I remember seeing a Married With Children episode a long time ago now where Kelly went on Jeopardy. For whatever reason she could remember everything that Jeopardy was testing on, so she was a lock. At some point, Bud said that her brain was full and that if they tried to add anything else, she would start losing information. So they avoided telling her anything else until the show.
At the start of the show, or maybe after she had an incredible lead, Alex asked her something like, "What town are you from" or something like that. To which, it became clear that she had to process one more thing and that additional question popped something out of her head.
At the final jeopardy question, with much money in tow, Al convinces her to risk it all. The final jeopardy question? Which high school running back scored four touchdowns in the city championship game? And what any fan of the show remembers, the answer is Al Bundy. Needless to say, she got it wrong, lost all the money, and that was the show.
I, like many other bar studiers, feel much the same way - everytime you cram something into your head, another thing pops out. It's like a giant jenga tower of knowledge, and it's getting wobblier.
By the way, I've tried some of these advanced Barbri questions and they are good for nothing except damaging your fragile egos. Stay away from them - they are too picky to waste any valuable time over.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The great juggle of memory
Monday, July 09, 2007
And the award for I don't know why I didn't pass the bar goes to...
I saw on CNN (briefly) the other morning something that caught my eye, and sure enough, the relevant search on Google led me to this sordid tale of woe: Mass. Bar Sued for Gay Marriage Question. But that's not what makes this story so funny.
Apparently this east coast bar taker saw a gay marriage question in one of his essays and refused to answer it either out of pride, beliefs, stupidity, and more likely, a combination of them all. Out of fairness to this clown, I will print the article's exact quote: "Stephen Dunne, who is representing himself in the case and seeks $9.75 million, said the bar exam was not the place for a 'morally repugnant and patently offensive' question addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property. He said he refused to answer the question because he believed it legitimized same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, which is contrary to his moral beliefs." Well, you know what they say about a law student who chooses to represent himself.
Ironically, he nearly passed the bar despite completely blowing off this question. Nonetheless, the absence of any type of legal response here precluded the bar examiners from awarding any types of "well, close enough" points (not that I know if they actually do that or not). Unsurprisingly, the Massachusetts bar gives zero credit for responses like "This is a stupid question and I refuse to answer it" or its equivalent.
The end of the article has some other funny quotes from various people who basically agree that this guy is an idiot.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
PMBR Blue Book MBE curve
Someone passed along to me this comment to post. I am told that the PMBR curves for the 3-day are 36 points, and the curve for the full length MBE in the back of the blue book is 25 points. This comes directly from a PMBR/Kaplan rep.
The better question, and one I won't be able to answer for a couple weeks is how close PMBR questions are to the real thing. Stay tuned. Once I have the PMBR 3-day taken next week, I'll have a better post to compare it to Barbri's 3-day.
Also, I've been working through Barbri's multiple choice questions. They are largely identical to PMBR in substance, which leads me to wonder why PMBR and Barbri haven't sued each other yet. Or why the NCBE only chose to go after PMBR. More thoughts on comparing Barbri to PMBR later.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
The Tour de France starts and I'm studying for the bar
For the first time in probably five or six years since I've started watching it, I won't be able to watch the bulk of this year's Tour de France. I find this to be disappointing since (as boring as this thing is), I actually find it interesting to watch. Which is odd, since I usually can't stand to watch sports unless they are live (although I will tolerate football and the NBA finals - and the NCAA tournament).
If I had to pick someone to follow this year, I would go for Alexandre Vinokourov since I think he probably has the best chance to win. I would like to see Levi Leipheimer win, but I wouldn't be surprised if he blew up by the second week (or on a single stage) again. Hopefully not. Christophe Moreau would be my third place choice. And what would be the tour without a doping scandal?
For those of you who need their daily tour fix, you can always follow it on the new OLN channel Versus - or online here. On the bright side, the bar will be over before the race is. Go USA.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Jericho fans fight back - and the show is renewed
I was glad to see that there are other fans of the show Jericho:
'Jericho' fans assail CBS with 25 tons of peanuts.
Apparently, shortly after my original post a couple months back, 25 tons of packaging peanuts were sent to CBS by disgruntled fans (the peanuts were in reference to a couple of scenes in the season finale; no, I was not one of these disgruntled fans, but I found it funny nonetheless). This was in response to CBS announcing they had cancelled the show.
