Busy Busy Busy

Hi. I'm not dead, although this blog has been. I hope to get back to regular posting next week. At the moment I'm cracking out a few law applications with the silly idea of maybe making some early-decision deadlines. My fingers are crossed and all that (which makes it hard to post to a blog, you know?).

A bit of fun to tide you over: Fans of Wallace and Gromit will be happy to hear they're headed for the big screen in a couple of years. For now, you can get a taste of wacky British animated fun by watching their brand new short, "Soccamatic". It's no "The Wrong Trousers," but it's still good fun.

On the comic-strip front, "Get Your War On" is back with a new installment covering a selection of recent world events in its signature, idiosyncratic way. And if you're a true fan, you can now buy the book.

Posted 01:39 PM | life generally

Lies Our Teachers Tell Us

Our First Lady is all excited about promoting reading, partly because, as

Mrs. Bush told The Times's Elisabeth Bumiller, "There's nothing political about American literature."

It's good that Laura Bush isn't trying to break out of her proper place by doing anything "political"—politics are dirty and icky and should be left to men, you know.

Lies like this make me want to scream. If there's nothing political about American literature, how do you explain Uncle Tom's Cabin? Why have people tried to ban Huckleberry Finn or any of these books? Fahrenheit 451 has become something of a staple in high school literature classes—is that because there's nothing political about a book about burning books? Oh, yeah, I guess so.

UPDATE: Credit where it's due -- the link to our First Lady's bit of wisdom came via Slacktivist.

Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (1) | general politics

Answer: Apparently Not

Do the Democrats stand for anything other than the next election?

That's the excellent question Frank Rich asks in "It's the War, Stupid," in yesterday's NYT. Rich provides overwhelming evidence that the answer to this excellent question is a resounding "No!" The utter lack of vision, leadership, or principle among any of our Democratic representatives has become so appalling, it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to vote for them on Nov. 5th. Judging by the Democratic rhetoric of the last year or so, it's becoming increasingly difficult to see how our situation would be improved by having even overwhelming majorities of Democrats in the House and Senate.[1]

Meanwhile, pResident Bush plans to spend a great deal of time between now and Nov. 5th on the road campaigning for Republicans. This means that you and me are going to pay big dollars to promote Republican candidates (via the tax dollars that fund the bulk of Bush's travel), whether we like it or not. Ari Fleischer says Bush and the Republicans have a right to do this—he calls it "the democratic process." (Maureen Dowd says D.C. has become a place where people say the opposite of what they mean. No kidding.) Does that sound right to you? Just because all presidents have always campaigned for their party using tax funds, and just because each president does this more than his predecessor, does that mean we should allow it to continue?

And finally, while our government follows Bush down a path to make the world more unsafe than it has been for decades [2], is the D.C. sniper somehow connected to American hubris? Could this be someone's sick way of showing that even the most powerful nation on the planet can be terrorized by a lone gunman?
Footnote:
[1] This would be what's commonly called "hyperbole." More specifically, it's a little pessimistic venting. I'm fairly confident solid Democratic majorities in Congress would lead to a less "all Republican, all the time" national agenda. I mean, I still have hope...
[2] Let's see, how could we piss off all kinds of people to the point that they would sacrifice their lives to damage the U.S., U.S citizens, or other U.S. interests? Oh gee, I don't know, why don't we invade a sovereign nation and install a military dictator of our own? Oh yeah, that sounds like a great plan!

Posted 09:35 AM | general politics

It's Raining Applicants

JCA reports that, according to one of her law profs, more students took the LSAT last Saturday than have ever taken it on a single day. Great news for all of us hopeful applicants, isn't it? Jeff Cooper points to the reason why so many people are interested in law school these days. Mystery solved.

Posted 06:04 PM | law school

Tony Soprano, Blogger

Sopranos fans, you must check this: Woke Up This Morning, Got Myself A Blog. It's almost eerily Tony-esque, if there really were a Tony, that is. [via Held In Contempt, who uses great words like "craptacular"]

Posted 05:47 PM | meta-blogging

Choosing A Law School

I'm reading Law School Confidential for tips on deciding where to apply to law school, and it's making me a little nervous. According to author Robert H. Miller, where you go to law school, geographically speaking, is crucial. The writers say "the most controversial thing in this book" is this piece of advice:

If your goal is to work for a firm, and you don't get into one of the top fifteen to twenty law schools, and you are not interested in practicing in the city, state, or region where that non-top-twenty law school is located, you're better off re-applying and trying again. (64)

I've heard things like this before, and realize it's true to some extent, but really, is it that hard to work in a region outside the region where you go to school? And what happens to this advice if, like me, you have no desire to work for a firm? For example, could I go to school in Illinois (and not at the University of Chicago, which is a top-twenty school), and still have a good shot of getting a good public interest job somewhere on the East Coast?

