I wrote a couple weeks ago about the Johnnie Cochran case, which is currently before the Supreme Court. But as you probably saw, Johnnie Cochran died this week. That's sad and all, but what happens to the case? In most situations, when the plaintiff dies, the case becomes moot. There are some tricky parts to this case, however, that might move it forward. First, the injunction that was at the heart of the case was against speech about Cochran or his law firm, which is presumably still in operation. Second, just because he's dead, it doesn't mean a person can't talk about him. Or does it? I dunno.
Anyway, the issue is discussed here and here. I hope it goes forward, because it's an interesting issue. The Court will hold a hearing on the mootness issue, and has asked each side for briefs. Stay tuned.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Bad. Stupid. Arrgh.
Today's opinion in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation is again proof that the Supreme Court doesn't have a grip on Indian Law, and likes to make it up as it goes along. The Court voted 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, to reverse a lower court opinion and deny the Oneida Nation the right to expand its tax-exempt holdings over land that it had recently reacquired - but had once been allotted to it through treaty. Whew, that was a long, complicated sentence. I'll back up.
At the end of the 18th century, European/American settlers were expanding west and into Indian lands. To avoid conflict, the US government and Indian tribes agreed by treaty that certain lands would remain under Indian title. Later in the early 1800s, many tribes ended up selling this land to white settlers (and if you think these land transfers were made honestly, you're nuts... but that's not the point). However, in the mid-1800s, the landmark case Johnson v. M'Intosh began a string of cases where the Supreme Court ruled that only the US Congress could divest an Indian tribe of land -- in other words, all sales to private citizens were void. These were rulings based on Constitutional interpretation (the "Indian Commerce Clause") and social policy -- the US wanted to be the only party that could deal with Indians.
Flash forward to modern times. Indian tribes now have enough resources to make claims to the lands that were illegally divested in the early 1800s, but these lands have since been occupied by private citizens. So there are now dozens of land claim suits currently in the pipe, mostly in the upstate New York area... the case from today settles just one of the issues.
Anyway, the court ruled today that tribes can't reassert their own tax code over land they've recently purchased (while tribes do have their own tax codes over normal reservation land) -- land that used to be part of their reservations before it was purchased from them 200 years ago. Even though the same Court (though with different justices) has said those divestments were void. Go figure. Ginsburg's opinion:
Justice Stevens, bless his heart, is the only one who really gets it, apparently. He's the only one who notes that only Congress can reduce a tribe's reservation or change a reservation's tax status. Congress has done no such thing here.
A Supreme Court Justice (who shall remain nameless) recently told my Federal Indian Law professor that the Court often just makes it up when it comes to Indian law. Sure seems like that's what it did here. Booo.
Here's news, and here's the opinion.
At the end of the 18th century, European/American settlers were expanding west and into Indian lands. To avoid conflict, the US government and Indian tribes agreed by treaty that certain lands would remain under Indian title. Later in the early 1800s, many tribes ended up selling this land to white settlers (and if you think these land transfers were made honestly, you're nuts... but that's not the point). However, in the mid-1800s, the landmark case Johnson v. M'Intosh began a string of cases where the Supreme Court ruled that only the US Congress could divest an Indian tribe of land -- in other words, all sales to private citizens were void. These were rulings based on Constitutional interpretation (the "Indian Commerce Clause") and social policy -- the US wanted to be the only party that could deal with Indians.
Flash forward to modern times. Indian tribes now have enough resources to make claims to the lands that were illegally divested in the early 1800s, but these lands have since been occupied by private citizens. So there are now dozens of land claim suits currently in the pipe, mostly in the upstate New York area... the case from today settles just one of the issues.
Anyway, the court ruled today that tribes can't reassert their own tax code over land they've recently purchased (while tribes do have their own tax codes over normal reservation land) -- land that used to be part of their reservations before it was purchased from them 200 years ago. Even though the same Court (though with different justices) has said those divestments were void. Go figure. Ginsburg's opinion:
- Cites to no authority, because, well, there is none to back it up;
- Says that, well, 200 years is a long time, and boy it sure would be awkward to change now;
- Says it would be weird to have a patchwork of jurisdictions all over the place;
- Is generally afraid to give too much power to tribes.
