over the past few years i've become accustomed to (and by "accustomed to" i mean "tired of") people raising their eyebrows or rolling their eyes when i tell them i'm in law school. i've feigned laughter at some of the how-many-lawyers-does-it-take jokes that have followed. i've smiled as people have exclaimed, "uh-oh!" and taken a step back with their hands up in the air. because naturally, that's what lawyers do, of course. hold people up.

i don't know how to react towards the people who feel this way. on the one hand i want to smack them upside the head and point to the brilliant attorneys i've met and had the pleasure of working with. people who have made trips to guantanamo bay, on their own dime, to defend the rights of innocent men who were thrown into prison by a government desperate for foreign faces to point a finger at. people who defend women whose faces have been bashed in so badly that they are beyond recognition. people who give a middle finger to the system when it tries to deny them the right to marry based on gender. hell, even those people who just show up on a regular basis and do the best they can to help someone recover from a divorce, a bankruptcy, a car accident.

but then i hear some douchebag law student say something like, "dude, my offer totally sucks - i'm not making anywhere near six figures. i'm going to have to figure out some way to bill the hell out of my clients if i ever want to buy my place."

and i realize, oh riiiight -- you're the reason people dislike us so much.

listen babe, if you're willing to do things that are "ethically questionable" in exchange for cold, hard cash, i know of another career that would be a perfect fit for you. call me, we'll do lunch.

in a dog-eat-dog world, i apparently have all the bite and tenacity of a crippled vegetarian.

seriously, i would like to know when the game gets easier. i demand a full explanation from every twat attorney who has ever repeated the mantra "first year they scare you to death, second year they work you to death, and third year they bore you to death."

really?
rrrrrrrrrreallly, seth and amy?

because i gotta tell you, i'm hitting year three now and not only am i not bored but i'm just as scared and overworked as i was my first year. in fact, if it is at all possible, i'm probably more scared and overworked now than in my first year because at least when i messed up my first year i knew i had two more years to fix it. now every mistake is exaggerated into gossip-girl-style-melodrama.

and don't even get me started on that whole "awesome-summer-at-the-firm" experience. i'm still trying to shake the ten pounds and jaded business sense that gig left me with. trust, i am neither more attractive nor more intelligent because of it. i'm not even wealthier! i mean please, i could possibly handle losing the former two in exchange for the latter (because in theory the latter can help buy the former), but to lose out on all three fronts is just fundamentally wrong.

needless to say, i am in need of a major vacation from life. if i could hibernate for a good six months in a cave in alaska without the risk of running into governor palin and her shotgun i would be totally game. in the meantime this whole economy mess could be tidied up so that by the time i woke up everyone would be hiring again.

speaking of which (and i'm almost embarrased to admit this), i'm in the midst of dealing with a family member who is voting mccain/palin. and not in that sheepish-i'm-only-doing-it-for-party-loyalty kind of way, but in an all-out, email-forwarding, activist kind of way. her actions are quite shocking given that we were raised in similar households, with similar values, and are pursuing similar careers. you wouldn't even know she possessed a brain, though, with the level of intolerance and flat-out racism she has been displaying as of late. i don't know if it is possible to legally disown a cousin because of this, but i should seriously look into it because i can't have her crazy ass associated with me later in life when it comes time for me to be considered for something important. you know, assuming i ever make it that far with my weak bite and all.

if you have never had the pleasure of experiencing the glorious law school tradition that is moot court, allow me to explain how it works:

1) you are given a legal problem to which there is no clear answer in the law one way or the other.
2) you spend hours researching the law wondering how on god's green earth some of those morons ever made it to the supreme court.
3) you hit a golden case that says exactly what you need and leap for joy.
4) you proceed to write the most fantastic 10-page argument over the next five days.
5) two hours before your brief is due you happen upon another case which contradicts every point you just made in your fantastic argument.
6) you cry.

fun right? but oh no, it gets better! as if being humiliated on paper wasn't enough, then you get to argue your case in front of judges! this is basically the equivalent of standing in front of a firing squad and then leaping off the ground like a grasshopper as your assassins fire bullets at your feet and laugh maniacally, "dance, my senorita, dance!"

oh, and for whatever reason, you are really, really supposed to want to "advance" to the next round, so you can do this all over again, but with a much harder problem and against people who are smarter than you and never let their voices waver in court and do not need to clutch the podium to keep their hands from shaking.

don't get me wrong, i love a good challenge and nothing's better than a verbal duel between nerds. i just like being on the winning side of that challenge, not on the side that sits down drenched in sweat and trembling slightly after being lashed by judges.

i hope i advance.

anyone else ever wanted to make out with her opthomologist? just asking.
because you know, the whole experience has always struck me as being ever so bizarrely provocative.
the lighting, the proximity of lips, the gentle voice telling me not to cry...

really, nobody?

clearly i need to be getting more...er, some.
any.

ahhhh, the smell of heavy-bonded paper mixed with sweat and desperation can only mean one thing - interview season at the law school.

in many ways, interviewing for jobs is a lot like dating.

• you start by sending off your resume (read: biodata), waiting in nervous anticipation for the phone to ring.

