Bad Glacier

Okay. I just saw someone walk into the bathroom reading a study guide. Maybe Glannon, maybe not, but the same kind of thing. Softcover, fairly thick, non-intimidating cover. That’s not the point. The point is, he was reading it in the bathroom.

But here’s the bad part. He walks in, takes a standing pee, and walks out of the bathroom, still reading the book.

Seriously, what kind of serious legal scholar uses the restroom at this point in the year? Even the average students have been skipping showers and using chamber pots for weeks, and the gunners are now sporting IV drips and Depends. I’ve been living off of peanut butter, Triscuits, and salt since November, and I just finished memorizing the index I made for the collected works of Judge Posner. Y’know, just in case.

Moral: If you have to take restroom breaks, you’ve already lost.

No, seriously. That’s what he calls himself.

I suppose “Scott Spindel, attorney who defends drunk-driving cases” just isn’t as catchy. “Scott Spindel, DUI Defender”? Maybe if he wore a cape.

A Google search for “caped lawyer,” by the way, led me to this story, from the motherland of Ohio.

Back to the drunk driving attorney… Thanks to the wonderfully detailed BAC Calculator on his site, I now know how many Mint Juleps it takes to put me over the legal limit. Not that I’ve ever had a Mint Julep before.

I don’t want to do the rest of my reading for tomorrow. Can you tell?

ALSO: Why am I capitalizing Mint Julep? I dunno.

My post below was unclear. Here’s a simple explanation that doesn’t make me look like a dick:

I had overheard some people acting as if the custodian was mentally challenged because she doesn’t speak English very well. It annoyed me.

Note to the people I overheard talking the other day: the custodian is Hispanic, not retarded. Believe it or not, there is a difference.

Possibly more than one.

I never would have guessed the Heyman Fellows Panel, featuring Harvard grads working on Capitol Hill, would be a good source of unintentional double entendres, but I would have been wrong, thanks to the fellows’ shorthand method of referring to the Senators/Representatives they worked for as their “member”:

“You need a good member.”

“Your job experience all depends on your member.”

“Unfortunately, there are some dud members out there. You don’t want to get stuck with a dud member . . . not for very long, at least.”

“You have to respect your member. You have to agree with your member–not all of the time, but most of the time, or else you’ll be frustrated.”

And the crowning moment of the night:

“It’s great if you’ve got the big member in a committee.”

Indeed.