Justice Stevens, bless his heart, is the only one who really gets it, apparently. He's the only one who notes that only Congress can reduce a tribe's reservation or change a reservation's tax status. Congress has done no such thing here.
A Supreme Court Justice (who shall remain nameless) recently told my Federal Indian Law professor that the Court often just makes it up when it comes to Indian law. Sure seems like that's what it did here. Booo.
Here's news, and here's the opinion.
Grokster
Oral arguments were today in the MGM v. Grokster case, which will determine the legality of P2P filesharing software (I mentioned this case a few weeks ago). The arguments sound pretty interesting, as Justice Breyer compared Grokster to innovations like Xerox, the VCR, iPod, and Gutenberg's printing press, all of which have pretty apparent copyright-infringing capabilities. Here's a recap. It sounds like the Court is taking the case seriously, and doesn't want to impede discovery... even if Justice Scalia referred to it as "Grapster, or whatever this thing is called." Here's more on it.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Improv Wisdom
Spring!
It's sunny and almost 60 degrees in Ann Arbor today. People are actually spending time outdoors. It's really nice to leave the winter coat at home.
Of course, it'll probably snow again next week... but for now, I'll take it!
Of course, it'll probably snow again next week... but for now, I'll take it!
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Scalia in New Yorker
The current edition of The New Yorker has a profile on Justice Scalia, quoting extensively from his trip to the U-M Law School. The article isn't online, but here is a Q&A with the author.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Worth reading
The Red Lake, Minnesota, shooting exposes a little about what it's like to be a teenager on an Indian reservation. Take a read.
Desperate prosecutors
Ha ha. The prosecutor in the Robert Blake case says he lost because the jury was "incredibly stupid." I could say the same thing about the jury in my mock trial last week (I lost). But I won't, because it's never the jury's fault. I think it's best to assume a stupid jury, and make your case to overcome that stupidity. Make your case stupid-proof.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Eliminated
I'm mathematically eliminated from winning in my bracket pools. Bah. I got the Illinois-Arizona matchup and the North Carolina-Wisconsin game right, but I missed the other four teams. I'm glad to see the ACC get spanked like they have, but that won't stop Vitale and ESPN from talking the conference up again next year. How 'bout that Big 10?
On the women's side, the Stanford-Connecticut game should be a good one on Saturday. Go Card.
On the women's side, the Stanford-Connecticut game should be a good one on Saturday. Go Card.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Ichiro!
Looking forward to another year of Ichiro (even though the M's probably won't be that good). Here's what he has done this spring:
Hit safely in all 12 games in which he's played
22 hits in 38 at bats - a .579 average.
Dude.
Hit safely in all 12 games in which he's played
22 hits in 38 at bats - a .579 average.
Dude.
"The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!"
But will it this time? The Court heard oral arguments today in a case where the petitioner has been issued a permanent injunction prohibiting him from “orally uttering statements about Johnnie Cochran or Cochran’s law firm.” Yes, Johnnie Cochran is a respondent in a Supreme Court case. Awesome.
Here's more about it.
Here's more about it.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Activist legislators
Once again, my girl Dahlia Lithwick nails it on the head. Her latest article on Slate concerns the Terri Schiavo case -- a case that involves many more issues than simply the right to die (as if that weren't a big enough issue already). Federalism, separation of powers, domestic decisions... it's all here.
This article touches on something that bothers me a lot about how the judiciary is perceived. Whenever a court interprets law in a way that goes against the popular or majority opinion, it's called a product of "activist judges," and it's thrown aside. While some judges may overstep their authority sometimes, the "activist judge" label gets thrown around every time a judicial opinion clashes with the majority. It's stupid.
So, in the Schiavo case, here it's the legislature overstepping its bounds. Dahlia says:
This article touches on something that bothers me a lot about how the judiciary is perceived. Whenever a court interprets law in a way that goes against the popular or majority opinion, it's called a product of "activist judges," and it's thrown aside. While some judges may overstep their authority sometimes, the "activist judge" label gets thrown around every time a judicial opinion clashes with the majority. It's stupid.
