Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Yukos, the troubled Russian oil giant, has filed for bankruptcy protection in US courts. Very clever move on their part, I'd say, if just because it creates confusion and stir among potential buyers (i.e. Gazprom). International law is fun like that, very few real rules (i.e. genocide, slavery and piracy are BAD, that's as firm as a rule as you get in international law), just some norms that nations ignore at their leisure.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Took my first final of my last semester of law school. Two to go, and a paper for one of my graduate classes, then I'm officially done with law school. Yay!
Trip to Tijuana yesterday with my NAFTA politics class to see the Mattel maquiladora. Was interesting. The factory was interesting, although not very depressing, no more so than any regular semi-automated factory; turns out Mattel actually seems to have a sense of corporate responsibility. The line workers get paid $8/day, but Mattel provides supplemental stuff that the government doesn’t, like free food, vaccinations and transportation, in order to make sure its workers show up. An engineer led our factory tour, which means we got about 2 hours of talking about industrial processes (I now know the difference between injection molding and blow molding), got to watch toys being safety tested on stairs, ViewMaster reels made, boxes printed, bubble “vacuum cleaners” being stress-tested on a conveyer belt, etc. Sort of interesting, they’re very worried about being competitive with China; the engineer showed us their machine for screwing in the screws on Magna Doodles, and noted that in Mattel’s Chinese factories, they’d just use 14 laborers, one for each screw. And China is still cheaper overall. “Labor is the one resource the world has in excess,” said one of them, which seems very true (and horrible). And, as you’d expect, although the professor seemed mildly surprised, the VP said NAFTA had had minimal impact on them, except for causing more red tape.
Two pictures of the hovels near the maquiladora. Mexico has very little in the way of consumer credit, so people buy little plots of land and build onto their houses as they can afford it.
Trip to Tijuana yesterday with my NAFTA politics class to see the Mattel maquiladora. Was interesting. The factory was interesting, although not very depressing, no more so than any regular semi-automated factory; turns out Mattel actually seems to have a sense of corporate responsibility. The line workers get paid $8/day, but Mattel provides supplemental stuff that the government doesn’t, like free food, vaccinations and transportation, in order to make sure its workers show up. An engineer led our factory tour, which means we got about 2 hours of talking about industrial processes (I now know the difference between injection molding and blow molding), got to watch toys being safety tested on stairs, ViewMaster reels made, boxes printed, bubble “vacuum cleaners” being stress-tested on a conveyer belt, etc. Sort of interesting, they’re very worried about being competitive with China; the engineer showed us their machine for screwing in the screws on Magna Doodles, and noted that in Mattel’s Chinese factories, they’d just use 14 laborers, one for each screw. And China is still cheaper overall. “Labor is the one resource the world has in excess,” said one of them, which seems very true (and horrible). And, as you’d expect, although the professor seemed mildly surprised, the VP said NAFTA had had minimal impact on them, except for causing more red tape.
Two pictures of the hovels near the maquiladora. Mexico has very little in the way of consumer credit, so people buy little plots of land and build onto their houses as they can afford it.
Monday, December 06, 2004
For those of you curious as to what I've been doing the last two years, here are some of my observations on law school to a friend considering it:
The common law tends to be very "detail oriented" and spends a lot of time focusing on facts (as opposed to civil law systems, i.e. every country in the world except the English speaking ones, which are more conceptual in spirit). I'm conceptual, too, which is why I enjoy the Masters more (political science/international relations needing no facts whatsoever ;)). Yet I did enjoy law school, and thought it was a positive learning and growth experience that I'd recommend to other people looking for that sort of thing. It's not as bad as they say, once you figure out the way things work. There are some silly things in law school, especially the first year. I about died when they told us we'd need to spend 60 hours a week studying. Not true. They LIED. 3-10 hours a week is a more realistic estimate if you're a fast learner and have better things to do, although being at the top of the class requires quite a bit more studying and also figuring out how the law school "game" is played. Outlining is a scam, too (mind you, this is what most of said 60 hours are to be spent doing, you see the logic). I highlight relevant stuff in my textbook then put it into my class notes, that's the closest I come to "outlining." Although, of course, people have different learning styles, and outlining seems to work for some people. My class notes are pretty good, though; I type about 110 wpm (almost at the speed of spoken word, although I don't bother transcribing the lecture (some people do!)) and I format them nicely, so that helps a lot. I guess that's one of the big points I'm trying to make, there are lots of myths about law school, and I've chosen