Log in

the aesthetic ate my homework [entries|friends|calendar]
handsome devil

[ website | delusional spit ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

hey [12.31.2010 @ 1:10pm]
[ mood | grrr ]

partly friends-only. introduce yourself if you want to read.

thank you and <3.

64 thoughts| share your thoughts

what i don't understand is [5.4.2007 @ 12:07am]
bi·an·nu·al (bī-ăn'yū-əl) pronunciation
  1. Happening twice each year; semiannual.

what gives??
6 thoughts| share your thoughts

i didn't know we had so much power! [4.12.2007 @ 9:34am]
Remember when I wrote about, in part, the politicized arguments against scientific studies? Yeah. Well, guess what? There's a liberal conspiracy against abstinence education!

    Progressives' focus on scientific legitimacy in their critiques has put abstinence-only advocates, who have long enjoyed their favored status within the Bush administration, on the defensive. They've resorted to citing non-peer-reviewed studies by outfits like the Heritage Foundation to back up the claim that their science is sound and accusing peer-reviewed journals of conspiring to silence them. "What they are saying is that, in order to be medically and scientifically accurate, you must be verified and supported in your research by peer review," Focus on the Family's Linda Klepacki told the Christian Examiner. "Abstinence education cannot get into peer-review journals because the journals are controlled by far-left liberal organizations that do not allow us to publish. That automatically eliminates abstinence-only education, from their standpoint."

    --Let's Talk About Sex

Since I'm in class, I won't comment further, but y'all can take it from here.
3 thoughts| share your thoughts

science is not bullshit!! [4.4.2007 @ 4:08pm]
[ mood | angry ]

I'm a little angry at the way some law students (and, often, the public at large) view scientific research with regard to validity, evidence, etc. We were specifically discussing the sociological research cited in Brown v. Board of Ed regarding the (detrimental) effects of segregation on both black and white children. Our professor was of the opinion that the court would've done well to just skip the scientific stuff and be more blunt, i.e. "school segregation is legally and morally wrong, no ifs ands or buts". I would've been fine with that opinion, certainly the era would've benefited from a judicial decree of that nature. However, did it hurt the opinion? Talking to our professor after class, a student said something to the effect of "well, they shouldn't have used them, you can get studies to say anything, it's all bullshit". I'm sorry, what? Maybe I'm just a sore "soft" sciences major (with a B.A. in Psychology, yes), but come on! Sure, there are investigator biases, sketchy funding, organizations which pick and choose which studies to continue and publish, but there's also peer review, meta-analyses, journals, a real desire to investigate troubling issues and draw conclusions, if not find some answers.

So I'm pretty wary of the "it's all partisan politics" argument used to dismiss scientific research. Despite my aforementioned reservations, I frankly find this way of thinking anti-intellectual. If all science is futile, why bother doing anything? Or is it just social science? I realize mental and emotional response is harder to quantify than, say, velocity or combustion temperature, but, if anything, that should provide a driving impetus to do even more rigorous research, design studies more carefully, have more than one researcher, and so forth. Are we to abandon any search for answers about interpersonal relationships, motivation, sexual response, anger, language development? Because if studies cannot be used in a somewhat minimal role as a contributing (not even deciding) factor in a court of law, what respect are we according them? Certainly they ought to have more purpose than providing topics for water cooler discussions or partially digested interpretations on the morning news. If we have any faith in the scientific method, shouldn't we put our money where our proverbial mouth is?

Am I just a hopeless idealist about this? I'd like to think not, after all, we are spending millions on this research, and I would hate it if it were all for naught.

13 thoughts| share your thoughts

stephen colbert: my body, my choice [4.2.2007 @ 8:16pm]
[ mood | sick ]

5 thoughts| share your thoughts

english nerds ahoy! [3.16.2007 @ 5:49pm]
how do you write a quote within a quote within a quote? (ridiculous, i realize). i know a double quote should be like "blah said 'yes' and blah", but a triple? which punctuation do i use for the secondary and tertiary quotes?
4 thoughts| share your thoughts

wow, two in a day [12.19.2006 @ 9:48pm]
go team bls.

Professor: And what was the issue in this case?
Law student: The company was displaying won-ton negligence.
Professor: Okay, good, but some people pronounce it 'wanton.'

--Brooklyn Law School

50-ish female lawyer at reunion party: Hi! Remember me?
50-ish male lawyer: [Long pause] Sure. 1981. Twelve dates, a carriage ride in Central Park, and I couldn't even get a hand job from you. How's your virginity?

--Brooklyn Law School

the guy sounds like a dick, but "how's your virginity?" is still an excellent catchphrase.
8 thoughts| share your thoughts

peeve-off! [12.5.2006 @ 5:53pm]
[ mood | warm ]

a marathon of nuisances, if you will!

i'll start.