• when they call, you play it cool. you want to let them know they're not the only game in town, but you don't want to come off as an ice-princess either.

• when you meet up for your first date, you agonize about what to wear. you want to dress to impress, but you don't want the other side thinking you're that kind of girl (you know, the one who'll interview with just about anybody).

• you try to "be yourself". you want to be memorable, but not in a what-was-that-girl-smoking kind of way. you want to make them laugh, but preferably with you as opposed to at you.

• and admittedly, sometimes you want to seem like you're really interested in the substance of what the other side has to offer, when in reality you're only after the cash. (i ain't sayin she a gold-digga, but you don't see her with no broke n*gga.)
  

as with dating, i have come to realize certain types (of firms) out there.

there are the unattainables, who love all else second to themselves and their beautifully-groomed stable of ivy-league thoroughbreds. they own wineries, golf courses and helicopters, and speak louis, prada, and bergdorf. for the most part i've learned to resent them, but a tiny part of me longs to be in the perfectly-toned arms of their polo-embossed comfort.

then there are the speed demons. they function on very little sleep and very large cups of coffee. they seriously love what they do, love the money they make doing what they do, or don't have anything else to do, but in any event are damn good at what they do. they either don't have families or have them but forget what they look like. i imagine i would initially get a rush from their high but would end up feeling attention-starved or run over.

next are the boutiques. they examine you with all the tact of a sorority sister examining your stripped body with a black sharpie in hand. i'd join, but i harbor enough self-loathing as it is.

and finally there are the labors of love. what they cannot give you in terms of superficial wealth they can give your with their hearts, wealth of experience, and the knowledge that you're doing good. though i might have been so idealistic as to fall in love with one of these in my early 20's, i have since been jilted. and have loans to pay and miles to go before i sleep.


though i attempt to ignore the self-feeding sense of impending doom that is starting to waft around campus, i cannot help but be a little nervous. if my dating track record is any indication of my future employer, i will collide headfirst into a passionate relationship with a firm that is all wrong for me, only to be fired shortly after i begin, to be left with a scar and a grudge that i will harbor for years to come. frankly, i don't think i can handle that. i have enough grudges as it is and taking on any more would require me to bump some otherwise well-deserved b*tches off my list.

on the other hand, i cannot exactly afford to be a free agent and avoid the job market altogether. not without a sugar daddy, anyway. so hopefully this dating/interviewing season will at the very least hook me up with someone with i can, as my parents would say, learn to love.

as mi madre would attest to, i do not have many redeeming qualities. i have a coarse brain/mouth filter. i dish it out but cannot take it. i am self-centered and i have horrible posture. however, one of my more admirable attributes (besides modesty) is that i do try, in good faith, not to judge others superficially. "try" being the operative word, of course, because there are some matters to which i have uncontrollable reactions. exhibit a: emails.

i am fully aware i should not judge a person by a means of communication that can be devoid of emotion, open to misinterpretation, and often composed in between browsing for new handbags and conducting job searches online. i have been involved in more misunderstandings with choices of words on aim than i care to discuss. and no matter what anyone says, following up a "sorry" with a :) is just effing obnoxious, even though that may not have been intended by the writer. but that's just my point - try as i might, something about a poorly thought-out email will make me draw brash conclusions about the writer, even before i've had a chance to discover in person what a let-down he or she has the potential to be.

hi arem,

this is [boy] from [biodata collection]

i guess our parents have communicated

anyways, i am writing to say hi

i'm in [city], [state]

i'm from the northeast originally

i moved here from outside of [city] and have a year left

it's nice, but cold

and i'm probably more of a city person

so tell me about yourself

i look forward to hearing from you

- [boy]

my knee-jerk reaction was to compose a reply asking him if his plentiful years of scientific education made him forget period placement and capitalization. and then to stalk him on friendster.

but perhaps i should look beyond this. is his period-key not functioning properly? were the breaks in his lines intended to meaningful in a subtle way? if so, how casually poetic. 'it's nice, but cold [dramatic pause], and i'm probably more of a city person...'. i could fall for that. maybe? hey, apparently he knows the difference between "it" and "it's", which is more than i can say for some supposed-geniuses. and he uses commas properly. and doesn't overuse! exclamation! points! and doesn't use unnecessary emoticons.

or perhaps my i should stick with my initial (jerk) reaction.

***

along with my issues concerning the written word came a snobbish attitude towards the idea of "reading" a book by listening to another person read it aloud to you. i'd never purchased books on tape, cd, dvd, or what have you. probably something about being raised in an asian household that treated any of the above as unacceptable shortcuts to a valuable education.

suckers.

recently i purchased my first audiobook from itunes - a short history of nearly everything, by bill bryson. within the first few seconds of listening to mr. bryson read aloud i fell in love him -- if there is one thing a former choir girl adores, after all, it is a soothing reading voice. combine that with the pseduo-academic nature of the book, and the experience was similar to sitting in on a lecture from one of my favorite prof's. the one whose class i never slept through even though it was a 9am all the way across campus at a school in the mountains where it snowed in terms of feet and not inches. the one i wasn't in love with.

