2. I can say all this here, but I can't seem to be able to say it in the paper that will be marked. So far I only have a quote from the Federalist and an incomplete sentence consisting of 7 words in my introduction. That's it. And I'm contemplating waking up tomorrow morning at like, 6, to watch Roger play...shit I forgot his first name; something Gicquel. Marc Gicquel? It's his first Indian Wells match and he's definitely going to win, but it's his first match since the Australian Open which was YEARS ago and I miss him and I need to watch Roger, dammit. But then if I wake up at 6, my whole Sunday is fucked 'cause I wouldn't be able to function and I need my Sunday to rush out a paper. DAMMIT. See? This is why I hate American tournaments - RIDICULOUS TIME DIFFERENCE. How irritating.
3. The thing about being pro-judiciary is that Prof. MT is anti-judiciary/judicial review, which means if my argument isn't super well-written and well-thought out, I'm screwed. And seeing as I only properly started on this on like, Thursday night? I AM REALLY SCREWED.
4. Now I wish I'd started like, last week. It's a very interesting topic. But I have no time to read everything and digest everything. Some of the stuff the articles talk about I've never heard of before; like, I didn't know there was a difference between judicial review of rights and judicial review of the structure of government/separation of powers/etc. This is because of the American context though. I'm so irritated with reading about America; half the time they live in a world of their own anyway so why should I care?
5. Okay, I don't actually mean that. I care very much. It's just I'm tired of reading this article and I'm tired of thinking and I want to watch tennis and switch off my brain but I can't, and therefore I'm just ranting and letting off steam.
6. I'm playing the ATP World Tour Draw Challenge Circuit and I'm at a pathetic 10123 out of 15115! I'm really lousy at predicting who'd win a match when I haven't the slightest clue who the players are. The qualifiers in particular - who the fuck are they? And when I was making my picks the stupid draw didn't even write their names down! Of course I'm going to predict that the qualifier would lose, but a few of them has ended up winning. How annoying. I picked Roger as the winner, obviously, but picked Andy Roddick to reach the final HAHAHAHAHAHA. I picked Nalbandian to defeat Nadal - yeah, I wish. I think I'm going to eventually do really poorly for this round. I shall buck up for Miami. I have zero chance of winning a trip to the London tournament at the end of the year, but it'd be nice to get that $1000 spending card for TennisWarehouse.com, considering the amount of money I've given to them recently.
7. I'm damn hungry. I need to finish reading this annoying long article. ARGH. I have another 60-page article to read but at least that one is for judicial review and won't piss me off that much.