Between legislative history and perestroika, I’ll take perestroika.

Occasionally, I see people around Small City who are obviously academics. How can I tell? The top four indicators are pallor, thick glasses, books, and usually some anachronistic clothing choices. Or a wolf shirt on a grown person. And naturally, none of these four characteristics are meant in an ironic way; think negligent, not intentional.

Now, I am certain that the majority of Small City’s judgmental residents would probably be prompted to make fun of these academics for their decidedly not-mainstream external appearance choices. What does it prompt me to do? Reminisce fondly on the time when I learned for the sake of learning.

Don’t get me wrong, I like law school. But I loved undergrad. It’s the difference between learning something mostly practical (like how to compile legislative histories for federal statutes) and learning something mostly esoteric (like perestroika). Personally, I prefer the latter because it’s more interesting. However, it’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever be called on to do anything related to Russia’s 1987 economic and political reforms. It’s unfortunate.

I suppose I could have taken the PhD route. However, there is thing called money, and I want to amass some comfortable amount of it. Academia doesn’t pay. That historian job market is also pretty glutted. And my only real interest was European history, and as my Latin American professor in college put it, “Europe is over.” So I made a more responsible decision even though I knew it would probably make me less happy. I reasoned that I could fit the stuff I liked more into my free time.

Unfortunately, I also happened to choose a career in which “free time” is apparently a myth, a magical thing enjoyed by creatures of some nebulous hinterland far, far away from the drones working overnight in the bowels of Baker Botts and Sidley Austin. And it’s not even a career in which you can trade off less money for more time, usually. The word on the street is that even the $60K/year jobs require lots of overtime. Public defenders probably have the lowest average salaries in the business, yet are usually overworked. I hear that if a person is lucky enough to work for the government, then it’s not as bad. But in this economy, even the top students are deigning to take jobs as prosecutors in lieu of litigation associate positions at Jones Day or whatever BigLaw firm a person wants to work for. What are the mediocre people with outside interests to do?

The best solution I have been able to come up with is not a solution at all. It’s more like sugar to make the medicine go down more easily. The “solution” is just working for myself. It is (according to many websites) just as much (if not more) work than working for someone else. So, it wouldn’t really give me any extra time. However, it would assuage my negativity toward this career somewhat because I would be working for myself, largely on my own terms, instead of for some old guy that works me into the ground because his wife “desperately needs” a new Mercedes. (I mean, I have a really, really negative attitude about the leadership in the legal field.) I just wasn’t born to be someone else’s workhorse.

I guess I could summarize this entry by saying that:
(1) I’m not really doing what I would prefer to be doing with my life, but I value monetary comfort enough to stick with the decision I’ve made.
(2) I do not value monetary comfort enough to do something that I have lukewarm feelings on someone else’s terms.

The one hitch in my “solution” that everyone should be pointing out right now is that it is largely problematic to go into law without ever having worked for anyone else. One issue is getting clientele. Another is having enough on-the-job experience to not commit malpractice. Ideally, I could partner up with someone with slightly more experience than me to make sure that I don’t make any monumental snafus. How in the heck is that going to happen? I don’t know. I’m not even sure why I’m still typing; this entry should have ended awhile back.

In conclusion, I guess the world should know that my future plans are now, as always, in flux.

Macarena

One of the many benefits of being a new car owner these days is the free six-month satellite radio trial. Lately, I’ve been reliving some of my glory days by listening to the 90s on 9 station. Yesterday, I heard the mid-90s pop sensation “Macarena.” Apparently, in the mid-90s my radar for sexual subtext was sorely underdeveloped. Let’s review some lyrical context clues that I didn’t pick up on at the tender age of thirteen. (Lyrics are approximations because this was just too stupid to even google.)

“. . .They all want me/they can’t have me/so they all come and dance beside me/
move with me/jam with me/and if you’re good I’ll take you home with me.”

Yeah, so…I didn’t really understand that taking someone home meant taking them home for sex. I don’t recall what I thought it meant. Take them home to meet the parents? To play pogs? To watch Singled Out on MTV? The world will never know. At any rate, Macarena was downright skanky if she was meeting randos on the dancefloor and taking them home for late night trysts. But it gets better.

“. . .Don’t you worry about my boyfriend. . .I didn’t want him/couldn’t stand him. . .He was out of town and his two friends were soooo fine.”

So, she had a threesome with her boyfriend’s friends while her boyfriend was out of town? Classy. I’m sure that won’t cause any drama. Welcome to the bullet train to domestic violence or, at the very least, some pretty awkward moments when the boyfriend finds out. Which he inevitably will, since she talked about it on a wildly popular song. Gross.

In hindsight, the song’s eponymous character was a pretty big slut.

