noogies
so i usually try to keep my blogging time to 20 minutes per night, but last night i got all carried away. i thought to myself, "self, wouldn't it be funny if on the last night of the wondeful classmates, i made up fictional quotes about non-existing classmates?" "yes," myself replied, "that might just be the kind of thing that people enjoy."
so my selves were in agreement, and i set out to find two really funny pictures about which i could create fictional wonderful classmates. i found some great ones, and spent close to an hour writing all of that crap you saw in yesterday's entry, then i spent another fifteen minutes figuring out how to resize them so that they'd resemble BLS facebook pics... you get the point. it was a big job, but fun.
i was really happy with the results, and was looking forward to all of the funny responses on the message board. (your posts on the board are like doggy treats for old menlove... i'm crazy for them.) i was pretty sure i'd written a winner.
flash forward to school today, walking around before or after class or during break, i saw several people reading my blog (also like candy to menlove), but the images i'd worked so hard on only appeared on one or two peoples' screens! for most of you, the images failed to render.
therefore, what i'd written about the "winners" was pretty much meaningless for most of you.
anyhow, it was a bummer. tomorrow i will be posting the real final two wonderful folks. however, i still want to provide the links so that those of you who care can see what "uncle denny" and "lucy" looked like in their bls photos.
here's lucy's link: http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm
here's uncle denny's link: www.worldportrait.com/images/0010.jpg (unfortunately, this site is down as of wednesday night... if the link doesn't work when you try it and you are really desperate to see uncle denny, do a google image search for " worldportrait " and you'll see at least a thumbnail pic... denny's the one in the hella safari hat strumming the racket.)
shmeh.
so speaking of hellerstein, i thought today's class was really a good one. it's rare that he allows us to let loose like that, and it felt good. although there certainly was a bit too much of people just shouting out their opinions while other people (including hellerstein) were talking, many good points were raised.
also, as usual, there were way, way too many dudes talking, and too many women sitting there shaking their heads, but not adding their voices...
that sucks.
but all in all, it was probably the coolest con law class in weeks, so props go out to hellerstein for making it happen.
property today... not so good. beryl was under the weather, and taking notes for two hours today, i felt like i was flailing around in the middle of a swarm bees.
she basically covered five cases at once, rattled off all sorts of definitions, and reviewed about a half dozen concepts, all at the same time. literally. if you were to read my notes from today's class out loud, it would sound like a room full of schizophrenic monkeys talking dirty during an orgy.
on top of this, the microphone kept clicking on and off, often several times during a single word, and professor jones just kept coughing and blowing her nose. it was madness.
anyhow, hopefully she'll be feeling better soon, and they'll get the mike fixed by then.
adios, amigos.
i'll leave you with a transcript from the greatest five seconds of class this week:
tom: "sure they can do it. that's the state's job!"
hellerstein: "what, to cut your noogies off?"
classic.
posted by menlove @ 11:16 PM
22 comments
22 Comments:
i was hoping you'd post something about that "noogies" line.
i was also annoyed at how few of my fellow women in class spoke up during the abortion debates, but what really burned me was that right in the middle of it, when things were getting really hot, i looked down toward the front of the room and noticed that two of our female classmates were SHOE SHOPPING ON THE INTERNET as the debate was raging around them.
am i wrong to be bothered by this? the men who hoot and holler around us will likely be the same ones who legislate on our bodies, our sexuality, and our reproductive rights someday. let's at least act like it matters to us.
finally menlove, i was able to see the pic of lucy and uncle denny yesterday. sorry i withheld the menlove doggy treat by not posting about it. hope this entry will suffice.
to the girl who commented on people shopping during class: i'm not sure who you think you are to criticize and comment what other people are doing. I for one did not shop yesterday but do frequently and do not think you should be telling anyone how to spend their time.
I tried to keep it related to the constitution, but too many people prefer to deal in extreme hypo's and "feelings". Get your hugs at home, and stick to buying shoes. The rational among us we take care of the important matters. T H
Don't harsh on the girls for shopping online... there were just as many dudes on Party Poker and ESPN. But maybe these people read their shit at home and didn't need to have a hyper-sensitive rhetorical debate about something that we can't possible resolve in a 75 minute class period.
Amen to that.
To Anonymous re: crack prices
(who, btw Menlove is an actual dude's name, as you'll notice its underlined as opposed to the other, actually anon people like me)
Your intellectual intesity frightens me becasue:
a) You did those calculaions on the back of an envelope (cuz it would take me at least an entire 8 1/2 x 11;
b) that you used that word that means writing that I've never heard of
c) combined it with some serioius math and
d) an impressive knowledge of the imperial system to boot.
Also here's hoping thoses numbers are derived from google and not personal knowledge.
Well done
I am not sure about any of the other females in our class, and I don't want to speak on anyone else's behalf - but the reason I didn't speak in class on an issue that I feel strongly about and have been actively involved in - is that the class wasn't about how you felt about this issue morally or politically. To me, it was irrelevant whether you thought that this was a woman's fundamental right (which I believe it is) or whether you thought it was wrong. But rather, the issue was whether the court was right in deeming the legislation as violating the constitution. To me, this was an academic question, and I didn't necessarily have the answer. I was ready to speak and debate - but on the issue at hand, not about my moral or political views which were irrelevant in this situation.
-Swati
Tom Hunter, You are the funniest conservative fuck I have ever heard, and I am glad to have had the oppty to hear your point-of-view in class. Keep it real, even if you do have to get a vasectomy.
