Kleng Meedercher, Risen Iddien

One of my friends told me a couple of weeks ago that she checks her horoscope in the Washington Post every day. This is not a superstitious girl, but she insists that they get it right every time. I am a big fan of horoscopes. Whats not to like? They are always about me (something I love); they get me to think about me (something I usually love) and they usually make me think that something awesome is bound to happen to me (who doesn't love that?). My horoscope shows up everyday on my home page. (I haven't become a total flake, I also have my email, the weather, a map of current events, cool photos of cool places to visit, and a news feed from the Economist.) Since I heard about the Washington Post horoscopes, I have been looking at those on a daily basis as well. I have to say, my friends seems to be on to something. Those suckers are eerily on target! Not only do they make statements relevant to my life, they say accurate things about my personality. And, I am not sure if any of these things would apply to every other person in the world! Okay. Here is my horoscope, a la the Washington Post, for today:

Aquarius January 20 - February 18: For Thursday, June 12 -You should be bold to the point of obnoxiousness today -- no one is going to mind. In fact, certain people have been waiting for you to speak up and show a bit of your true self. You have been hiding a very bright light deep inside of you, and you need to let it shine now. Why let yourself get all hung up on personal issues or worry that someone will not like you? You can't be everyone's friend -- you can only be you, and let the chips fall where they may.

See? Right now I am debating whether or not I should start harassing a potential employer that I REALLY would like to hear from. I am ALSO debating whether or not I should harass my boss about giving me some more help on the job front. AND, I have a huge problem contacting people when I need to use them as references or to network...in fact I have been putting contacting a family friend who seemed to want to help me out for months.

See. The Washintong Post is the new Nostradamus.

...and feel like I have horrified an entire island nation. Is it my charmingly quirky attitude? The huge amounts I can consume during continental breakfast? Or, is it my recurring attempt to impose my ca-ar-do-o on various shopkeepers? Am going to experiment with all of these characteristics, and perhaps throw in some random cabbie abuse, and report back to this blog.

More to come.

PS: My sister is a trooper. Just thought that the world should know that.

Ahhahaha....this issue seems to be of the moment. (Article from Above the Law below)

SHOULD ANONYMOUS COMMENTING BE A CRIME???
Forget about prostitution -- which, it appears, most of you support legalizing.
What about the legality of anonymous commenting on the internet?
This story is from last week, but please indulge us -- we're taking it somewhere. From WTVQ:

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous
posting online illegal. The bill would require anyone who contributes to a
website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.
Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was
allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars
($500) for a first offense and one-thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense
after that.

While we understand the problems and headaches of anonymous commenting, which we deal with on a daily basis, this proposal strikes us as a bit draconian. If enacted, it would dramatically cut down on free speech on the web. If we faced such potential liability for hosting anonymous commenters, we'd probably just kill comments altogether.
Not surprisingly, given our line of work, we aren't super-keen on the Kentucky proposal. Others disagree. When we spoke at Stanford Law School on Monday, during the question-and-answer session, several students advocated requiring all commenters to disclose their true identities, which would appear along with each comment.
Update: Professor Eugene Volokh analyzes the proposal, and explains why it would be unconstitutional, over here.
What do you think? Please take our poll. We're redesigning ATL later this year, and the redesign process may include some changes to the commenting system. We'd like to take the readership pulse on this (but reserve the right to settle on a comments system different from what prevails in the poll).

An explanation of the options:

1. No registration required: The status quo here at ATL.

2. Registration / login required: You'd register with your name and email address, pick a unique handle or moniker (e.g., "Loyola 2L"), and log in under that handle each time you'd want to comment. This is the system used, for example, at Gawker Media blogs like Wonkette (where we previously blogged).

3. Registration / login permitted, but not required (can comment as 'guest'): Self-explanatory; a modified option #2. If you want credit for your witty comment, you can log in, and your handle would appear with your comment. But if you don't want credit, you wouldn't have to log in, and could just comment as "guest." This is the system used at our Wall Street sibling site, Dealbreaker.

4. Advance approval required for comments: A comment couldn't go up on the site until it gets the editorial greenlight from us. Given the sheer volume of comments on ATL, we doubt we'd adopt this -- we can't even read all the comments as it is. But it is the approach used by our style-obsessed little sibling, Fashionista.

5. No reader comments: Some might say that a blog without comments is like judging without a robe, or working Biglaw without a bonus. What's the point?

We doubt we'd go down the comment-less path at ATL, since the comments here are, taken as a whole, insightful and/or funny enough to justify the headaches they cause. But a number of prominent blogs, such as Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) and The Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan), don't have comments. So we'll include it as an option.

Okay, enough discussion; please cast your vote. The poll, we should point out, is for informational purposes only. We will consider, but not be bound by, the poll's outcome. Thanks.

Suck because they result in spam comments. I hate spam and spam comments. If you want to keep your identity a secret do something silly like create a new profile that you will only use to comment on my blog.

Pushy pushy.

In my mind, real candy corn has a yellow tip, white center, and orange bottom. It is delicious and typically eaten around the harvest. Probably to simulate eating actual corn and in preparation for the day when we are all machines and able to subsist on nothing but candy. That will be great, but is probably a long way off. (Case in point, yesterday I ate nothing but a very large bag of gummy candy from the Sweet Shop followed by salty licorice my dad had procured from Schipol for me. It was a bad idea...although quite delicious.)

Traditional candy corn has a cousin that appears around springtime. I believe it is called "bunny corn." "Bunny corn" has a pastel blue tip, white center and pastel pink bottom. It resembles neither corn nor a bunny, yet is called "bunny corn." Why? The image the name bunny corn draws to mind is not an attractive one. Think about it. Bunny corn. What relation do bunnies have to corn? None, unless it's a digestive one, which is not evocative of a delicious candy treat. Even that is a stretch. Bunnies don't eat corn. They eat carrots and pellets and alfalfa. Also, there is no corn in the early spring when these candies appear! The harvest was months ago and the ground hasn't thawed enough for the spring planting to begin. Everthing about the name bunny corn is stupid. It should be called "bunny treats." In fact, that is a wonderful idea. Maybe this will be my one small mark on the fate of humankind.

That being said, I am firmly convinced that the misnamed "bunny corn" is, if possible, even more delicious than traditional candy corn. This may sound crazy, but there is a subtle, but important difference between the two corns. My college roommate was the first to identify it during finals of our senior year and since then I wait in breathless anticipation for this, the most delicious corn, to make its appearance on Walgreen's shelves. It's the pastel highlight of an otherwise gray and demoralizing month.

I don't know, but I know that a twelve pack may not always be the answer. My coworker and I have an agreement to keep our fridge fully stocked at all times. I think that I am getting the better bargain...

My most recent in office snack is pistachios. Yum - love love. Although it was made clear this morning that the cleaning staff is not as enthusiastic about this new player in E's drawer o' food. For the past two years, my recycling and garbage have been under my desk. I am pretty sure that the only recycling bins and wastebaskets in the court house are located under desks. Until this morning. My trash receptacles are now in the middle of the office.

I am guessing that not everyone likes a fine layer of pistachio shells to coat the floor. The upside is that without the attendant crunching I will be able to sneak in and out of my chair much more easily.