT DRIVER DROVE THE SAME ROUTE IN REVERSE ONLY TWO DAYS BEFORE?

Thanks. I'd appreciate input on this.

Also, WTF is so hard about remembering that you changed highways? For the love of God, at least ASK if you're not sure where you're going, right?

Monday, July 16, 2007

Friday, July 13, 2007

A Little Too Late

Um, where the heck was I during Advanced Legal Research last semester? Or more specifically, why has it taken until today for me to realize that Westlaw's KeySearch is frackin' fantastic? No wonder I got my lowest grade in law school in that class...

TV Boyfriend Update

A friend of mine today informed me that she believes Mike, my TV boyfriend, is not as good looking without his hat.

I may be willing to concede that. However, as I pointed out to her, our relationship is, how do I say it, imaginary, so I'm not too worried about that. It's not like we spend a lot of time together while he is sans hat. He wears hats on television, and that's all that matters to me:

Also, Mike without a hat is significantly better than the average... anyone.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Bluebook Nazi

I am ruthlessly grading law review write-on competition papers! I thrive on this power!

Law Funny

Call me a huge dork, but I'm very amused by this court's obvious exasperation:

We do not understand why the prosecutor would propose a modified instruction that affirmatively misstated the law. We do not understand why defense counsel did not object. We do not understand why the trial court gave an instruction that was contrary to our decision in Maggette. The jury instruction as to sexual penetration was clearly erroneous.

-People v. James, 773 N.E.2d 1176, 1180-81 (Ill. Ct. App. 2002).

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

My TV Boyfriend

In true Salieri fashion, I have chosen a TV boyfriend, and he is none other than Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs on The Discovery Channel. Do you watch this show? Who else could make poop and mud so entertaining? He may just be reason enough alone for me to get cable.

For your viewing pleasure:

Yum. Please marry me now, Mike. What's 21 years when you're in love?

Here it is again, just 'cuz it's so nice to look at...

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Law School Funnies

Nerdiest. Law school. Stuff. Ever.

Here's more:

The following links will likely only be funny to law students. Yes, we're that lame.

And my personal favorites:

Monday, July 2, 2007

Constitutional? You Decide!

Following a "terrorist" attack at an airport in Glasgow, Scotland, does it violate for Fourth Amendment for police in an American city frequently cited on television and movies to symbolize the podunk, hickish, middle-of-nowhere to set up random vehicle searches, complete with drug dogs, at the local airport?

To aid in this determination I will provide more information:

-There was a sign alerting drivers that they could be subject to random vehicle searches
-The sign was posted on a one-way street that leads towards the terminal (i.e., you really can't turn around once you see it)
-Everyone who has to drop someone off at the airport has to go on this street or risk missing their flight

Probably not, damn it. Thanks Rehnquist, you enormous douchebag.