1. Full Metal Jacket (based on The Short-Timers by Gustav Hasford)
2. The Silence of the Lambs (based on the book by Thomas Harris)
3. A Time to Kill (based on the book by John Grisham -- close second, The Client)
4. The Shawshank Redemption (based on the novella by Stephen King -- Stand by Me gets consideration here too)
5. Fail-Safe (based on the book by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler)
6. The Bridge Over the River Kwai (based on the book by Pierre Boulle)
7. Blade Runner (based on the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick)
8. The Rules of Attraction (based on the book by Bret Easton Ellis)
9. Presumed Innocent (based on the book by Scott Turow)
10. Henry & June (based on the book by Anais Nin)

One man's opinion; no particular order. These are off the top of my head, so I'm probably forgetting some really obvious ones. And none of this necessarily means that I didn't like the book -- only that I enjoyed the movie more, for whatever reason. Also, my rule is that I have to have both seen the film and read the book. So, The Godfather isn't in there because I haven't read Mario Puzo's book, and J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings isn't in there for the same reason. I can't state an opinion on them, but I have a feeling that some folks would nominate them. The Shining isn't on here because I'm not a fan of Shelley Duvall. And I know some might say The Natural. I loaned a good friend of mine the novel by Bernard Malamud, and when he finished he threw the book at me in a rage. (Spoiler alert) He was quite upset that at the end of the book, Roy Hobbs strikes out. I think the book explores themes that are so different from the movie's that it's almost a different story. I thought both were good, but I still liked the book better. It's close, though.

Anyway, that's just something that was on my mind tonight. I welcome your thoughts.

Long-time readers of BTQ know about my ongoing search for a date and my curiosity about internet dating sites. Well, here's the latest update. In the process of making my 2004 predictions, I had cause to open the web site of Jenna Jameson. For those of you who don't know her and might have wondered why I included the "not work friendly" warning in there, Jameson is by far the #1 adult film star in America. There's not really a precise mainstream Hollywood analogue, because not only are Jameson's films the most popular in her genre, they win lots of adult film awards. And, the "box office" draw -- and hence salary structure -- in the adult film industry is heavily skewed towards women, so Jameson is widely regarded as the highest paid adult film star too.

Anyway, her web site had a link to a dating service. In the interest of research, I checked it out. I was mainly curious about what kind of person would sign up for this kind of thing. A few impressions: First, none of the women are as attractive as Jameson. Second, this service has none of the hangups Match.com does about explicit language in the profiles. "Come and get it" was one of the tamer taglines I saw. Finally, and most amusing to me, one could search for the following: "Man, Woman, Couple, or Group."

We truly live in amazing times! No longer does a woman looking to hook up with a posse of men and women have to stand on a dark, rainy street corner or thumb through the ads in seedy swingers' magazines or move to Southern California! Today's modern slut can simply point-and-click her way to group sex adventures! The future is now!

Via the Cyber Attorney, I saw this story alerting us that the Russian pop duo t.A.T.u. is planning on running for president of Russia, as some sort of combined candidate. (Added together, their ages exceed the minimum age requirement.) If you're not familiar with them, t.A.T.u. is famous not for their music but for being a pair of teenage girls in school uniforms who routinely make out with each other.

Obviously, this is a publicity stunt, but it still made me consider applying to work at our embassy in Moscow.

What with Fitz's mention of various Madonna-kissers, are we in danger of becoming the blogosphere's home for commentary on girls kissing girls? If so, I'm ok with that.

Over at Crescat, Will points out this quiz to find out if one is a blogaholic. Will found out that he is "definitely a blogaholic."

I took the quiz and discovered I am not. This is probably because I haven't been blogging as long as Will, but still, it's nice to know. Will got an 84/100, while mine was only 56/100. The analysis: "You are a dedicated weblogger. You post frequently because you enjoy weblogging a lot, yet you still manage to have a social life. You're the best kind of weblogger. Way to go!"

Two things. First, I note that this analysis seems to apply to anyone falling between 51 and 80 percent, which is a big range, and one Will just missed. Second, I like how the quiz authors assume that the only way I spend my non-blogging time is "hav[ing] a social life."

Well, I'm sad to say that blogging is pretty much the highlight for me. And still, I only scored 56%. I need to re-evaluate my priorities.

Two acting-related anecdotes:

1. On Conan O'Brien's New Year's Eve show (the highlight of which was an appearance by one of my all-time favorites, Amy Sedaris), the gang was reminiscing about the past year. Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, was not too impressed with bandleader Max Weinberg's acting ability. Triumph: "Max, you're stiffer than Michael Jackson watching The Goonies!"

2. I was chatting off-blog with Fitz the other day. He mentioned that he had caught a few minutes of the Paris Hilton reality show (well, the "reality show" on Fox, not the other thing). He commented that she was indeed quite stupid, and as evidence he noted that she didn't even know what Wal-Mart was. I told him that I had read that she admitted to staging that bit of classist ignorance. His reply: "Well, she's a good actress, then, because she looked pretty stupid."