I would love to expand this discussion into some commentary about how I think members of the group of people several years younger than me (think kids in high school and college) are much to freewheeling with sex and sexuality, but I have quite a lot of work to do and thus don’t have the time to whine about “kids today.” Advanced Legal Research assignments wait for no one.

Oh, and I know I promised a series of World Cup posts, and I’m going to write and post them, but I decided it would make more sense to wait until it’s closer to game time. Who know what changes will happen between now and then. Ronaldo could come back.

ohhhh man

I have never wanted to gossip so badly in my entire life.

WHY AM I TOO NICE

WHY

Success

Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you can’t change something about the world. I am now living proof that change is possible. What did I change, you ask? Well, every bag of Tootsie Pops includes a “special flavor.” Consumers can suggest new specials flavors. AB and I suggested “banana” ad nauseum last year. Guess what candy I am consuming as a I write this. Banana Tootsie Pop.

WHAT WILL I CHANGE TOMORROW (HOPEFULLY SOMETHING)

Ridiculous

When my day started with my alarm playing “Just My Imagination,” I should have known that events would unfold in such a way that I would end up nonplussed. True to form, some abysmal post-lunch events canceled out more enjoyable pre-lunch events, so I guess I’m even for the day so far. There’s Greek food and a Hanukkah gathering left on today’s agenda, so the day might end on a high note. Still, I’m pretty sure the universe is trying, in several ways, to tell me that I suck more than everyone else around me.

I remain, as always, unconvinced.

A Dillard’s Update

One danger in maintaining a blog is that sometimes, strangers will decide it’s apropos to psychologically diagnose you based on what you post. For example, take recent commenter “Joan.” Joan feels that my jeremiad against Dillard’s the other day was completely unfounded, and that I was just embarrassed because my check didn’t get approved. That is incorrect. So just in case my reply to Joan’s comment was insufficient, I’m making an entire post to refute her assertion. Joan, this one’s for you.

The fact that the check wasn’t approved was no fault of my own. I checked the account before I went to the store. There was more than enough money to cover the cost of the purchase. The purchase price was actually 30% less than I’d expected due to a sale I didn’t know about. All the information on the check was correct. I supplied the correct phone number and drivers license information. Yet the Dillard’s check verification system, Certegy, had a problem with the check. At this point, the customer service representative should have elicited the assistance of a manager. The store was not very busy at this point and there were multiple people working in the purse section. Had I looked like I had a lot of money to spend, I feel confident that the situation would have played out differently. The customer service representative just pegged me from the start as not having any money, so when the check verification system failed, it was much more plausible to assume that the problem was with my bank account balance and not their system. That assumption is what I have a problem with.

Joan, you’ve accused me of blaming the store. Let’s recap. The store’s employee didn’t investigate what was, assuredly, a malfunction with its check approval system, ostensibly because I didn’t look like I had a lot of money. The store’s employee didn’t treat me the same way as she treated the other, better-dressed customers. Blaming the store? You bet. Why? Because those things are the store’s fault, Joan. It should employ a bit more selectivity in choosing its staff, or give the staff better training, something to let them know that, unless someone is offensive, you assist them to the fullest extent. Assuming, arguendo, that you’re right, that I was embarrassed that my check wasn’t approved, why would it not be honest and/or fair for me to blame the store? It was the store’s fault, not mine, for all the reasons I outlined back in paragraph two of the this post. I could see a clear causal link between my embarrassment and the malfunction of the store’s check approval system and behavior. In that case, exactly what about my blaming them is incorrect? Joan, what it sounds like to me is that you, a stranger reading the blog of a person almost 700 miles away from you, have taken it upon yourself to make a judgment call as to my financial status. You assert that I was embarrassed and have wrongfully blamed Dillard’s for not approving my check because I didn’t have sufficient funds to cover the purchase. That is the only possible conclusion. In any other circumstance, my blaming Dillard’s for the incident would be totally appropriate. So I ask you, Joan, exactly what insight do you have into my personal finances? How do know I’m not a trust fund kid? How do you know that I didn’t recently win the lottery? How do you know I didn’t save up all the money I made waiting tables during high school and invest it in a successful mutual fund? Gosh Joan, there’s no way you could you any of that. So in short, you’ve judged me exactly the same way that the Dillard’s employee did. Now that’s embarrassing.

Lastly, if I were embarrassed because my check wasn’t approved, would I really post about it on the internet, on a blog that my friends and colleagues read? Probably not, Joan. Let’s be realistic. If I were embarrassed, I certainly would have buried this anecdote deep in the recesses of my memory and never spoke of it again. That’s what I do with the moments I’m truly embarrassed by. I mean, I had a truly embarrassing experience on Monday night. Did I blog about it? No, because I didn’t want to share it with any greater portion of the world than was around to experience it firsthand. That’s just how I operate, Joan; that’s just a little bit about me.