So, in the Schiavo case, here it's the legislature overstepping its bounds. Dahlia says:
Evidently, Congress has a secret, super-textual constitutional role as the nation's caped crusaders—its members authorized to leap into phone booths around the world and fly back to Washington in a single bound whenever the "culture of life" is in peril...
The reason we have courts, the reason we traditionally assign these brutal fact-finding responsibilities to those courts, is that intimate legal custody and life-or-death decisions should not be determined based on popular referenda. They need to be rooted, as much as possible, in rock-solid legal rules.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
My silence
It has been so damn busy, I don't know how I'm getting by. But it ends tomorrow, after my mock trial. I'll post then, and I'm sure I'll have lots to talk about.
How's your bracket? Mine's toast.
How's your bracket? Mine's toast.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Another Indian mascot lawsuit
The Illinois Native American Bar Association is suing the University of Illinois over Chief Illiniwek.
At this point in our legal history, a lawsuit alone isn't going to change much. Institutions will change their mascots because of public opinion and pressure, not because of a legal victory on the merits. But cases like this are good because they stir the pot, and keep the issue in the news.
As for the Illini, they're not nearly as bad as the Washington Redskins or the mascot for the Cleveland Indians. But I'm not familiar with the halftime antics of Chief Illiniwek. I really think these are best judged on a case-by-case basis -- not all Native American mascots will necessarily be bad. But anyway, glad the issue is still making news.
At this point in our legal history, a lawsuit alone isn't going to change much. Institutions will change their mascots because of public opinion and pressure, not because of a legal victory on the merits. But cases like this are good because they stir the pot, and keep the issue in the news.
As for the Illini, they're not nearly as bad as the Washington Redskins or the mascot for the Cleveland Indians. But I'm not familiar with the halftime antics of Chief Illiniwek. I really think these are best judged on a case-by-case basis -- not all Native American mascots will necessarily be bad. But anyway, glad the issue is still making news.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Wow, busy
This will end up being my busiest week of the semester. I have a mock trial on Monday, which means our in limine motions are due tomorrow (Wednesday) and our pretrial is Thursday. And all the planning for voir dire, openings, closings, direct, and cross examinations is happening now until Monday. That alone would be busy enough.
On top of that, we still have real cases to work on, which require real time and effort. And we have another intake interview on Thursday, which means another potential client.
On top of that, my journal is acting up. Applications for the editorial board are due this weekend, and we also have a cite-checking assignment due. I also have a quiz on Thursday in Bloodfeuds.
On top of that, it's March Madness, and I'm supposed to be sequestered at a sports bar all weekend! Cruel, cruel law school.
Go Stanford!
On top of that, we still have real cases to work on, which require real time and effort. And we have another intake interview on Thursday, which means another potential client.
On top of that, my journal is acting up. Applications for the editorial board are due this weekend, and we also have a cite-checking assignment due. I also have a quiz on Thursday in Bloodfeuds.
On top of that, it's March Madness, and I'm supposed to be sequestered at a sports bar all weekend! Cruel, cruel law school.
Go Stanford!
Scalia speech
Here's an article about a speech given by Justice Scalia on Monday. Sounds pretty much exactly like what he said to us we he visited last semester (including the part about shooing the photographers).
It's interesting that he's so angry about the Kennedy decision in Roper since, in my book, that's not a case that is so easily decided through originalism. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," but that's hardly an unambiguous phrase. Originalism would have us find out what was considered cruel and unusual when the Bill of Rights was enacted, but what's that? History tells us that the use of the pillory was commonplace in the early 1800's. Our Framers, therefore, probably thought it not cruel or unusual. But that's not true any more.
Over time, however, our cultural norms have changed and the use of the pillory was outlawed in the US in the 20th century. At first blush, then, it would seem that Scalia's customary approach to the problem wouldn't work. My old Torts professor wrote about this very problem a couple weeks ago. (Oh, and I suppose if I wanted to find out how Scalia actually did tackle the problem in Roper, I could read his opinion, but I'm not gonna. You do it.)
Anyway, just seems like a weird way for an originalist to pick on the Roper opinion. The Washington Post has an article on the same speech.
It's interesting that he's so angry about the Kennedy decision in Roper since, in my book, that's not a case that is so easily decided through originalism. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," but that's hardly an unambiguous phrase. Originalism would have us find out what was considered cruel and unusual when the Bill of Rights was enacted, but what's that? History tells us that the use of the pillory was commonplace in the early 1800's. Our Framers, therefore, probably thought it not cruel or unusual. But that's not true any more.