The question may be moot, since it looks less and less likely I'll be going to law school in Illinois. Instead, odds are currently on some school somewhere in the D.C. area, and that's probably a pretty good place for me to work after law school, so... Options include: American University, Georgetown (which would be a "reach" school), George Washington, and George Mason. (It appears that if you want to go to school in the D.C. area, your chances of attending a school with some variant of "george" in the name are quite high.) There's also the University of the District of Columbia law school, but... Anyway, if you have any tips, vignettes, helpful inside stories, or whatever about any D.C. area schools, I'd love to hear them. I'm especially interested in avoiding a "cutthroat" school (the kind where people steal books from the library to prevent other students from doing assignments, etc.—JCA talks a bit about this here), so if you know anything about the cutthroat level at any D.C. schools, that would be particularly helpful. If you're concerned about libel, the comments system on this blog happily accepts completely anonymous posts, or you can email me: ai at mowabb dot com.

Posted 06:53 PM | Comments (2) | law school

ACLU PI Fellowship

The most recent installment in the Cool Job o' the Day series: the ACLU Marvin M. Karpatkin Fellowship in Civil Liberties. This one-year fellowship is open to recent law school graduates. It looks like it would provide unparalleled public interest/civil liberties litigation experience, and it even comes with a decent paycheck. "Decent" being a relative term; public interest pay scales are, um, not impressive to the average lawyer, it seems. For the past three years I've been living on $15-20k annually, so anything above $30k is decent in my book. Combine this with a Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP), and I could be a very happy public interest lawyer. Of course, I have to get in to law school, first. Those damned details....

Posted 01:53 PM | Comments (2) | law school

Political Action by Blog

I don't know how I missed this, but Ampersand is sponsoring a "BlogBurst" against the war on Iraq. The idea is simple: Write a letter to your members of Congress telling them why unilateral, "pre-emptive" action against Iraq would be a bad move at, um, this juncture (as a previous Bush was fond of saying). Post the letter on your blog, then email Ampersand so he/she can post a link to your letter on the Open Letters BlogBurst Page.

Cool. And a brilliant idea. Could this be the new model for political action?

Closely related: 10 Things You Can Do to Stop the War On Iraq.

Posted 01:22 PM | general politics

Legal Job Market: Not Good

Should people now applying to law school be discouraged by news that firms are refusing to hire through recruiters? I mean, I don't really want to work for a firm, so this wouldn't directly affect me, but it's certainly not a positive signal for the legal job market overall. Neither is the fact that this year's LSAT will be taken by perhaps 40% more "candidates" than took the test two years ago. Ugh.

[Link via Held in Contempt, who carries a Powerpuff Girls keychain and recently purchased new shoes. These are good things. Who said lawyers don't have character? Oh, and since I'm way out on a tangent now, have you seen that Discover card ad featuring the lawyer in search of someone who doesn't find him boring? I propose a new tagline for law-school recruiters: "Become a lawyer—you'll never be the life of the party but you will be the butt of every joke!" At least it might improve the job market a bit by decreasing the number of people who want to become lawyers? Nevermind. It hasn't worked so far...

Posted 01:11 PM | Comments (1) | law school

Sopranos Future

What's going to happen to HBO's hit series, "The Sopranos"? According to this story in the NYT:

Officially, the show is to conclude at the end of next season, its fifth. But that plan may be changing. Executives are seriously discussing extending the show to a sixth season, though they acknowledge that it will entirely depend on the decision of the show's creator, David Chase. The show's cast, including its star, James Gandolfini, is already under contract for six seasons, if the producers decide to extend the show's run.

This is good news. I'd heard that the show was only scheduled initially for four seasons. So now we know we can count on at least one more full season, which means Tony can't die yet, which means he better get serious about getting Paulie and Silvio under control!

Posted 08:27 AM | life generally

Great Chant

pResident Bush gave a speech last night. He said "I must have authority to do whatever I want at any time—regardless of the consequences. Oh, um, all in the name of national security, of course." He also said again that he wants the United Nations to be effective. Is it just me, or does he seem unable of saying this without breaking into a winking grin? He did it in both this speech and his Sept. 12th speech at the U.N. Does he think that snide little smile conveys sincerity or earnestness or something?