So there you have it: Fitz thinks Paris Hilton is a good actress.

You will no doubt notice the amazing facelift here at BTQ - we owe a debt of gratitude to the very talented may for reworking the site. may, thank you very much. We could not have done it without you!

In conjunction with the "re-launch" of the site and the new year, I will offer my predictions for 2004 (and beyond). You can take these to Vegas ("These are IOUs. They are as good as money. See? This one's for a car. You might want to hang on to it.").

Without further ado, here is what the Magic 8-ball tells me:

1. The DOW will hit 12K.

2. "The Return of the King" will be snubbed in Best Picture and Best Director categories.

3. Fidel Castro will die. Finally.

4. The Department of Interior Solicitor's Office will reject me at least 2 more times - bringing the total number of rejections to 4. Four for '04.

5. The final installment of the "Star Wars" prequels will suck - and I mean suck, like "Judge Dredd" levels of suckiness - but I will still go see it.

6. Britney Spears will pose full nude in Playboy. This "jump the shark" move will mark the beginning of the end of her pop career. She will discover that kissing Madonna doesn't make you Madonna (she should have just asked Sandra Bernhard).

7. In legal news, Jacko = guilty; Scott Peterson = guilty; Rush = guilty; Saddam = guilty; Martha Stewart = not guilty; Kobe Bryant = not guilty.

8. God will stay in the Pledge of Allegiance.

9. Any and all "Friends" spin-offs will fail miserably. This goes double for "Joey moves to L.A."

10. The Democratic presidential candidate (not Howard "Interesting Theory" Dean) will challenge President Bush's electoral victory in every possible court - and the challenges will not prevail. Al Sharpton will incite race riots as a result. Bill Clinton and the DLC will win the power struggle in the party and set Hillary up for 2008.

* Bonus prediction: Hillary will lose in 2008.
* Bonus prediction #2: Justice O'Connor will step down from the Court in February 2005. Finally.

Have a great new year everyone and thank you for reading BTQ!

I think this concept is self-explanatory, so here goes:

1. Howard Dean will not win the Democratic nomination. Neither will John Dean. Nor will Dean Cain. Nor will John McCain. Nor will John McClane. Nor will McLean Stevenson. Nor will Parker Stevenson. Nor will Jameson Parker. Nor will Jenna Jameson (not work friendly). Nor will Jenna Bush (you must read this one, too!). Nor will George Bush. He won't need it, of course, because he'll win the election anyway.

2. There will be major flooding of the Mississippi River, approaching the severity of the 1993 flood.

3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King will win Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director.

4. Mike Tyson will spend at least one night in jail, but neither Kobe Bryant nor Michael Jackson will.

5. Colin Powell will be replaced as Secretary of State by Condoleeza Rice.

6. A human being will be cloned.

7. A major terrorist attack (comparable to Sept. 11) will occur in Europe, maybe in London, but more likely directed at the Athens Olympics.

8. Electronic voting miscues (and potentially, fraud) will cause serious problems with vote counting for the 2004 elections. (And don't miss this article -- plus links -- or this one -- plus links.)

9. Duke will win the 2004 NCAA men's basketball championship.

10. I will have a date. Bonus prediction: My date will be with a woman who reads BTQ.

Have a great 2004, everyone!

I'm sure the author's heart is in the right place, but I can't be the only one taken aback by a book called Alzheimer's for Dummies.

Note that the author posted a review of the book on Amazon defending the title and awarding her book five stars.

A short while ago, I got one of those Amazon emails telling me that a friend of mine had bought a book, and offering me a discount if I bought it. The book was Chief Justice William Rehnquist's All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime. Even with the discount, I'm not going to buy the book, but I wanted to write a response to my friend's suggestion. He's a bright guy, but let's just say I was worried about the lesson he would take from the book.

It turns out that Eric Muller beat me to it by a few years. Muller, an expert on the Japanese internment in World War II, wrote a review (31-page pdf) of Rehnquist's book. Rehnquist's basic theme is that the executive and the judiciary restrict civil liberties during war, and offers a few examples to support his contention. Reading Rehnquist's book, you'd think this is always the case, and there is no other responsible stance for executive authorities or judges to take. Muller presents several counter-examples and shows that, at the very least, the story of "civil liberties in wartime" is far more complex and nuanced than the picture Rehnquist paints. (Muller doesn't go this far, but at worst Rehnquist's book is wrong both as a matter of history and policy.)

And then last week, Muller had this fine post on his fine blog. He quotes some commentators who were highly critical of last week's decisions regarding Jose Padilla and the Gitmo detainees. For comparison, Muller provides quotes from the dissents in Korematsu, and asks rhetorically if those judges were so crazy too.

Way back here, Muller worried that folks (there, Michael Chertoff) would read Rehnquist's book and think it presents the whole story, when in fact it is, in Muller's words, "a radically incomplete (and one-sided) account of the history" of civil liberties in wartime. This post is simply my attempt to make sure my friend doesn't make the same mistake. If he can sit all the way through Rehnquist's book, he should at least read Muller's brief, interesting review.