to ignore most of them and do what works for me (of course, the proof will be in the pudding once I'm out in the real world). Lots of silly stuff, essentially rites of passage. I think rites of passage are almost always a way to identify suckers who are willing toe the line (see above about working for big law firms and clerking with judges, i.e. those looking for slaves willing to toe the line), so the system has a certain twisted logic. Can you see why one of my professors called me an iconoclast, as I might have mentioned, but he meant it very nicely (as he writes articles on how law school should be changed to be more accommodating to - gasp - students, thus is well aware of these issues as well. There is a surprising amount of literature on it.) As to exams, it's basically buzzword bingo, you try to identify and use the same language to describe things that the professor used in his or her lecture. I find it a very dull and stilted way to write, unfortunately, but that's the secret. Almost all class grades are based entirely on a final exam (and maybe a few participation points); a few have papers or midterms. There is a curve, and people don't seem to like it. I think curves are inherently evil, but it's survivable. The Socratic method is okay, you get used to it. Not all professors use it, and no one gets called on that often (maybe 5 or so times a semester, at most). It did help me get over a mild aversion to speaking in public, as once you get used to rambling aimlessly in public, you stop being humiliated by it. That was actually my biggest fear about law school, as I'd had a bad experience with an undergrad professor who used it to target students who irritated her (never me, she seemed to like me okay, or maybe I just lucked out, but one of my friends walked out of the class and flunked rather than go back to more abuse). At it's best, classroom discussion can become a very interesting dialogue, which is when law school is at its best. Although it has degenerated into a shouting match a couple of times (people get very heated about economics!). That's another thing, I read up a bit on basic economic principles, as my own knowledge was spotty; the law and economics movement is chic right now, and it helps to know how to talk THAT talk, too. Game theory is also another thing to maybe read up on in a very minor way, if you haven't read much about it (I keep avoiding it like the plague, bah, mathematicians attempting to predict human behavior indeed). You hear people talking about zero sum games and even the prisoner's dilemma ever so often. Um, that’s about it for general law school observations. As one of the drunken attorneys at the Mensa meeting told me, it all does come together in the end. There is sort of a method to the madness, ultimately. But not really. Once you've got the basics, it's mostly all just made up on the fly. And THAT is the real lesson of law school...heh heh.
The common law tends to be very "detail oriented" and spends a lot of time focusing on facts (as opposed to civil law systems, i.e. every country in the world except the English speaking ones, which are more conceptual in spirit). I'm conceptual, too, which is why I enjoy the Masters more (political science/international relations needing no facts whatsoever ;)). Yet I did enjoy law school, and thought it was a positive learning and growth experience that I'd recommend to other people looking for that sort of thing. It's not as bad as they say, once you figure out the way things work. There are some silly things in law school, especially the first year. I about died when they told us we'd need to spend 60 hours a week studying. Not true. They LIED. 3-10 hours a week is a more realistic estimate if you're a fast learner and have better things to do, although being at the top of the class requires quite a bit more studying and also figuring out how the law school "game" is played. Outlining is a scam, too (mind you, this is what most of said 60 hours are to be spent doing, you see the logic). I highlight relevant stuff in my textbook then put it into my class notes, that's the closest I come to "outlining." Although, of course, people have different learning styles, and outlining seems to work for some people. My class notes are pretty good, though; I type about 110 wpm (almost at the speed of spoken word, although I don't bother transcribing the lecture (some people do!)) and I format them nicely, so that helps a lot. I guess that's one of the big points I'm trying to make, there are lots of myths about law school, and I've chosen to ignore most of them and do what works for me (of course, the proof will be in the pudding once I'm out in the real world). Lots of silly stuff, essentially rites of passage. I think rites of passage are almost always a way to identify suckers who are willing toe the line (see above about working for big law firms and clerking with judges, i.e. those looking for slaves willing to toe the line), so the system has a certain twisted logic. Can you see why one of my professors called me an iconoclast, as I might have mentioned, but he meant it very nicely (as he writes articles on how law school should be changed to be more accommodating to - gasp - students, thus is well aware of these issues as well. There is a surprising amount of literature on it.) As to exams, it's basically buzzword bingo, you try to identify and use the same language to describe things that the professor used in his or her lecture. I find it a very dull and stilted way to write, unfortunately, but that's the secret. Almost all class grades are based entirely