Over time, however, our cultural norms have changed and the use of the pillory was outlawed in the US in the 20th century. At first blush, then, it would seem that Scalia's customary approach to the problem wouldn't work. My old Torts professor wrote about this very problem a couple weeks ago. (Oh, and I suppose if I wanted to find out how Scalia actually did tackle the problem in Roper, I could read his opinion, but I'm not gonna. You do it.)
Anyway, just seems like a weird way for an originalist to pick on the Roper opinion. The Washington Post has an article on the same speech.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Kennedy vs. Bork
Justice Kennedy really fired up the conservatives with his opinion in Roper. In a bad way. Man, do they hate Kennedy right now. It's interesting to note, as this article does, how Kennedy came to the bench because the Senate wouldn't confirm Robert Bork. As far as I'm concerned, Bork -- a real hard-line textualist -- is the exact opposite of Kennedy. What a different court we'd have today if it were Bork instead of Kennedy. Wow.
At the same time, Scalia is looking more and more to me like the choice for Chief Justice. Nobody has any patience for moderates any more -- in this battle of red vs. blue, there's no room for purple. Scalia fits the bill.
And you can bet every dollar in your pocket that the Bush nominee to fill the court's vacancy will be as conservative as they come. Especially considering that O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy are all nominees by Republican presidents, Bush will not risk putting another moderate conservative on the bench. For example, regarding Roper:
At the same time, Scalia is looking more and more to me like the choice for Chief Justice. Nobody has any patience for moderates any more -- in this battle of red vs. blue, there's no room for purple. Scalia fits the bill.
And you can bet every dollar in your pocket that the Bush nominee to fill the court's vacancy will be as conservative as they come. Especially considering that O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy are all nominees by Republican presidents, Bush will not risk putting another moderate conservative on the bench. For example, regarding Roper:
"This shows how enormously significant it is whether you get a Kennedy or a Bork. It isn't just one or two cases over the next 10 years," says conservative Court-watcher Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department official in Republican administrations. "Kennedy is sort of a trial run of what the difference between having an authentic conservative and a pastel version of a conservative means for constitutional law."It also shows how damn important the Senate confirmation hearings are going be, and how Senate Democrats will need to stay strong when the Bushies start complaining.
Flip Flop! Flip Flop!
I'd like to point out to all those jackasses at the Republican convention that flip-flopping can be a good thing. To wit, Bush's new take on Iran.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
The Madness
It's the most wonderful time of the year: March Madness. Get your bracket ready.
I have to take a moment and expound on how proud I am of this year's Stanford team. They went through so much: graduating Lottich, Davis, and Kirchofer; losing Childress early; losing Monty; losing Moore and Bradford to football; losing Morris to academics; losing Grunfeld to the injury. That's a lot of losing. Still, they stuck together and fought out some big wins, and managed an 8 seed in the NCAA tournament. This year's team was all guts, and although the odds are against them making any serious run, it's one of my favorite Stanford teams in recent memory. Good job Trent Johnson, good job Chris Hernandez, good job scrappy role players. Now let's go beat down on Mississippi State.
I think the small teams are the fun part of the tournament. One of my friends here went to Oakland University in Detroit for undergrad, and his mighty Grizzlies (12-18 on the season) are in the play-in game on Tuesday. He is so psyched, you can't help but be excited for him.
And what's with UW getting a #1 seed? I did not see that coming. I think I know how good UW is, having seen them play a few times this year, and I really don't think it's deserved. But -- who else deserved it? No other team played like they deserved it either. So I guess it might as well be Washington.
Oh, and if you want to join a tournament pool: Click here, and join a private group.
Group #51315
Password: gocardinal
All you need is a Yahoo ID.
Go Cardinal!
I have to take a moment and expound on how proud I am of this year's Stanford team. They went through so much: graduating Lottich, Davis, and Kirchofer; losing Childress early; losing Monty; losing Moore and Bradford to football; losing Morris to academics; losing Grunfeld to the injury. That's a lot of losing. Still, they stuck together and fought out some big wins, and managed an 8 seed in the NCAA tournament. This year's team was all guts, and although the odds are against them making any serious run, it's one of my favorite Stanford teams in recent memory. Good job Trent Johnson, good job Chris Hernandez, good job scrappy role players. Now let's go beat down on Mississippi State.