You tell 'em Swati. Semper Fi
I find it ironic that people who think that Roe has "no constitutional basis" don't feel the same way about Marbury v. Madison. Remember that the text of the constiitution says no more about "judicial review" than it does a "right to privacy." In fact, you might say that judicial review is found, God forbid, only in the "penumbras" of Article III.
LochnerMonster: First, textual evidence doesn't cut it, right? It's got to be IN THERE. Penumbras are textual evidence. Second, exactly what textual evidence are you referring to that gives the judiciary the sole right to interpret the Constitution and invalidate Congressional decrees? Remember how utterly undemocratic a power that is.
Finally, read The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury.
the same values that kicked your ass last, last 2 elections.
no I think judicial activism kicked our ass the first time.
Penal Bonds, why do you libbies always insist on covering up your bankrupt political and social theories by bashing conservatives as racist bible thumpers? I find your words to be deeply insulting and quite frankly, the very apex of stupidity. Attack the ideas dickhead, not the stereotype rushing around in your confused head. Of course judicial action is vital. No conservative worth his salt would argue otherwise. But beware of the nine kings. Just because extensive judicial action in freeing blacks from the vile racism of the South was necessary 40 years ago, doesn't mean we should defer to the Judiciary at all times. Balance baby, it's all about balance. Just like when the legislatures weren't doing enough to end Jim Crow we needed a push from other branches (Mr. Kennedy used his Exec powers too, remember), so too, when the Supremes start adjudicating in areas in which they have no business, a good co-branch slap is in order. This simply is no basis for the Supreme Court of the United States to read the Right of Privacy into the Constitution or that it was part of the Framer’s intent. I want it to be there too, I really do, but it ‘aint.
That's all any of this is about. It's not about God or morality or right or wrong or even defining when life begins. It's about looking to the Constitution, determining the Framer's intent, and applying it. It's about representative democracy that heeds the will of the majority but is always concerned with the Constitutional rights of the minority. And it's a work in progress, imperfect, but chugging along all the same. Hey, I'm all for the Right of Privacy and protecting a woman's sovereignty over her body, but, in the famous words of Jerry McGuire- “show me the money!” A legitimate ends doesn’t justify an illegitimate means. Most of all, Mr./Mrs. Penal, take a chill pill.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
i was unhappy that someone called a fellow poster a "dickhead," but i let it go.
but i deleted the one that said "eat shit liberal turds." by now you all should know me well enough to know that that type of crap doesn't fly here.
sorry to delete your long and pretty interesting post, anonymous, but all the "libbies" and "connies" have to be civil at the very least.
proceed.
Gee, Anonymous, looks like I drew blood.
Personal calumny aside, let me see if I can help you digest your Hallmark arguments into intelligible form:
First: you acknowledge that we needed the judiciary to right some wrongs that legislatures couldn’t or wouldn’t get around to, but we needn’t defer to judges “all the time.” Who could disagree? “It’s all about balance.” No kidding. Let me clarify: you conservative fear-mongers have invented and circulated (quite effectively)the fiction that the Great and Powerful judiciary is poised to enslave the people and their elected representatives to its whim, disaster to follow. But let us know, please, when that happened last. Was it during the most liberal period in the court’s history, when the rights to travel, privacy, etc. were found? Perhaps it’s now, with the court a vote away from conservative majority and a federal judiciary being slowly stocked with lockstep Scalia robots. The point is that vertical and horizontal branches of government do, in fact, balance each other, and for good reason: sometimes the demos is retarded. Why else do you imagine the Framers created a non-elected branch in the first place?
Second: I’m pretty sure I know what you think the Framers’ intent was, but, to recall first semester: “We must never forget that it is the Constitution we are expounding.” That document, in Marshall’s words, is necessarily composed only of “great outlines.” And to paraphrase Hellerstein, I’m not even sure Scalia agrees with you. Please explain how a short document composed largely of vague words sets the iron boundaries you embrace? Who’s to say what the Court’s “business” is, exactly, as though it were a real estate agent licensed to practice only in Brooklyn Heights. While you’re at it, you can explain how “representative democracy…is always concerned with the Constitutional rights of the minority” if not for institutions like the Supreme Court.
-Penal Bonds
PS: I’ll show you the money. It’s on your mom’s dresser.
I'm sorry but this is like, so not the menlovian I have come to know and love. I hate con law to begin with, and, though I don't argue that whats being debated here is among the most important legal issues of the day, I'm just not lovin' whats goin on here.
Trash me if you must, but I prefer the light-hearted banter of yore. I'd rather know how much everyone loves Sebok or a concise analysis of crack prices.
Just my $.02
I realize it's easy to sit around and attack people anonymously or under a pseudonym, but grow the fuck up. Everyone go home this weekend and ask mommy and daddy if you can trade your plastic spoons in for a fucking backbone. Il you believe in something strongly, by all means speak up. Do it intelligently, and have the BALLS (women can have proverbial balls) to take credit for it. Sitting there spewing forth whatever rhetoric you happen to pick up at the at last kool-aid function and attacking the other side does nothing for either cause. If you want an intelligent debate, fine. If all your looking for is a fight, fine also, just keep it out of class and here. I'll even volunteer to take all comers in which ever option you choose.
T Hunter
i miss the old menlove webpsage where we gossiped, talked shit and made love connections :(
So here's the important question...
Less filling, or tastes great?
I personally am having a lot of sex. A LOT.
Post a Comment
<< Home