on a final exam (and maybe a few participation points); a few have papers or midterms. There is a curve, and people don't seem to like it. I think curves are inherently evil, but it's survivable. The Socratic method is okay, you get used to it. Not all professors use it, and no one gets called on that often (maybe 5 or so times a semester, at most). It did help me get over a mild aversion to speaking in public, as once you get used to rambling aimlessly in public, you stop being humiliated by it. That was actually my biggest fear about law school, as I'd had a bad experience with an undergrad professor who used it to target students who irritated her (never me, she seemed to like me okay, or maybe I just lucked out, but one of my friends walked out of the class and flunked rather than go back to more abuse). At it's best, classroom discussion can become a very interesting dialogue, which is when law school is at its best. Although it has degenerated into a shouting match a couple of times (people get very heated about economics!). That's another thing, I read up a bit on basic economic principles, as my own knowledge was spotty; the law and economics movement is chic right now, and it helps to know how to talk THAT talk, too. Game theory is also another thing to maybe read up on in a very minor way, if you haven't read much about it (I keep avoiding it like the plague, bah, mathematicians attempting to predict human behavior indeed). You hear people talking about zero sum games and even the prisoner's dilemma ever so often. Um, that’s about it for general law school observations. As one of the drunken attorneys at the Mensa meeting told me, it all does come together in the end. There is sort of a method to the madness, ultimately. But not really. Once you've got the basics, it's mostly all just made up on the fly. And THAT is the real lesson of law school...heh heh.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Hey I’ve come up with an idea. I’m going to rate dictators, past and present on their fetishes and hobbies when they weren’t busy repressing their people. E.g. Kim Jong Il gets a negative million points for cool for his Daffy Duck collection. Gold toilet seats get you negative points for taste. Catherine the Great gets major points for the Hermitage, as does Louis XIV for Versailles; at least they spent their peasants’ desperately needed food money on great artwork and architecture rather than e.g. Daffy Duck memorabilia. This is why I like the French and the Russians, repressive as their leaders were. They had style and didn’t do things by halves.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Friday, October 22, 2004
Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has written a book. Watch the video blurb if you get a chance (in which Stewart says he likes to buy books off Amazon because he’s afraid of, oh, people, the outside world…germs). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446532681/ref=bxgy_cc_text_a/104-6537346-1827952 It’s Amazon’s #1 book right now. It’s funny, because there are several reviews of the book on Amazon accusing *Amazon* of liberal bias for promoting Stewart’s book while giving a “chilly reception” to upstanding Republican authors. Perhaps it’s just because they can’t write, and the books don’t sell well? No, couldn’t be. I read the back of cereal boxes, for heaven's sake, and I'd read a book by Ann Coulter if she could write half as well as something a Kellog's or Post marketing executive could spew out during the most liquid of lunches. The funniest reviews are the ones accusing Stewart of historical inaccuracy (duh! It’s a parody). My favorite review: “The problem with this book: It's made by the Daily Show, the worst news show on TV period(.). It's weird Liberal anchor man is all goofy. When I get home from work, my mother and I will watch this show and just look at each other at how incompetent it is and even laugh outright sometimes at it. And this is the only news show I'm aware of that doesn't even have one correspondent actually in Iraq (where we're fightin)!” How can people just not “get” it? I mean, what real news show sends correspondents trick-or-treating on embassy row in DC? Can you see Dan Rather skipping along dressed like a pirate and carrying a plastic pumpkin full of candy?
Interesting factoid from the reviews: The Daily Show recently (and somewhat scandalously) won the Television Critics Association's award for outstanding news and public affairs series.
Interesting factoid from the reviews: The Daily Show recently (and somewhat scandalously) won the Television Critics Association's award for outstanding news and public affairs series.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Stupid people tricks.
Spoke with my ex-boyfriend today; he called and we had a pleasant enough chat, although it is very weird to talk to him these days. Anyway, he had a story about his mother. She is, quite literally, one of the most nastily bitter and stupidest people I've ever met (I doubt the two factors are unrelated). She recently got a new Lexus and accidentally put diesel fuel in the tank. Yes, diesel fuel. But that’s not the really stupid part. She realized her mistake before she started the car but figured, "gasoline is gasoline," and drove off (yet another linguistic insight from the woman who once said, "Bourgeois means poor. I know; I'm from Montreal."). Thus she now has a $10,000 engine replacement bill. She blames the Lexus, too, apparently for not being able to tolerate diesel fuel (because it couldn’t possibly be because she’s rock stupid, now could it?).