GET EXCITED

On Friday, I neglected to write about one of my favorite topics because I was distracted by one hour of Texas snow (it didn’t even accumulate) and the, uh, “clarion call” of Advanced Legal Research assignments (these are accumulating). Naturally, the topic I am referring to is World Cup 2010, and if you were paying attention on Friday, you would already know that Friday was the draw. Basically, that means we know which teams are in which groups–which teams will be playing each other in the first rounds. Of course, you want your favorite team to be in a group it can advance out of. The draw always underscores the point that the tournament is just around the corner, so needless to say, my excitement level was elevated on Friday.

[After that introductory paragraph, I started writing about the teams I'm paying attention to, interspersed with personal anecdotes about past World Cups. It turned into a dissertation, and now I'm tired and really want to go to bed. I think I'm going to finish it tomorrow and then post it in installments.]

GET EXCITED

Dillard’s is done.

Well, it’s looks like I don’t shop at Dillard’s anymore. That’s unfortunate because it was the only department store in Small City that I sort of liked. Oh well. The reason I am no longer shopping there is because the middle-aged women employees are unnecessarily haughty and judgmental. I might wear workout clothes when I come in to buy a purse, but that doesn’t mean anything except (1) I wanted to get some cardio this morning and (2) I wanted to hit the mall afterwards because the gym is two minutes away from the mall (instead of going home, changing and coming all the way back). Retail workers shouldn’t let my sometimes-crappy external appearance affect their ideas about my wallet’s internal appearance to the point that they don’t help me like every other customer and stare me down like I’m about to run off something. I mean, come on, these people work on commission; they should put in an effort even if they don’t think it will pay off. On top of all that, I was still going to buy the purse because I wanted it and it was on sale. Unfortunately, the universe was not on my side because the genius working the cash register couldn’t get my check approved. She typed in all the information correctly, I had verified that I had money in the account before going to the store, and I had written a few checks this week without any issues. Instead of taking responsibility for the asinine machine or calling in a manager, she just stared at me like “I knew you couldn’t afford it” and asked if I had another form of payment. Of course not; do you think I would be writing a check if I had any other options?! My debit card is damaged beyond use and I’m waiting for the new one so that’s out, and I don’t think my mom would really appreciate me putting it on the “emergencies only” credit card she gave me. I could have gone to the ATM and gotten money with the temporary ATM card the bank gave me, but I didn’t feel like working that hard. I don’t care if you do think the malfunction is my fault you make something up. I’ve worked in customer service a lot and I was actually pretty awesome it, so I know what I’m talking about. I’m currently hatching a plan to return soon in my business clothes with styled hair and full makeup and see what kind of attitude I get then.

I hate Chase Bank (a little).

Tonight I am going to gripe a little about my bank. Chase charges its customers a $150 fee per occurrence of overdraft. So…if a customer overdrafts seven times in the form of $1.00 transactions ($7.00 total overdrafted), they now owe Chase not only the $7.00, but also over $1,000 in overdraft fees. This is ridiculous. I have yet to experience the unique pleasure (I’m sure) of owing Chase a grand in punitives, but I did get popped with a single $150 fee recently when the powers that be failed to disburse my student loans before my health insurance premium got sucked out of my account (as always, I’d like to thank the cashier’s office for absolutely nothing at all). I know customers shouldn’t be overdrafting in the first place, but can we get a little “punishment fits the crime” action going on here? Actually, if you imagine that this is taking place in a civil trial, and you consider the overdraft fee as a form of punitive damages, Chase would have a rough time getting a fee of more than $63 where the amount overdrafted was $7.00. Yeah, that’s right, Supreme Court guideposts. Remedies was not wasted on me.

I know I could just change banks, but it would be a huge hassle. My checking, savings, brokerage, mortgage, and student loan accounts are all seamlessly coordinated with Chase right now. It took a long to get the kinks ironed out in that situation. I’m not eager change.

Chase, why do you have to be such a b**ch?

Houston Run-Off

I don’t really have a dog in the run-off for the Houston mayoral office (that is, unless I move back here after law school graduation, which looks increasingly likely). However, after indulging in some much-needed cable TV therapy (mostly Pawn Stars, the best reality-TV show I have ever. seen.), I am well-versed in the viewpoints and platforms of the two candidates, Annise Parker and Gene Locke. Interesting, Parker’s commercials state that she is endorsed by HPD, while a highlight of Locke’s commercials is that HPD officers feel that Parker is soft on crime. So, HPD enforces the candidate they think is soft on crime? Either one candidate is mistaken, or HPD doesn’t feel like working. At any rate, I prefer Locke to Parker for no particular reason.