CALI-gula
Because I am lazy, I have not even started outlining Evidence yet. And the exam is Monday. What I have done is bind my notes and begin reading and highliting them at a snail's pace. I've also intermittently been doing the corresponding CALI exercises. Ugh.
First of all, I grouse at some of the chapters which are literally done in some sort of DOS-like shell interface. You can't resize the window and the answers are wonk. In the "Concept of Hearsay" chapter for example, one of the questions read:
In a slip and fall case where plaintiff said he was injured when he slipped on a banana peel, the plaintiff calls a witness who testifies that 15 minutes before the accident, he told the proprieter that there was a banana peel on the floor. Is this hearsay?
My only two choices were "Yes" or "No." "Maybe" was not an option. "Need more information" was not an option. "Need to know what it's being offered for" was not an option.
And I understand that if it's only be offered to show "notice," then it's not hearsay. But if it's being offered to prove there was a banana peel on the floor, then it is hearsay. Do you have any idea how it's being offered here? NO!!! You don't. And yet when I chose "Yes," it tagged my answer as incorrect.
This is not helpful. Add to the fact that there is a myriad of typographical errors that make you have to re-read the question 4 or 5 times and I'm not entirely sure why I'm wasting my time. The more modern CALI chapters seem better. And better-explained. I just don't need this sort of frustration when I'm trying to study inefffectively.
In other news, I watched the first two installments of The First Amendment series on Court TV. I actually only saw the last 15 minutes of the Al Franken one. It was marginally interesting, but I didn't really learn anything new in that one. I mostly just liked it because O'Reilly is portrayed as a tool. But again...knew that already.
The second one, Poetic Justice, was about the ex-poet laureate of NJ, Amiri Baraka and his incendiary poem, "Who Blew Up America." It was directed by Mario Van Peeples and obviously has an opinion of its own to present. I thought there was some good dialogue about art and content censorship. I convinced myself that watching these were school-related. Since Con Law II is all about the First Amendment, I somehow felt justified.
I also drug my sorry ass to the gym and worked out back and biceps. I realized that I should be taking advantage of my "free" daytimes and use the gym when thousands of muscleheads, yoga bunnies and children aren't. By 5 p.m., it's a zoo in there. I think I should schedule my studying around a 2 p.m. gym jaunt.
I added some T.Rex, Massive Attack, Patty Griffin and Beth Orton to my mp3 workout "tape." I really need to add some more stuff in there to mix it up, but that will probably have to wait until the new year.
I lost out on the bidding on a Birdhouse skate deck autographed by Tony Hawk. The auction was to benefit PFAW, but $265 is an obscene (see Justice Stewart) amount of money for this. I wanted it as a Xmas present for my 12 year old Godson who worships Tony Hawk. Oh, well. Over the summer, I had a date with this professional BMX dude who knows a lot of the XGames pros. I told BMXBoy about my Tony Hawk plight and he said he would "give him a call" and see if he would hook me up. He added the caveat, "No promises, since I was better friends with his ex-wife than Tony." Immediately, I thought to myself "EX-wife, eh? Forget the autograph, how do I get to date T Hawk?"
I assume it's poor etiquette to ask BMXBoy (who I had a date with) to set me up with his friend's ex-husband?
It would be nice, tho, to get that skate deck for my Godson.
And maybe a smoochie from my favorite Xboy.
Does that make his ex-wife an "ex-X-wife?"
ouch. that was awful.
Back to Party Admissions. Whee.
First of all, I grouse at some of the chapters which are literally done in some sort of DOS-like shell interface. You can't resize the window and the answers are wonk. In the "Concept of Hearsay" chapter for example, one of the questions read:
In a slip and fall case where plaintiff said he was injured when he slipped on a banana peel, the plaintiff calls a witness who testifies that 15 minutes before the accident, he told the proprieter that there was a banana peel on the floor. Is this hearsay?
My only two choices were "Yes" or "No." "Maybe" was not an option. "Need more information" was not an option. "Need to know what it's being offered for" was not an option.
And I understand that if it's only be offered to show "notice," then it's not hearsay. But if it's being offered to prove there was a banana peel on the floor, then it is hearsay. Do you have any idea how it's being offered here? NO!!! You don't. And yet when I chose "Yes," it tagged my answer as incorrect.
This is not helpful. Add to the fact that there is a myriad of typographical errors that make you have to re-read the question 4 or 5 times and I'm not entirely sure why I'm wasting my time. The more modern CALI chapters seem better. And better-explained. I just don't need this sort of frustration when I'm trying to study inefffectively.
In other news, I watched the first two installments of The First Amendment series on Court TV. I actually only saw the last 15 minutes of the Al Franken one. It was marginally interesting, but I didn't really learn anything new in that one. I mostly just liked it because O'Reilly is portrayed as a tool. But again...knew that already.
The second one, Poetic Justice, was about the ex-poet laureate of NJ, Amiri Baraka and his incendiary poem, "Who Blew Up America." It was directed by Mario Van Peeples and obviously has an opinion of its own to present. I thought there was some good dialogue about art and content censorship. I convinced myself that watching these were school-related. Since Con Law II is all about the First Amendment, I somehow felt justified.
I also drug my sorry ass to the gym and worked out back and biceps. I realized that I should be taking advantage of my "free" daytimes and use the gym when thousands of muscleheads, yoga bunnies and children aren't. By 5 p.m., it's a zoo in there. I think I should schedule my studying around a 2 p.m. gym jaunt.
I added some T.Rex, Massive Attack, Patty Griffin and Beth Orton to my mp3 workout "tape." I really need to add some more stuff in there to mix it up, but that will probably have to wait until the new year.
I lost out on the bidding on a Birdhouse skate deck autographed by Tony Hawk. The auction was to benefit PFAW, but $265 is an obscene (see Justice Stewart) amount of money for this. I wanted it as a Xmas present for my 12 year old Godson who worships Tony Hawk. Oh, well. Over the summer, I had a date with this professional BMX dude who knows a lot of the XGames pros. I told BMXBoy about my Tony Hawk plight and he said he would "give him a call" and see if he would hook me up. He added the caveat, "No promises, since I was better friends with his ex-wife than Tony." Immediately, I thought to myself "EX-wife, eh? Forget the autograph, how do I get to date T Hawk?"
I assume it's poor etiquette to ask BMXBoy (who I had a date with) to set me up with his friend's ex-husband?
It would be nice, tho, to get that skate deck for my Godson.
And maybe a smoochie from my favorite Xboy.
Does that make his ex-wife an "ex-X-wife?"
ouch. that was awful.
Back to Party Admissions. Whee.
posted by spycygrl at
1:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home