Spoke with my ex-boyfriend today; he called and we had a pleasant enough chat, although it is very weird to talk to him these days. Anyway, he had a story about his mother. She is, quite literally, one of the most nastily bitter and stupidest people I've ever met (I doubt the two factors are unrelated). She recently got a new Lexus and accidentally put diesel fuel in the tank. Yes, diesel fuel. But that’s not the really stupid part. She realized her mistake before she started the car but figured, "gasoline is gasoline," and drove off (yet another linguistic insight from the woman who once said, "Bourgeois means poor. I know; I'm from Montreal."). Thus she now has a $10,000 engine replacement bill. She blames the Lexus, too, apparently for not being able to tolerate diesel fuel (because it couldn’t possibly be because she’s rock stupid, now could it?).
Monday, October 18, 2004
Interesting Crossfire episode with Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." I've pasted some of the most insightful gems here, a full transcript is available at the following address: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html.
STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
And:
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority. Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.
CARLSON: Oh, OK.STEWART: What do you think?BEGALA: Let me change the subject.STEWART: Where's your moral outrage on this?CARLSON: I don't have any.STEWART: I know.
And:
STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
And yet more:
STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great. BEGALA: We do, do... STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it. CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely.CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you... STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: What is wrong with you?
And, Stewart’s best gem:
CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion. …
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.
STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
And:
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority. Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.
CARLSON: Oh, OK.STEWART: What do you think?BEGALA: Let me change the subject.STEWART: Where's your moral outrage on this?CARLSON: I don't have any.STEWART: I know.
And:
STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
And yet more:
STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great. BEGALA: We do, do... STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it. CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely.CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you... STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: What is wrong with you?
And, Stewart’s best gem:
CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion. …
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.
Human Folly.
I’ve decided to start a (very small) museum dedicated to human folly. I'll post pictures on my website if I get around to it. I’ve already two exhibits in the acquisition stage: a pets.com sock puppet ($5 on eBay) and a stock certificate from my old employer (cash value: 18 cents). As my acquisitions budget is close to nill, I expect my museum to grow slowly, but I've just bid on an Enron stock cert on eBay, which will increase the size of my collections by half. If I feel like including historical folly, I’ll add a tulip bulb to the collection. Anyone who has any useless, tasteless dotcom related memorabilia or stock certificates not worth the paper on which they're printed, remember to send them to me before you jump off that ledge, okay?
And yes, this sort of thing is how I keep myself busy and entertained: how many people do you know with their own self-declared museums, no matter how small? ;)
I’ve decided to start a (very small) museum dedicated to human folly. I'll post pictures on my website if I get around to it. I’ve already two exhibits in the acquisition stage: a pets.com sock puppet ($5 on eBay) and a stock certificate from my old employer (cash value: 18 cents). As my acquisitions budget is close to nill, I expect my museum to grow slowly, but I've just bid on an Enron stock cert on eBay, which will increase the size of my collections by half. If I feel like including historical folly, I’ll add a tulip bulb to the collection. Anyone who has any useless, tasteless dotcom related memorabilia or stock certificates not worth the paper on which they're printed, remember to send them to me before you jump off that ledge, okay?
And yes, this sort of thing is how I keep myself busy and entertained: how many people do you know with their own self-declared museums, no matter how small? ;)
Animals are funny. I just bought bunny a used rainbow slinky from eBay for $1.40 total; the local House Rabbit Society website recommends them as good bunny toys, hope he likes it. A good soaking in soap should remove any nasty kid germs the slinky picked up during its previous incarnation.
New bird toys today, too, the source of great puzzlement and perhaps even anger to the two birds. You know where you stand with birds: I am in the "evil" category and don't expect that to change despite any number of bribes. I see that my male yellow bird has a crooked tail feather. I wondered why, but noticed the other day that the female has the habit of pulling his tail feather to make him move when he’s somewhere he oughtn’t be (i.e. anywhere she wants to be, i.e. anywhere he is).
As to the cats, noticed some dander on Djali, so gave him a bath. He kept shrieking his meow of death (I’M DYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYING), and Gypsy came and perched on the side of the tub and started to give her sympathetic, distressed meow. Such a sweet girl, she’s now engaged in some comfort grooming because it upset her so much. Poor Djali was literally in shock with horror once I pulled him out. He lay in my lap for several minutes goggling into empty space...this can’t happen to *me*…how could this happen to *me*… Puts up such an act, but a total baby underneath, a typical male.