as another plus, i had the positive feeling of being productive in an otherwise unproductive environment (driving through the midwest). given that i am typically a model of inefficiency who cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, this was wonderfully satisfying.

so my apologies to the audiobooks. not only do you save me from making terrible assumptions about your author based on writing style, you also make me feel as if i accomplished something when in fact i exerted no effort at all in the process. perfect for the well-meaning-but-lazy academic inside me.

i managed to battle the hype for a few days, but eventually i caved to the media blitz that is harry potter. even though the movie itself wasn't that great, the experience was a kick solely because of the fans. i've seen some die-hards for sure at star wars, the matrix, and lotr, but the gryffindor scarves and wizard costumes i saw were nothing for uber-fans to thumb their noses at. which got me thinking - which are worse? harry potter fans or lord of the rings fans?

hp fans: lust after, ahem, young adults (read: jailbait).
lotr fans: lust after elves.

hp fans: the kid behind you shrieks for his mommy.
lotr fans: the kid behind you shrieks in elvish.

hp fans: damned by the church.
lotr fans: vatican-friendly.

hp fans: know all the rules to quidditch.
lotr fans: know all the rules to d&d.

hp fans: wait, there's a colored person! back there, to the left!
lotr fans: who is this "colored person" you speak of?

hp fans: cuddle with their parents.
lotr fans: send their parents to voicemail.

i think i'm at a draw. if hp fans are annoying in a youthful, naive way, then lotr fans are annoying in an older person with too much free time kind of way. however, because bloggers also fall into that category (and lord knows i loves me some bloggers) i will allow hp to claim the award for most irritating fans -- congratulations, darlings.

and btw, harry dies.

ok, fine, he doesn't, but he should have. what's with this happy ending garbage?

like any child of the 80's, i spent a fair amount of time watching cartoons. my favorites were smurfs, jem, and she-ra (don't mess with the princess of power, b*tches). the little bro, on the other hand, was of the transformers/voltron/he-man camp. instead of giving each child his or her own tv, as seems to be the trend these days, my parents were all about sharing and stuff (just like papa smurf). so little brother suffered through my "i am she-ra!" episodes while i sat through his "i am voltron!" booms.

being the precocious lover of television i was, however, i secretly came to like his shows too. let's be clear, i did draw the line at wwf, but come on now, he-man and she-ra were brother and sister! sweet!

so when transformers came out this past weekend, i was just as excited as any of my fellow 80's children. and i must say (this is true especially for digital screens), it was awesome. no misunderstanding here -- there was no plot aside from saving-the-world-from-evil-robots, but the special effects, cars, and sound were amazing. i walked out of the cinema practically high-five'ing the testosterones.

i do have one bone to pick with the movie, though. it isn't a valid bone, really, because i realize the movie is:
a) geared towards boys,
b) mainly about blowing stuff up, and
c) based off a cartoon, for crissakes,

but it was something that made me itch anyway.

the only (girls? women?) female characters in the film needed to be given just a *little* more coverage. i know, i KNOW, i am getting older and skimpy midriffs and barely-there minis are probably all the rage these days at abercrombie, but...

seriously? is this standard teeniac-wear? back in the day i thought it was more like...

don't get me wrong - it's great that girls are now playing the roles of (hot) auto mechanics and (hot) computer programmers as opposed to just (hot) cheerleaders, but you have to note the irony of giving girls these brainiac roles to play while simultaneously requiring them to strip down a little more to play them.

yay, progress.

after reading about and viewing a mighty heart this past week, i came upon a surprisingly large number the posts angrily titling jolie's portrayal of pearl as "blackface". apparently, despite pearl's own request that jolie play the role, it is inappropriate for someone of french, czech, and native american background (jolie) to play the role of someone of dutch, african, and cuban background (pearl). actresses such as thandie newton or halie berry were considered more appropriate casting because they are of (partial) african background.

my knee-jerk reaction to this was a massive eye roll and "get over it already" sigh. how politically correct can anyone expect hollywood to be? so long as she honors the role, the ethnicity of an actress should be of little concern. besides, it's angelina jolie, people. homegirl looks nothing like me but i'll be damned if i'd fight her portraying my non-french-czech-native-american-self in any movie.

however, i had completely the opposite reaction to memoirs of a geisha, in which a zhang ziyi (chinese) was cast for the distinctly japanese lead character. i remember thinking it was in extremely poor taste for the director to cast a chinese actress for such a japan-centric story. what, with all the beautiful and talented japanese or japanese-american actresses, sony pictures could not have found one to play the lead role?

both roles were played by talented actresses who portrayed their characters honestly and respectfully. i enjoyed both films as a whole and did not find myself distracted by the ethnicities of the actresses as they played their characters. however, though i saw no problems with the casting of jolie, i was more than a little offended with the casting of zhang, despite the fact that i adore her in her other roles (she also has my permission to play me in any hypothetical film that may be made on my enthralling life, btw).

i am feeling dirty in an un-politically-correct way.

mom, is that you?

the "advice" on the inside of my cap:

be like a postage stamp.
stick to one thing until you get there.

dude, even my tea is ragging on my ability to follow-through.
ouch.