Friday, May 29, 2009

Biting My Tongue

I know I give young, blonde, female country singers a hard time, particularly Carrie Underwood and Taylor Swift. I will never take back what I saw about Carrie's undeserved awards, but I will concede that Taylor is not so terrible after all. Yes, ALL of her songs are about boys, and yes, she doesn't always sound good live.

But I thought she did a great job on "Run" at the George Strait Artist of the Decade concert. So, I take some of it back, Taylor. (I've still got it out for you, though, Carrie.)

Saturday, May 23, 2009


I'm in Texas! And I'm drunk!

Tuesday, May 19, 2009


I am geekily thrilled that my student ID card can still get me into the journal database at my alma mater's library website.


An Example of Ickyness

This video sends me into a nearly uncontrollable rage.

Admittedly, it's not a particularly new video, but something reminded me of it today, so I decided to write this post.

In full disclosure, I can't stand Glenn Beck no matter what he is saying. I don't like his face, I don't like his voice, I don't like his gross demeanor. But despite my personal objections to him, I think that his position in this piece is objectively ridiculous.

First, he reframes the torture issue by essentially saying that the real issue is the hypocritical response by members of Congress. In support of this, he says that Pelosi and McCain didn't speak out about waterboarding until it became unpopular. Here's what I say to that, Glenn:

Who the hell cares? Even if we assume that everything he says about Pelosi and McCain is correct, what difference does that make? Even if every single member of Congress stood by and said nothing as the Executive Branch implemented its "enhanced interrogation techniques," that still doesn't excuse what was done or those who did it. I don't care if Barack Obama and the ghost of Mother Teresa both say that waterboarding is not torture, that is not dispositive of the real issue. Who exactly does Glenn Beck think he is kidding with his ridiculous attempt to distort the issue? (I am especially annoyed by his transparent attempt to look genuine by criticizing Republicans and Democrats alike.)

Second, he tries to minimize the situation by saying that only three detainees were waterboarded. Again, how does that make it okay? And, we know now that one of those three was waterboarded 183 times in one month and another 82 times in one month. And then he has the nerve to suggest that waterboarding is not so bad because no one has been beheaded? I am disgusted that he would invoke Daniel Pearl in that manner. It is completely lost on him that comparing something to gruesome beheadings is not a favorable comparison no matter how different it may be.

His attempt to justify is also suspect, given that serious doubt has been cast on the claim that waterboarding stopped a terrorist attack on a building in L.A..

Third, he is either stupid or being intellectually dishonest with himself when he says that waterboarding is a "gray area" and "a tough call." It's not, really. Waterboarding has historically been regarded as a crime, whether it be committed against Americans or by Americans. If you want a good article on it, Glenn, read Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts by Evan Wallach in The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 45, page 468.

Fourth, I take issue with his position that Congress should just stand by and let the military do its job. The same could be said for law enforcement, except that one of the core reasons for the Fourth Amendment's requirement that warrants be issued on probable cause determined by neutral and detached magistrates is that those who are actively engaged in the ferreting out of crime cannot be objective. I would argue that it can only help things to have a detached body like Congress put the brakes on military interrogation techniques that break the law, much like magistrates put the brakes on overzealous law enforcement officers.

But what really gets me, what literally had me yelling the first time I watched this video, was Glenn Beck's lauding of Oliver North as a beacon of honor. Really, Glenn? Are you fucking kidding me? He plays a small clip of North's testimony, and he leaves out what came before it, testimony where North admits to lying to Iranian representatives, lying to General Secord, lying to Congress, and creating false chronologies of events. And the next day, he describes his actions as "bad judgment."

But let's not lose sight of the bigger issue. I'm not an expert on the Iran-Contra scandal, but it seems pretty settled that Oliver North diverted proceeds from covert arms sales to Iran to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. As if selling arms to the Iranians isn't bad enough, support of the Contras just threw the Nicaraguan people into more conflict after decades of brutal rule by the Somoza family and the bloody Sandinista Revolution.

I'm a firm believer that no one is as bad as the worst thing they've ever done, so I'm not going to say Oliver North is a terrible person. I don't know what he's done with his life since then. But using him as an example of honor? That's your idea of honor, Glenn Beck?

That says a lot.

Monday, May 18, 2009


If this looks like something you might want to own...

...we will never be friends.

Saturday, May 16, 2009


According to reports, Ed Westwick is going to star as Heathcliff in a new adaptation of Wuthering Heights.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I love me some Ed Westwick, don't get me wrong. But I haven't seen him in anything other than Gossip Girl (and a small part in Son of Rambow) so it could very well be that it is Chuck Bass that I love so very much, not Ed.

I don't know, he just isn't who I pictured when I pictured Heathcliff. Of course, neither was Tom Hardy, and I still liked that adaptation.

I think Gemma Arterton (Ms. Fields from Quantum of Solace) will be a good Cathy, though. As good as Charlotte Riley, who was in the other version done this year? I don't know. We'll see. (Charlotte Riley, by the way, is absolutely beautiful. Here's a pic from the film. See?)

Friday, May 15, 2009


Dave Letterman is not funny.

Just an observation.


OMG, readers, I had quite the experience tonight.

I went to a book reading for a book about romance novels. I know, I know. Gimme a break, I have no life. The reading was good, I enjoyed it, but what I was really struck by were the people there.

There are definitely some stereotypes about romance novel readers and many of the stereotypes are unfair. But I think that anyone in that bookstore tonight would have thought that the stereotype was dead on.

Now, to be clear, I'm not judging these people in any way. Hello, I was there, too. And on a Friday evening. But still.

Man, I wish I knew how to describe it without coming across as a TOTAL judgmental bitch, but I don't. Suffice to say, I was one of the youngest persons there, one of the thinnest, and I think undoubtedly the best dressed. All I could think was that this is what most people think of when they think of women who read romance novels.