New bird toys today, too, the source of great puzzlement and perhaps even anger to the two birds. You know where you stand with birds: I am in the "evil" category and don't expect that to change despite any number of bribes. I see that my male yellow bird has a crooked tail feather. I wondered why, but noticed the other day that the female has the habit of pulling his tail feather to make him move when he’s somewhere he oughtn’t be (i.e. anywhere she wants to be, i.e. anywhere he is).
As to the cats, noticed some dander on Djali, so gave him a bath. He kept shrieking his meow of death (I’M DYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYING), and Gypsy came and perched on the side of the tub and started to give her sympathetic, distressed meow. Such a sweet girl, she’s now engaged in some comfort grooming because it upset her so much. Poor Djali was literally in shock with horror once I pulled him out. He lay in my lap for several minutes goggling into empty space...this can’t happen to *me*…how could this happen to *me*… Puts up such an act, but a total baby underneath, a typical male.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Maria, Audrey and I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore’s biggest flaw as a director is his somewhat simplistic and sledgehammer approach to driving home his point, but I found it very effective. Moore’s two earlier documentaries were much more simplistic; this one shows a more mature and sober Moore. Good selection of footage. He managed to make both George Bushes and their cronies look both greedy and idiotic. And very, very evil. ;) Quite well done. Although of course the people in the administration surely don’t see themselves as selling out the American people in pursuit of their own economic self interest, there were several interesting connections drawn between Bush family and the Saud family and big oil. E.g. Karzai used to be an advisor to Unocal (coincidence? Hah). Also the large and mysterious influxes of money to the companies Bush Jr. ran – and ran into the ground – while his father was president suspected to have come from the Saudis. Also that Bush Jr. was investigated by the SEC in the early 90’s. Some wrenching scenes, too, of people both Iraqi and American crying over lost family members. It had fewer of Moore’s trademark “shock attacks” than his earlier movies and his tv show. This is my own favorite aspect of Moore’s work, except for the rather cruel-spirited argument with Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine; no matter how odious Heston may be, he is aging and slightly fuzzy-minded, and watching Moore verbally nail a doddering old man disturbed me. But taking potshots and politicians and businesspeople is always amusing, like shooting rather unpleasant fish in a barrel. Perhaps it is unsporting, but damn funny. My favorite part of the movie was when Moore took a bunch of recruitment brochures and enlistment paperwork to the street outside Capitol Hill and was trying to convince members of the House and Senate to enlist their own children (as Moore pointed out, only one person in Congress has a child serving in Iraq). The looks on the faces of the few politicians Moore managed to corner were priceless, although it was exactly what cynical ol’ me expected to see (i.e. are you frickin’ nuts!?) The audience actually applauded after the movie was over. Imagine Bush lost a few votes in that crowd. Moore just may do more to win the election for Kerry than Kerry’s own campaign.
Friday, May 07, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/07/soldier.charged/index.html. Female private charged with abuse of prisoners. What a weak-minded little fool she is. Just because her lover told her to torture prisoners, she did it with a smile on her face. Ick! Of course, as her sister pointed out, she?s only human. Yes, she is....a bad human. Obviously pathetic weakness runs in her family....I don?t care if she was a close relative, I?d be leading the charge to string her up. Especially if she was a close relative, I'd be absolutely ashamed to be related to such a snivelling, cowardly, pathetic little worm. "She obeys orders" indeed....gee, it was an order, I have no personal responsibility in the matter.... That's the oldest excuse in the book, and I think we should institute special penalties for anyone banal, trite or stupid enough to ever use it again. We all know how well it worked at the Nuremburg Trials. (Don't anyone get all huffy on me, I'm commenting on the banality of the excuse, and not making any attempt to compare to the degrees of evil involved. Of course, evil is almost always banal, isn't it...)
Yes, I'm being judgmental, but people like infuriate me. She's what I call "petty evil". The sort of evil kept in line by threats of punishment rather than any kind of moral concern. As soon as that threat seems to go away (I say seems, because I hope she gets the maximum possible penalty, and given the way the army needs a scapegoat right now, I imagine the chances are strong that these torturing idiots will get the maximum sentence. Now if only we can go after their officers...) they act out in bizarre and stupid ways. Absolutely loathsome. Must crack down, and crack down hard, and not just make a token effort of punishing the offenders (guess which one I think will actually happen).
I hate stupid, petty evil people.
Yes, I'm being judgmental, but people like infuriate me. She's what I call "petty evil". The sort of evil kept in line by threats of punishment rather than any kind of moral concern. As soon as that threat seems to go away (I say seems, because I hope she gets the maximum possible penalty, and given the way the army needs a scapegoat right now, I imagine the chances are strong that these torturing idiots will get the maximum sentence. Now if only we can go after their officers...) they act out in bizarre and stupid ways. Absolutely loathsome. Must crack down, and crack down hard, and not just make a token effort of punishing the offenders (guess which one I think will actually happen).