I think the small teams are the fun part of the tournament. One of my friends here went to Oakland University in Detroit for undergrad, and his mighty Grizzlies (12-18 on the season) are in the play-in game on Tuesday. He is so psyched, you can't help but be excited for him.
And what's with UW getting a #1 seed? I did not see that coming. I think I know how good UW is, having seen them play a few times this year, and I really don't think it's deserved. But -- who else deserved it? No other team played like they deserved it either. So I guess it might as well be Washington.
Oh, and if you want to join a tournament pool: Click here, and join a private group.
Group #51315
Password: gocardinal
All you need is a Yahoo ID.
Go Cardinal!
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Friday, March 11, 2005
Another time-killer
What's your reaction speed? Test it here. (Courtesy of Justin)
My best individual time is 0.131, best average is 0.203
My best individual time is 0.131, best average is 0.203
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Coulrophobia
Why are people afraid of clowns? I know I am. Yahoo tries to explain the phobia. I blame this.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Da Vinci Code
CNN has an article about the success of the Da Vinci Code, which was released 2 years ago this month. 25 million copies later, it's still huge. I'm always torn when this kind of pop culture phenomenon occurs. First, I'm glad people are reading; I'll never criticize people for their choice in books. But at the same time, wow, what a crappy book.
Some parts are interesting -- the history, art, and symbology aren't all bad. And it is a real page-turner -- perfect for a plane ride. But the puzzles are way too easy, and Dan Brown really is not a good writer. His contrived attempts to build suspense were not suspenseful -- they were annoying. His attempt to build a romance between the male and female leads was nothing but awkward. And his writing style was just childish; I thought at times it was written by a high school student. Maybe that's why it appeals to such a wide range of readers... I don't know.
Anyway, good that people are reading. I just didn't care for it.
Some parts are interesting -- the history, art, and symbology aren't all bad. And it is a real page-turner -- perfect for a plane ride. But the puzzles are way too easy, and Dan Brown really is not a good writer. His contrived attempts to build suspense were not suspenseful -- they were annoying. His attempt to build a romance between the male and female leads was nothing but awkward. And his writing style was just childish; I thought at times it was written by a high school student. Maybe that's why it appeals to such a wide range of readers... I don't know.
Anyway, good that people are reading. I just didn't care for it.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
More on the Ten Commandments
Restroom discrimination
At first I thought the author of this article was kidding. But he's not. He's a Yale law professor and he thinks single-use bathrooms should not be classified by gender. He says:
The fact that men stand to urinate and at times might not aim accurately is the entire rationale for separate toilets. . . But this is just the type of unsupported sexual stereotyping that our discrimination law was meant to stop.It's a fun little argument, and he actually succeeds a little in making it sound important. But then he ends with:
Just remember to put down the seat when you're done.So... we shouldn't have single-sex single-use bathrooms, but men still have to put the seat down? Now that's discrimination.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Seattle sports
The Seattle Times asks whether Seattle sports fans are too gentle. Maybe. But, wait, we're the problem here? The reason the Mariners suck is because I don't throw a big enough hissy? Wow, because, you know, I throw a pretty big hissy at the end of every sports season. Okay, fine. I guess I could always throw a bigger one. Watch out, future roommates. I'm bringing the heat this year. I'm talking to you, Wally.
Last week's cases
The Court had a big week last week, and it's too bad I wasn't around to comment on it. Too bad for me, that is. You probably couldn't care less. Anyway, three cases came down that were of interest to me.
First there's Tenet v. Doe. Here, a pair of married ex-spies are suing the CIA over a breach of contract. The government promised these spies something in return for their espionage service, but didn't fulfill their bargain. The bummer is that spies can't sue the US government, as decided years ago in Totten v. US, for national security reasons. The Does' claim was that the CIA's procedures violated their due process rights, regardless of their spy status. The Court didn't buy it -- the Does got spanked 9-0, even though they had won in the Ninth Circuit. It's a Seattle firm that represented the Does here (my Dad knows some of the people involved (but obviously not the Does -- nobody knows the Does, not even their lawyer)). Anyway, look here for a short synopsis of the opinion. And find some news here, here, and here.