I heard from one of my friends the other day that the show was being picked back up. And sure enough, when I checked the internet, it is. Now, CBS is making up some lame excuse that people need to watch it when it actually airs as compared to recording it on Tivo and watching it later or watching it on the internet. If that is the argument they are making, it's no wonder they are in last place in the network ratings. I don't have any more time to devote to television or media entertainment for the time being, but I think it's a pretty obvious point that the internet media has much more potential than cable. If CBS hasn't figured out a way to track it yet, then I will reiterate my point that perhaps it's time for the board of directors of Viacom or CBS to put the pressure on Les Moonves to open his golden parachute to make room for some new blood.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Minnesota requires all sold flags to be made in America?
I saw this headline on the Drudge Report this morning and had to click it: New law in Minnesota requires all US flags to be made in America. Since I have taken to reading things in 1.8 minutes, the gist of the article reports that the state of Minnesota, in an effort to promote manufacturing in the states, has passed a law requiring all US flags sold in the state to be of American manufacture.
If Manufacturer challenges the constitutionality of this statute because it has a contract with a Canadian-based flag manufacturer, will the statute be held:
A) unconstitutional, as having a "chilling effect" on non-verbal forms of speech and therefore invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
B) unconstitutional, because it is a reasonable regulation of the procedure to be followed in such cases and substantially diminishes the underlying obligations of the buyer.
C) unconstitutional, because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting the sale of all flags coming into the state that are not manufactured in the U.S.
D) constitutional, because it protects a legitimate state interest.
If this was a PMBR question, the answer would probably be "C or D, but the examiners may have accepted B." Good thing I wouldn't have standing to argue that this statute (and question) is probably a stupid one since I would probably pick D (although I think C could be argued successfully as well). See how the multistate has ruined my life? I would much rather see a question like this:
Assuming manufacturer has standing to challenge the statute, his best chances of finding it unconstitutional would be under:
A) The Commerce Clause
B) The Federal Property Clause
C) The First and Fourteenth Amendment
D) The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There, the answer is much more clear. A.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Transformers review - pretty cool
I have to admit that I didn't have any interest in seeing Transformers when I first saw the preview or heard about it a few months ago. But the newer previews hooked me, and since I had one more day left before I need to kick it into high gear and memorize about 60 (or 600) more things for the bar, I thought I would take a couple hours of my precious time and watch this 2 and a half hour long movie. It is well-worth the $10 and good enough to see in the theater for the action.
If you watched the show when you were a kid (or even if you didn't), it's a story of evil and good transforming robots who have taken their war to earth. (And for those who watched the cartoons, it's the same voices apparently). The good robots are the Autobots. The bad robots are the Decepticons (or something like that). Characters with cool names like "Optimus Prime" and "Megatron" battle it out on the big screen. The main human character is played by some kid who could have been anybody (sort of like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix - could have been played by anyone). And like the Matrix, this movie has even more non-stop action and even less plot. As I said, it's the robots that make this movie. If you own Hasbro stock, you should be very happy.
There is also a trailer in the beginning of the movie for some new J.J. Abrams movie coming out next year - somehow it forgot to say what the name of the movie is (or if it did, it certainly isn't memorable), so I had to look it up (Cloverfield). It doesn't look that good. I would hope they run a better trailer, but I'm pretty critical in this area, so it didn't hook me at all. I think it's some sort of slasher horror movie, but I can't really remember. Nice try J.J. - but you may be better off focusing on making Lost season 4 better. I will give you props for Mission Impossible III though (which isn't hard considering how bad the first two were).
Other than that, Transformers is pretty cool. The girl in the movie (Megan Fox) is pretty hot (good for Brian Austin Green of 90210 fame who is apparently engaged to her). While the movie may be geared toward the under-13 crowd in parts, there's enough action for all you twenty-somethings (or 30-somethings or bar-takers) to enjoy as well. At the very least, it's a good mindless action movie that will keep you distracted from thinking about the bar for a couple hours.
Compared with Die Hard 4 (see my review here), I liked Die Hard 4 a little better, even though the action seens are less ridiculous than they were in Die Hard 4. Same level of pointless action though, but with robots (Transformers). And that's what matters.
