Saturday, February 17, 2007


There are several prominent schools of thought on how to best get your car out of one mini-blizzard's worth of snow and ice. I'm of the chisel a roughly one foot-diameter circle in the windshield ice on the driver's side, get on the nearest interstate and attempt to get as close to 90 mph as the curves allow, and watch the air resistance peel entire floes of ice from the roof and hood and slam them into the cars behind you school.

Thursday, February 15, 2007


Happiness is watching the Office in the McDonough cafeteria with Jay and then running out onto the quad to play an impromptu game of IceBall, my newly devised sport which consists of one rubber ball Jay got from a firm interview that flashes blue and red when it hits things, one law school quad covered with a sheet of solid ice, and two idiots willing to run full speed after said ball, perpetually slipping, intermittently tipping, and inevitably tripping then slamming heads, hands, and asses into the petrified ground, and not stopping until an hour had passed, our lungs burned, and I was oozing blood from one injured mitt.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007


I can't believe a bit of snow shuts down this entire city.

Previous listening:

Current listening:

Neat Picture

Graphical representation of the first movement of Bartók's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste. The work is based on the golden ratio.

The illustration is from Solomon's analysis.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007


Last week the law school put on David Mamet's Bobby Gould in Hell. This has had a significant effect on us.

[7:04:30 PM] Scott D. Scheule says: Hey Jay.

[7:04:47 PM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says:
Hey, Scott.

[7:04:51 PM] Scott D. Scheule says: What about a fucking panda?! Huh?!

[7:04:57 PM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: rofl

[7:05:04 PM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: What about a panda, you dumb fuck?

[7:15:02 PM] Scott D. Scheule says: Also: is available.

Cheers to the Georgetown Gilbert and Sullivan Society. Also Hanah's getting her note published!

Some day I plan to accomplish something myself.

Monday, February 12, 2007


There's one giant problem solved, or at least apparently so--certainly, it's on its way to being remedied. Time to move on to another one.


PROFESSOR YALE: You're not on the seating chart, are you? Why don't you insert yourself here?

SCOTT: (voice-over) Don't say, "That's what she said." Don't say, "That's what she said." Do not say, "That's what she said."

YALE: You look like you want to say something, Scott.


After class I explained to Yale the classy joke I refrained from, but he was unimpressed.

During class, I told him his Critical Legal Scholar-esque position of "the impossibility of neutrality" was quote unquote stupid.


Funny how talking to your family can lighten one's mood.

Note the strangeness of fondness for familial affection. Consider two nearly-identical people each consisting of attributes A, B, C, D... where A is ambition, B is bravery, C is caring, D is dental health... and so on, with only one noticeable difference: the F factor, with a positive indicating a familial relationship and a negative indicating the opposite.

Strange then, that given these two individuals:

1. A, B, C, D... F+

2. A, B, C, D... F-

It should be the first that gets heavy affection, who should warrant deep love, while the other is a stranger, and likely to remain so. So much would turn on a commonality of childhood environs and genes.

Strange, yes, but not problematic. People are, after all, entitled to the unique traits and assets that chance bestows on them. Otherwise Rawls would be right.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Holmes Jr.

Mark criticized my previous post. Like most statements of opinion, I had greatly overstated mine on Justice Holmes, and now I back up to a more modest stance.

Again, I don't like Justice Holmes, because:

1. He has a shit-eating style of writing. Purple prose alternates with over-cute snark.

2. He's inconsistent, but ignores the inconsistency. This shows up in conflicts between opinions of unbridled allegiance to legislative supremacy against utterly countermajoritarian dissents, among other places.

Now as to one, that's primarily a matter of taste--perhaps--and so may not represent anything objectively worthwhile.

As to number two, that's a real criticism, and carries weight, but as Mark could easily point out--if you're looking for consistency, there's no huge supply among Supreme Court Justices. Not even St. Thomas is above backtracking. So perhaps lumping on Holmes alone on this count is unfair.

Now for the critical caveat--I've not studied the Justice in depth, simply read a few of the more famous dissents. Perhaps I'd find some deep-seated worth if I did so, perhaps I'd hate him all the more, but regardless, expertise makes a respectable opinion, and I have none.

Now, on the subject, here's Mencken on Holmes, typically irreverent and hilarious.

Also, Holmes's father's best poem.