I hate stupid, petty evil people.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Had an idea today. You see, I get a lot of junk mail. I think junk mail that goes to an actual person, e.g. the money laundering scams, should be sent to each other. So when I get one from a guy in, say, Togo or Zambia, I'll forward it to that unhappy widow in Nigeria who lost her husband due to "the situation" in her country, or to the poor (well, "rich") unfortunate in Kuwait with cancer, along with the suggestion that I can't help them, but I bet they could help each other. I may also offer my services as an English language consultant...only 2.8 million dollars. I hate stupid people.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
New laptop on the way! Very spiffy, am pleased with it, as has been 4+ years since I've bought a new computer. Have upgraded the existing ones, but not quite the same. Now a brief musing on the miracles of electrical tape. I fixed my old laptop's power supply to get me through the next week until the new one arrives. Jury rigged, but it works! Amazing how dependent one is on electricity and how one forgets until one's laptop power supply dies right before one's civil procedure class. But now it is charging, and no raging inferno that I've noticed so far. Scissors and electical tape solved the problem, as they always do. For bigger jobs, it is duct tape and scissors, but really, the same principle. Name me a problem that duct or electrical tape can't solve (although perhaps it'd require a creative application), and it's probably not a problem worth considering.
Had my first strawberry crop yesterday, crop being defined loosely as a single strawberry. An alpine strawberry, close to wild type strawberries, bought at cousin Michal's recommendation. They're yummy. I saw that Djali was licking the leaves of the strawberry plants lovingly, perhaps he's already partaken of their bounty. I wonder if I qualify for farm subsidies now, as I've 14 strawberry plants and a whole bunch of culinary herbs.
Now an amusing quote from http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/27/un.britain/index.html on weapons inspectors being spied upon. "Butler told Australian radio he believed he was being bugged by at least four of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, adding, 'I don't know what the Chinese were doing.'" My first thought was, only four?! Does that mean I have a jaundiced view of world politics?
Had my first strawberry crop yesterday, crop being defined loosely as a single strawberry. An alpine strawberry, close to wild type strawberries, bought at cousin Michal's recommendation. They're yummy. I saw that Djali was licking the leaves of the strawberry plants lovingly, perhaps he's already partaken of their bounty. I wonder if I qualify for farm subsidies now, as I've 14 strawberry plants and a whole bunch of culinary herbs.
Now an amusing quote from http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/27/un.britain/index.html on weapons inspectors being spied upon. "Butler told Australian radio he believed he was being bugged by at least four of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, adding, 'I don't know what the Chinese were doing.'" My first thought was, only four?! Does that mean I have a jaundiced view of world politics?
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Friday, January 30, 2004
Well, this past week has been positively exhausting. My grandfather and my uncle died within twelve hours of each other, my grandfather of pneumonia and my uncle from complications after heart surgery. I flew to Arkansas for my grandfather's funeral and drove to LA for my uncle's. I just got back a few hours ago. I was so tired I fell asleep on the couch for an hour because I literally could not make it to the bedroom. Although I did manage to check e-mail before passing out. ;) Things were as pleasant as could be expected. Got to see many people I hadn't seen in ages - cousins, family friends, etc. - and met a few new ones. I'd never met my step-uncles (my grandfather's second wife's children) and am glad I got a chance to do that. They were all nice, and one of them was an attorney with lots of interesting stories. Always nice to have someone with a somewhat similar background around, and he seemed to feel the same. I also got to spend time in Memphis, although I'm neutral about having had a chance to do it. Had I had more time, I would have seriously considered visiting Graceland just for the tacky bragging rights and to get lots of Elvis-themed postcards for friends and family. As it was, all I brought back are some photos. Here is one of our land in Arkansas:
Monday, January 12, 2004
Welp, just finished my "updates" for my Public Interest Law class. Then I got to cleaning out some old e-mail when I noticed my Inbox is 225 megs and dates back to 2000. No wonder it gets corrupted on occasion... Sort of creepy, found e-mail from two deceased relatives lurking about in there. Classes start tomorrow.
Saturday, January 03, 2004
http://tlc.discovery.com/news/afp/20031229/magazine.html?ct=3498.72619452984 When books attack...Be careful, it could happen to you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)