Minimal competency
One of my friends put it best when she says that whenever you get frustrated, you just have to remember that the bar is a test of minimal competency. She's exactly right, and it's easier to say in hindsight than currently. After all, it's just a test where you're looking to write enough so that in the minute that the bar graders are reading your essays, they have confidence you know what you're doing. For once, we'll all looking for the "D" instead of the "A." As one of our instructors put it, you've probably taken harder tests in law school; this one is just more bulky. And it's for your livelihood.
And on that note, I think I'm going to do a little work and then watch Transformers. Did I mention how I can't believe I'm doing work on the 4th of July?
Read more!
Sunday, July 01, 2007
I see through PMBR's tactics - the differences between the blue and red books
I've gone through about half of the PMBR blue book now, having completed the red book (which seems to be right at the 50/day pace). I've done better in the blue book, but the answer is pretty easy - most of the questions are either identical or only slightly different than comparable ones in the red book. So, it's pretty obvious that PMBR's tactic in telling you to do the red book first, and then the blue book is so you feel better about yourself when you get more right. I guess that's fine. But I see it as pretty lazy that they are recycling their own questions when they advertise to be the "multistate specialist."
Further, their express warranty on the inside cover of the red book that "students will receive entirely different multistate questions during the administration of the PMBR 3-day and 6-day 'Early Bird' Workshops" is entirely false, since I've seen every question from the 6-day workbook in the red or blue book. I can only assume that many of the questions from the 3-day will also be repeats. I've even seen some of the same questions in different sections (which again is fine, but reeks of laziness).
Perhaps the most ironic of questions I have come across (other than the ones that are patently wrong), is one I found in the evidence section that conflicts with PMBR's own logic. For a number of reasons, I am pretty sure that the blue book answer is correct.
For those fellow MBE-haters, take a look at Evidence question 149 in the red book, and then look at Evidence question 87 in the blue book. I see the conflicting answers as irreconcilable. So what if there has never been any accidents on that machine, or intersection, or whatever before? That would never be admissible. The red book's answer is just nonsense, and the fact they point to some Utah case in the 50s as support should tell you that they simply couldn't explain it otherwise. I think the correct answer to the red book is C, but only because D is less correct if that makes sense. The blue book answer is correct.
If anyone wants to dispute my conclusion or can in fact reconcile the two questions, I will gladly post your comments. If I'm wrong, great - better now than in three weeks. Or if you've come across some blatantly wrong ones, maybe we should start a list.
Die Hard 4 - awesome
I went to see Die Hard 4 (Live Free or Die Harder) yesterday or the day before. It is freakin' awesome. If you like shoot-em up, kill-em action movies with some plot (but not much), this is the best movie out right now. And for you bar takers who need some mindless action (and can temporarily set aside everything you've learned about custodial interrogation and other various 4th amendment bar issues), this is a great two-hour break. As many of you forget, John McClane is the original Jack Bauer (who unfortunately doesn't make an appearance). And if you've never seen any of the original Die Hard movies (at least the first and second), that's okay, there is very little continuation between them. His daughter is grown up though.
I did have to laugh (out of the absurdity) everytime he was in DC and saying "I'm NYPD, out of my way" - I'm not sure how much weight that would carry in real life when he's outside of his jurisdiction. And we all know from Sept. 11 that the cell phones and land lines can't really handle the type of volume that would make it easy to get through to the police in an emergency. Nonetheless....
Other than portraying the government like a chicken with its head cut off during a national crisis, the movie isn't too bad. Kevin Smith has a minor role but it's not that funny. I kept waiting for the mac kid (Justin Long) to say "Hi, I'm a mac" but it never happened. Talk about a typecast kid, but good for him since he probably makes more money than all of us bar takers combined. Also, there is a smoking hot girl who I've never seen before (Maggie Q), who happens to be very close to my age, which is great if I become an entertainment lawyer and the east coast becomes the new Hollywood. And for fans of Deadwood, Timothy Olyphant is the bad guy (who plays more of a lame villain than a bad ass as he does in Deadwood).
So, take a 4th of July break and see Die Hard 4. It's worth your $10 at a cost of at most, one MBE question.
