Random diversion from the usual pretentious, third-person blogging:
It’s Christmastime. Yay! It’s also finals time. Boo. :(
The latter obliterates the joy of the former. I’m not in Massachusetts, decorating the tree with my super-adorable little siblings; I’m not shopping for presents; I’m not going to parties, drinking eggnog, or doing much of anything except outline while gnawing on candy canes. It’s really not Christmas until I’ve heard my fill of Beach Boys songs (with the occasional Snoopy’s Christmas or Stevie Wonder thrown in), sub-zero weather (okay, I’m not complaining about the 70-degree days, but, due to finals, my enjoyment of it was limited to the fact that I did not develop frostbite whilst changing my oil this morning), and baked goods. That happens, starting on the 20th.
The law school is kind enough to provide free coffee during exams. It’s really sweet – except, of course, for the fact that we don’t have any choice but to drink coffee and study until the wee hours of the morning. Yours truly hasn’t taken a law school exam (or done anything for a grade, actually) since April 2006. Little weirded out by getting back into the swing of things.
The highlight of the semester, academically, was winning Comment of the Semester in comp. con law. Explanation is below the fold.
Kvetching aside, I’m not fish food. My dad isn’t fish food. We were both almost fish food after a swimming mishap in September. (It involved, in my dad’s words, “Boneheaded fun.” It almost turned into one or both of us out in open ocean, with no means of getting to land.) Thankfully, this will be a normal Christmas season*.
Tammi has several posts about the Colorado shootings, the tragedy that happened, and the tragedy that was averted. There are certainly families whose lives are better for Jeanne Assam’s bravery.
In comp. con law/free expression, we discussed the justifications for free expression generally, and a free press, specifically. The class decided that a lot of this is political (necessary for the existence of a society free from government tyranny, etc). My professor (hello, Prof., if you are one of my blog-stalkers) said:
“That doesn’t tell us why we protect The National Enquirer as free speech. What does Britney Spears have to do with politics? or these stories about homerun records and baseball players who are on steroids? or these plainly false stories about space aliens that land in West Virginia?”
The Barry Bonds issue went into Congressional hearings. Heck, the SD Federalist Society put on a Barry Bonds/drug use/federalism event!
Me: “Those things are not always political at first, but may become political as the citizenry decides to take action. For example, after the Barry Bonds scandal that you mentioned and the associated public outcry, Congress held hearings on the use of steroids in professional sports. We protect speech that is not necesssarily political at the onset, but may become political as the people decide to make it so.”
Prof.: “Well, I agree with you on the baseball issue. But that does not tell us why we give Constitutional protection to stories about Britney Spears getting married in Vegas, or UFOs landing in West Virginia. What possible justification is there for allowing people to print things about aliens? What political issue is possibly involved with UFOs?”
Me, deadpan: “National defence.”