Man, I reread this and I think I sound like a total bitch. So let me clarify. It's not that I thought these women were negative in anyway, it was just that they all seemed so similar to each other, physically and in other ways. So much that I felt like I stuck out. And, their similarities seemed to match the stereotype, which is often viewed as negative. Does that make any more sense? Probably not. For an attorney I'm pretty crappy at conveying my meaning.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009


I am rather amused at the young woman who works in the other office on our floor. I have encountered her in the restrooms, and because the toilets are weak-flushers, I know she ALWAYS uses a seat protector. (It never goes down with the TP.) Safe to assume she's more germ-conscious than the average gal?

Well, as I learned this week, she's apparently only conscious of other people's germs, because I TOTALLY SAW HER LEAVE THE STALL AND GO OUT WITHOUT WASHING HER HANDS. And in front of someone, too! I would think that even non-washers would be shamed into it!

Guess not.

She must think her germs are soooo much better than mine. What a bitch.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Friday, May 8, 2009

Nerd Rant

Okay, I realize that this is a seriously nerdy rant, but this nerd is PISSED!

When I took Advanced Legal Research in law school, we got a tour of both the law library and the University's main library. And we learned all about federal depositories. All over the country, libraries are designated as federal depositories, which means they have federal government documents available for free. It's a pretty sweet deal. They even get official stickers to display.

Now, I love my alma mater's library and law library. They rock. And after being a managing editor of a law journal, I am very well-acquainted with both.

Then I graduated and moved.

Seriously, the worst thing about being a practicing lawyer is that I don't have those awesome resources at my fingertips.

But at least we have a state law library, right? ONE WOULD THINK.

I went looking for a government document today at the state law library. I found the SuDoc number in the catalog. When I asked the librarian where it was, this exchange occurred:

LIBRARIAN: "Oh, we don't have that."

ME: "Then why is it in your catalog?"

LIBRARIAN: "We can't get to it. It's microfiche, it's in the basement. We can't take you down there. And we don't have a working microfiche if we were to get it for you."

ME (thinking): Why the fuck are you a federal depository if you can't let me access the document? SURRENDER YOUR STICKER, DAMMIT!

But because I'm nice, I just had them check if the other federal depository in town had it. The other library had it, and it was SUPER EASY AND ACCESSIBLE. Plus, the nice librarian helped me try to track something else down for like 20 minutes. Lesson? Non-academic libraries suck ass. And next time I am at the state law library, I am ripping their official federal depository sticker off the wall. (Just kidding.)

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Things That I Love Today

1. Having the delicious taste of putrid seepage from your recently removed wisdom tooth cavity fill your mouth at random times. Who needs lunch when you can snack on that all day?

2. Job postings that are still posted at frequently used databases, despite having a post date of Oct. 24, 2008. It's even better when you email the contact person and she tells you thr application deadline was Oct. 14, 2008. That's not confusing or misleading AT ALL.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Bad Day

Do you ever have one of those days where it seems like the world and everyone in it would be better off if you didn't exist?

I'm having one of those days.

Bad Day

Do you ever have one of those days where it seems like the world and everyone in it would be better off if you didn't exist?

I'm having one of those days.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Pavlovian Kill Response

I really want to punch this lady in the face:

How about, instead of being intentionally misleading, you just tell the tailor that you want your clothes taken in, okay? Instead, this lady tells the tailor all about how she's eating food that is generally fattening, and then has the nerve to get sassy when the woman is understandably confused. What an f'ing bitch. Seriously, I want to punch her in her stupid face, over and over again, until her blood runs in the streets.

In case you can't tell, I have anger issues.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Slight Rant

I have a lot of pet peeves. Lately I've been noticing one shows up with regularity. It really, really annoys me when women malign the color pink because it is "too girly" or because they are "tomboys." Similarly, it really, really annoys me when women malign certain fashion styles for the same reason.

Maybe I just don't understand because I happen to like pink very much. It is one of my favorite colors whether it be pale, bright, or nearly red. But even if a woman doesn't like pink because it is not aesthetically pleasing to her, why can't she just say so? Insulting something because it is "girly" is essentially implying that feminine (and female) things are undesirable.

I was watching What Not to Wear on TLC yesterday, and the woman on the show kept saying that she didn't like all the "girly" clothes. In response, Clinton said, "But you are a GIRL." Thank you, Clinton, for getting to the point.

I will never understand why so many women insist on denying their femininity. What is wrong with looking like a woman when you ARE a woman? (Heck, what's wrong with it if you're a man as long as you want to look that way?) If it's not your cup of tea to look feminine, then that's okay, too. Just come up with a reason that's better than essentially saying "looking feminine is bad."

That is what really bothers me about it. I've never heard anyone express such distain for the color blue; only pink has this negative connotation attached to it.

Now I know that a few of my friends who don't like pink are not really the "girly" type, but there's a problem with that as well. First, what is wrong with being "girly"? That certainly doesn't define who you are. And second, what you wear cannot define what kind of woman you are. You have to do that yourself. So if you don't want to be a weak, frivolous person, don't be. Wearing pink or wearing a skirt isn't going to override what is on the inside.

Bottom line: My concern with the women that insist on maligning pink is that, someday, they may have daughters. And if they send the message that pink is bad because pink is for girls, isn't there a chance that their daughters will pick up on the implication that girls are bad?

Friday, May 1, 2009


I have two teabags in my mouth right now. Literally.

I though that was amusing enough to share.


I just got my wisdom teeth out, and the only yogurt at my parents house is Activia.

This may end badly. For my underpants. (Think Kristen Wiig as Jamie Lee Curtis.)

TMI? Sorry. (It's a joke.)