No time, of course, since I'm studying for the bar. But I have to keep constant tabs on talkingpointsmemo.com, as I need something to distract me, and keep me from doing what I'm supposed to be doing. Just refreshed and saw a post referring to this article in the WaPo, discussing a Rand Corp. study commissioned by the U.S. Joint Forces Command.

I haven't read the article, of course, but this quote apparently sums it up: "[Iraqi civilians] are less likely to help, the study says, when they become 'collateral damage' in U.S. attacks, have their doors broken down or are shot at checkpoints because they do not speak English."

Now, that has got to be a joke. There's no way someone wrote that sentence with a straight face, not realizing how insane it is. Our military, after four years of warfare, has just commissioned a study to tell them that it's easier to get people to join your cause if you don't shoot them. I love the fact that it says they're "less likely" to help. So, those people who are being shot for not speaking English -- they're still somewhat likely to help us, just not as likely.

History will judge us harshly.

So the bar is five days away now. Holy mozoli. I've been studying my butt off. The fussed up thing is that I don't have any idea how I'm doing. They tell me that you should shoot to get 60% correct on the multistate portion of the exam. Every time I take a practice test, I get about 75% right. But I am really, honest-to-god guessing on a good three-quarters of the question, which makes me think that score isn't a slam dunk. Then there's the essay portion. After two months of classes, I still don't have a clue how they score those fuckers. On the practice exams, I usually get a few completely wrong, a few right, and a few kind of in-between. I don't know what this means. I keep reminding myself, "Self, you're a smart guy. You've been studying a lot -- like, a whole lot. You test well, generally speaking. How could you not pass this?" I think that I really believe that, deep down. But it is pretty fucking scary. If I don't pass... well, I don't want to go into that. I don't want to get myself all upset.

Anyway, the prevailing feeling today is complete uncertainty about what to expect.

I'm studying for the bar. It's about 1.5 weeks away now, so I am studying intensely. As a result, I'm procrastinating intensely too. I just wanted to flag this. The WaPo has a series talking about four different congresspeople, whom they've each given a title to as if they were characters in a sitcom: the "conservative democrat," the "antiwar liberal," the "anguished moderate," and the "loyal republican." At the risk of being a traitor to my team, I think that (apart from just being a stupid way of reporting on politicians -- it might be acceptable if the subject were entertainment or something), the treatment of Isakson (the Republican) here is unfair. Everyone else gets a title based on their ideas about the world -- they're conservative, or liberal, or antiwar, or moderate or whatever -- but he's just a loyal republican.

Hm. Now that I think about this, though, maybe it's just accurate: maybe his whole position is just of loyalty to the president. That certainly wouldn't be a major surprise in todays republican party. Obviously, I haven't read the articles and I'm not going to, what w/ time being what it is. (To give you an idea of how tight time is, I'm typing this while sitting on the can.) So I really can't comment on whether it's accurate or not. But it is interesting.

"We've got 20-some investigations that all look good," Flynt said during a news conference at his Beverly Hills office.

"We have got some high-ranking Republican and Democratic members of the Senate and the House," he told reporters. "If I get just a couple of those phonies out of there, maybe it will be a step forward."

Flynt provided no names or details about the investigations. His comments conflicted with a press release issued by the magazine that put the number of investigations at "several."

There are of course lots of reasons to blog about this. But I'm actually just highlighting it because I'm surprised that AP believes that it's contradictory to say there are "20-some" investigations, on the one hand, and to say there are "several" investigations, on the other. That is all.