Tales from the grocery store:

1. They had a guy in a security guard uniform bagging groceries. Leaving aside the issue of whether this guy would be willing to break a customer's eggs to foil a robbery, won't the unions be upset by that? Then again, maybe the security guards and the baggers are in the same union. That reminds me of the "Simpsons" episode in which we learn that Homer's union is the International Brotherhood of Jazz Dancers, Pastry Chefs and Nuclear Technicians.

2. Is it ok to buy egg nog after Christmas? I'm not talking about the expiration date, that was Jan. 9 or something. I'm wondering if I'm the only person who would do this. I didn't have any before Christmas (I was sick), and just had the urge a few days late, I guess. I'll probably get tired of it before I even finish the quart, but it makes me curious if they even make egg nog in the off-season. Don't send me recipies; I don't like it that much. But if anyone sees any nog next summer, let me know.

3. The woman in front of me in line had the following items in her shopping cart: a large bag of parsley and four boxes of birthday candles. I'm sure the cake will be tasty and well-garnished.

(This post's title from the song by The Clash. In the linked lyric transcription, the "her" in the third line should be "here." It's an important distinction in context.)

I'm mainly just posting this to get back in the habit of blogging after several days away. I had an enjoyable holiday, mostly, except I got sick. Not what I was wanting for Christmas, but it did keep me from gaining all those holiday pounds.

I saw this article from USA Today noting that, not only are there more than one million lawyers in the U.S., a record number of applicants are taking the LSAT. The article is somewhat optimistic about the "where will they all go?" question, noting that 52% of lawyers say their firms expect to hire in the next year.

Well, I'm a natural pessimist, but I don't see things as being so rosy. Most of my evidence is anecdotal, admittedly. But I knew plenty of folks in my graduating class (2002) at a top 20 law school who could not find jobs. Several are still "underemployed." I wonder if the reason our law school pushes clerkships so hard is because the employment-at-graduation numbers are high, but all those folks are looking for work again a year later.

I was talking with a co-worker about her fiance's trouble finding a job. They're moving, so he's looking for work in a small market where she has a job lined up. He graduated a couple years ago from a decent regional law school, clerked for a bankruptcy judge, passed two bars, and has worked for a year or so for a small firm. He couldn't find a job for anything, and finally took an offer for $30,000 to start. Even in a small city, there are lots of jobs that would pay more than that. Granted, they have some profit-sharing and will bump up the pay considerably once they know he's there for the long haul and not a two-years-and-out deal. But still, 30 grand is not a lot of cabbage these days. His wife's federal job will pay about twice that. And the kicker is he's doing bankruptcy, the growth industry during economic hard times!

But aside from not having a place to go once they get out of law school, I have to wonder why these people are going in the first place. Let me first say that I went to law school largely because I didn't know what else to do, but it turned out I really liked it and would go back if given the chance. I was really just looking to stay in school -- if my LSAT score had been any lower, I would have taken the GRE next.

Anyway, Will Baude has discussed the law school brain drain theory here in a conversation with Feddie of Southern Appeal and here in a conversation with Stuart Buck of The Buck Stops Here. I'm sure I've read about this elsewhere, but memory and google fails me now. Anyway, the idea (which Will attributes to "Richard Posner, among others" and Buck attributes to former Harvard president Derek Bok) is that smart people are going to law school and "adding 300 words to a 1000 word prescription drug warning" when they could, presumably, be doing something more socially beneficial. (Quote from Walter Olson of the good blog Overlawyered, quoted in the USA Today article.)

Will isn't asking me, but I think there's some truth to this theory. On the one hand, several of my classmates left promising careers in other fields to study law, and several had obvious capabilities in, say, the hard sciences or business or academics or whatnot, but chose law instead. I think it's a good thing to have smart, capable lawyers. But on the other hand, plenty of my classmates have no great aptitude for the law or much else. If the easy track is to go to law school, well, shit rolls downhill. I saw no evidence that potential future captains of industry or, in Buck's words, "budding Aristotles" were among this bunch. I don't think it's that terrible that lots of smart people are going to law school, and tend to agree with Buck that if people were truly motivated to go do something more worthwhile than lawyering, we're better served having motivated people in those fields.

What constantly amazed me at law school was the utter lack of curiosity or interest about the law among many of my classmates. I thought it was ridiculous when Clarence Thomas testified under oath that he did not discuss Roe v. Wade while he was in law school, even though the decision was announced while he was at Yale. (Moreover, he denied "ever debat[ing] the contents of it" in the years since. See about halfway down the linked page.) But once I got to law school, I was somewhat less dubious. Why go to law school if you don't care, or even know, what the Supreme Court is up to? Is this even possible at other professional schools? Has anyone in business school not heard of Enron? Those are the kinds of brains I wouldn't mind draining out of law school.

OK, enough ranting from me for today. I'll try to get back in the regular blogging rhythm.

(This post's title from The Rolling Stones' Tumbling Dice. I did have a fever last week, but I'm not necessarily calling my body "the funk house." If you would like to do so, be my guest.)