Next is Roper v. Simmons, where the Court would decide the constitutionality of the death penalty for minors (or, more specifically, for convicts who committed their crimes under the age of 18). The question arises under Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." What does "cruel and unusual" mean? It's an ambiguous phrase, and its meaning has changed over time. Sixteen years ago the Court said it was okay to execute minors, but it said that it would use global standards of decency to make determinations of this kind going forward. Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote in that case. Last week, he went the other way and authored the opinion that made it unconstitutional to execute minors. I'm happy with the result, but as with many Kennedy opinions, the legal reasoning is a little strange. Want news and opinion? Look here, here, and here. And of course, my girl Dahlia Lithwick.
Lastly, the dual cases of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU will decide the consitutionality of statues of the Ten Commandments on state property. This case hasn't been decided; oral arguments were on Wednesday. This case is impossible to predict because Establishment Clause law is so muddled. I hear you screaming something about "Separation of Church and State," but that line doesn't actually appear in the constitution. Instead of recapping everything, I'll just direct you to my girl Dahlia. She's got it covered. I'll probably touch on this case again someday.
First there's Tenet v. Doe. Here, a pair of married ex-spies are suing the CIA over a breach of contract. The government promised these spies something in return for their espionage service, but didn't fulfill their bargain. The bummer is that spies can't sue the US government, as decided years ago in Totten v. US, for national security reasons. The Does' claim was that the CIA's procedures violated their due process rights, regardless of their spy status. The Court didn't buy it -- the Does got spanked 9-0, even though they had won in the Ninth Circuit. It's a Seattle firm that represented the Does here (my Dad knows some of the people involved (but obviously not the Does -- nobody knows the Does, not even their lawyer)). Anyway, look here for a short synopsis of the opinion. And find some news here, here, and here.
Next is Roper v. Simmons, where the Court would decide the constitutionality of the death penalty for minors (or, more specifically, for convicts who committed their crimes under the age of 18). The question arises under Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." What does "cruel and unusual" mean? It's an ambiguous phrase, and its meaning has changed over time. Sixteen years ago the Court said it was okay to execute minors, but it said that it would use global standards of decency to make determinations of this kind going forward. Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote in that case. Last week, he went the other way and authored the opinion that made it unconstitutional to execute minors. I'm happy with the result, but as with many Kennedy opinions, the legal reasoning is a little strange. Want news and opinion? Look here, here, and here. And of course, my girl Dahlia Lithwick.
Lastly, the dual cases of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU will decide the consitutionality of statues of the Ten Commandments on state property. This case hasn't been decided; oral arguments were on Wednesday. This case is impossible to predict because Establishment Clause law is so muddled. I hear you screaming something about "Separation of Church and State," but that line doesn't actually appear in the constitution. Instead of recapping everything, I'll just direct you to my girl Dahlia. She's got it covered. I'll probably touch on this case again someday.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
I'm back
I'm back in Ann Arbor now after an awesome week in South Lake Tahoe. I spent the first weekend with my ultimate team, enjoying some gambling, sledding, and general revelry. When the ultimate-folk left, some friends from UMLS arrived, and we spent the next four days skiing in perfect conditions. We got powder on Monday and Wednesday, and since we were there mid-week, the slopes weren't too crowded. I was pleased with my own skiing, though I still have a lot of form-issues to work on. I get down the hill pretty fast, but I don't look pretty when I do it.
As for specifics on gambling, it was all blackjack. The first gambleramble left me up one dollar after 5 hours at the table. The second gambleramble left me down $55 after a half hour. Booo. This is why I play poker.
Anyway, I'm glad to be back. I missed a fair amount of blog-worthy events in the past week, and I'll try to get to them when I can.
As for specifics on gambling, it was all blackjack. The first gambleramble left me up one dollar after 5 hours at the table. The second gambleramble left me down $55 after a half hour. Booo. This is why I play poker.
Anyway, I'm glad to be back. I missed a fair amount of blog-worthy events in the past week, and I'll try to get to them when I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