-the phrase "stick to your ribs" (referring to food)
-baby tees (the word and the item)
-trains and buses that are exuberantly way off the timetable
-blanket denials of accountability/responsibility in the face of evidence to the contrary (does this one even count?)

your turn(s)

9 thoughts| share your thoughts

it's been a very long time... [12.2.2006 @ 4:28pm]
...since i've done one of these.

go to google, type in "[your name] needs" and put the first ten results that come in, or your favourite ten. and then post them up for everyone else to laugh at.

1. Alex needs your help
2. 'Alex' needs some shaking, stirring
3. Alex needs an implant so he can understand the language
4. Alex needs intellectual and emotional effort.
5. Alex Needs a Job!
6. Alex needs to freak out
7. Alex Needs You!
8. Alex needs more than just a rat trap for this vermin. (oh no!! ratlove.)
9. How to fly a helicopter - maybe Alex needs to read this (hehehe)
10. Alex needs a scapegoat.

obviously, all of these are true, except #8. to-do list?

also, lizzy is occupying herself with clawing the fuck out of the front parts of my jeans. which i am wearing. distressed pants? kiss my ass, diesel.
3 thoughts| share your thoughts

SCOTUS case [11.28.2006 @ 3:02pm]
The Supreme Court heard a pay discrimination case today

It sounds like the statute of limitations will have a significant role on the outcome. Whether the pattern of pay discrimination is viewed broadly or narrowly will depend on the justices, and frankly I'm not a whole lot optimistic.

Don't know when the decision will come down, but I'm sure it's of interest to many of you, so it'll be something to follow.

To quote my ACS mentor, "If only we could pay back our student loans 71 cents on the dollar. THAT would be justice." If only.
1 thought| share your thoughts

"michael is not racist; he is just not a very streetwise performer" [11.21.2006 @ 2:48pm]
"I'm not racist, that's what's so insane about this."
-Michael Richards on his racist tirade directed at hecklers of his stand-up routine

Are there any white people who actually admit they're racist? Aside from the white-hoods and iron-crosses slivers of the population, have you ever met a white person who said, in all seriousness, "I am (a) racist"? Most white people are - in different degrees, of course, sometimes it's latent, sometimes manifest, but it's always there, between the lines, an undercurrent of thought. It's not surprising that Richards's apology attempted to discount his obvious racism (I mean, come on, this was anything but a "bad joke gone awry". See for yourself.) But I'm disappointed (not surprised) that the media didn't take a more nuanced look at it. I mean, unless saying "I am not a racist" is some kind of speech-act, as far as I am concerned, it is meaningless repetition of what is politically correct but not actually true for most people. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, it's not like all people can neatly be divided into a racist/non-racist dichotomy. This should be obvious, but apparently not. The fact is that all people occupy a gray area of prejudice - some more so, some less so, some have less tact, some conceal it better, but that doesn't make any of them "not racist."

Racism, which several decades ago at least received a significant amount of mainstream discussion (even if it was on shows like All in the Family) has now gone in the closet. People don't talk about it unless hard-pressed. Discussions are often kept narrow and short-sighted. Even when it is discussed, it is only when it manifests itself in obvious, really unavoidable ways - like Richards saying the "n-word". Less visible issues, like institutional racism and the racial critique of felony disenfranchisement (just two examples) are rarely on the discussion table anymore. So what happened?

p.s. he is a FREEMASON? what. the. fuck.
15 thoughts| share your thoughts

why don't you try simply reading a book? [11.13.2006 @ 10:39pm]
[ mood | warm lap ]

i definitely have the oompa loompa song in my head. and am now watching the clip on youtube instead of reading about homicide. i wish law school reading came in song format. if the law thing doesn't work out, i could always go into business making schoolhouse-rock-ish songs about each area of law. i can see the one for torts already...

also, i'm having an unseasonal craving for mojitos. maybe tomorrow i'll get one.

3 thoughts| share your thoughts

oh and [10.25.2006 @ 9:40pm]
judith butler @ nyu tomorrow, 6pm - anyone wanna go? i'm feeling pretty dorky going to all these lectures alone.
10 thoughts| share your thoughts

donna haraway @ nyu!! [10.9.2006 @ 9:52am]
Monday, October 16
6:00 to 8 PM

Greenberg Lounge
40 Washington Square South


Donna Haraway

Third Annual Dorothy Nelkin Memorial Lecture.

To attend, please respond by October 9 (TODAY) to Janelle Pitterson by phone at 212-998-6203 or email at janelle.pitterson@nyu.edu.

Donna Haraway has written a lot on feminism and technology, the inherent biases in scientific (mostly biological) research, as well as her oft-cited Cyborg theory. For a bit more, check out a Wired piece on her. Anyone wanna come with?
share your thoughts

in other news entirely [8.3.2006 @ 1:23pm]
GWAR on the Joan Rivers show

amazing. watch it. thank me later.
2 thoughts| share your thoughts

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]