Enjoyable night: Finally was able to watch Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause and then received this clip via email. Not bad, mi amiga, not bad.

When asked what would happen if he lost the election Sen. John McCain commented that we should not feel sorry for him. Okay, I will not feel sorry for you John McCain nor will I feel sorry for Sarah Palin. At this point I do not think she even wants to win the election. I think she is a fame seeker and inexplicably she found an international stage. I predict within a year she will have a contract with a cosmetics company, such as Revlon, and may even do so Fox News gigs. I also see her receiving an NRA president-ship at some point. From her cold, dead hands… (Really cold in Alaska.)

In Governor Palin’s head she has already won the game or so I think. Her ego and self-confidence will take her beyond the Alaskan borders. “Smugness is not a good quality.” No pity for her.

And then there was Mark Walhberg. This past month he made it to my list of unwatchable interviewees while he was out and about promoting Max Payne. He consistently has demonstrated a personality type B-lacking, while at the same time given me the impression he is just one Sunday driver away from letting loose all sorts of not-so-good vibrations. In my opinion, the substance of his character never comes to fruition during his interviews whether on-screen or in print. It seems even the most sycophantic of writers have difficulty in sucking any life from his words and thereby bringing it forth to the written profile.

But then last Saturday night I witnessed Mr. Mark’s redemption amongst the funny bunch. I had previously watched SNL’s clip “Mark Walhberg Talks to Animals.” Mark Wahlberg (from here on out will be referred to as MW) dissed it as well as SNL’s current line-up as a whole saying it fails to compare to the days when he watched it and Eddie Murphy and Joe Piscopo (really? Joe Piscopo?) were cast members. So when he showed up I was pretty endeared by his ability to laugh at himself. And when he said “Hey donkey…” I admit the humor got to me and it become one of the few times I laughed out loud while watching SNL (MW’s correct in that it really isn’t that funny.) Watch it here.

I hear the cynical whine “but he was promoting a movie.” Come on, not all of y’all who would make millions REGARDLESS of the movie’s success would agree to all promo gigs. I’m just saying.

Say hi to your moms for me…

In preparing the case New York Times Co., Inc., et al. v. Tasini, et al. for class, I discovered the lead respondent has written a few lightly commented posts at HuffingtonPost.com. Jonathan Tasini was president of the National Writers Union. Alec Baldwin has also posted on HuffingtonPost.com. Alec Baldwin was never president of the National Writers Union. His posts tend to be heavily commented. Hmmm, I wonder why.

In my opinion, this case should never have made it to the Supreme Ct. as it seems simple to conclude this was an infringement on the rights of the freelance authors. However, this is after I took a Cali test (I think Cali.org is a great resource for law students or me, at least) on Joint Works and earned less a sub adequate grade. I figure my reasoning was undoubtedly based on instinct versus my clear understanding of copyright law. Good thing I have about 6 weeks until finals.

On Tuesday my Con Law II professor began class with a song- he literally sang some “old-time” song. He seemed satisfied with his singing performance and followed it with the cliched line “I am available for weddings.” Last week he made a few well-received jokes and seemingly felt proud of his performance. I say this because at the end of class he reminded us that we would need the school’s permission if anyone felt compelled to post a video of this class on YouTube. (The actual rule is that we are not allowed to record any class without prior permission, thus, being granted post-permission isn’t likely to happen.)

The joke which was a “big” hit came at the expense of Bowers v. HARDWICK which was a case that involved two consenting males engaged in sodomy. Admittedly, I laughed out loud at the joke for two reasons. 1) I had read both this case and the follow-up case which overruled Bowers as well as consulted a study guide - all which referred to the title of the case Bowers v Hardwick and yet, I never caught the play on words. Thus, when the joke came it was very unexpected which raised the entertainment level. 2) His set-up of the joke was pretty good in that it was subtle and did not blatantly hint at the punchline.

But my Con Law II professor’s educating style makes me wonder about Barack Obama as a Constitutional Law professor. I somehow feel my current professor is vastly different than Senator Obama was as far as class presentation was concerned. I doubt Obama made a joke pertaining to name of the case when teaching Bowers v. Hardwick.

Grumpy, old, men…so tell me, at what age do even-tempered males turn into bitter, moody, crab-asses?