Bush was supposed to be answering the tough questions about Iraq, but he didn't address why all this war talk couldn't have waited until after the all-important mid-term elections, nor did he address what his plans are for a post-attack or post-Saddam Iraq, nor did he explain how U.S. security will be increased by all the anger various Middle East and other countries would feel if we attacked Iraq.

Anyway, I was glad to hear on NPR this morning that there was a good showing of protesters at Bush's speech. Even though they were held outside (free speech is limited to when and where power wants it, apparently), they still made the news with this great chant:

Hey Cowboy! Hold your horses! We don't want to send in forces!

Posted 08:20 AM | general politics

Blawgs at Yale

Law-related blogs seem to be getting some serious attention. Check out Revenge of the Blog, a conference at Yale featuring several blawgers and a few more regular bloggers. I'd love to be there, but since I can't be, I'll look forward to the first-hand accounts of those who can. You just know the conference will be blogged. [via Scripting News]

Posted 10:57 AM | law school

LSAT Recap

The LSAT is over. Been there, done that. Don't ever want to go there or do that again. Ok, it wasn't that bad, but not the most fun you could have for $100 on a Saturday morning.

If you took the LSAT yesterday, you might be interested to know that the third section was experimental—the Kaplan people have done a survey that says so (you may need a password or cookie to access that), and this agrees with what I learned from other test-takers after my test. My test went like this: Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, Logic Games, break, Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension. Since I had two logic games sections before the break (and since the LSAT only has one scored LG section), I knew one of them was "experimental." After the test, I talked with people who only had one LG section in their test, and they remembered games that I remembered from my first section. This means they didn't have my third section at all, which means it was not scored. Does that matter? Maybe. If you thought you did poorly on the third section, you can now rest easier knowing it didn't count.

The Kaplan summary says the games were as follows:

• A loose Sequencing game that involved the order of eight clowns.
• A challenging Hybrid Grouping/Sequencing game in which instruments were matched with musical selections, and then put in order.
• A Matching game in which job candidates were placed in one of three positions: sales, management, or production.

I don't remember the fourth one either. I did virtually no work on the hybrid game with the musical selections because I ran out of time, but it looked like fun. ;-)

The Reading Comprehension passages were:

• A challenging Law passage explored the basis for legal authority, and drew a distinction between "institutional" and "intellectual" authority—that is, authority derived from precedent and that derived from self-sufficient reasoning.
• The Humanities passage discussed the ethical education of medical students. Specifically, the author argued for the inclusion of narrative literature to supplement the tradition ethics curriculum. [This was actually a very cool passage—I'd love to find the source and use it in my intro. to fiction class to give students a new perspective on the value of reading narrative fiction.]
• The Social Science passage addressed Abram’s theory of sociological history. The passage contrasted historical approaches which emphasized the contributions of individuals, and those which primarily emphasized contingencies of circumstance.
• The Natural Science passage investigated the process of controlled burning of forests by Native American populations before the arrival of Columbus. [This one completely fried me, for no good reason. I simply couldn't concentrate on the passage, so the questions all seemed to be asking for crazy-obscure tidbits and inferences, which meant I had to re-read big parts of the passage multiple times, wasting a ton of time. It was really awful, and the only explanation I have is I was getting excited to be done, and also mentally tired.]

Also: 53% of Kaplan's survey respondents said the LG section was most challenging, followed by the RC section at about 35%. 78% said they had to guess or leave some questions blank in one or more section (I'm one of them). It's pretty clear that the 22% who didn't have to guess on anything are going to be in the top 20% of scores, and bully for them.

What else? My proctors were not very strict. I could have flipped through my test several times to see what each section was, and no one would have cared. (This information could have been helpful to indicate in advance which section was not scored, but oh well...) At the break I talked to someone who had done exactly this. Also, they were only sort of being strict about the "stop work immediately when we say or you'll be issued a warning" rule. Several people must not have stopped, and had to be told a second time, but no one got any official warnings out of it or anything. Anyway, you probably can't count on super-lenient proctors at every administration of the test; this was just my experience.

I guess if you read this before some future administration of the LSAT and you're looking for tips, my advice would be this: The test is long, and it's not over until it's over. I started to get excited after the break by thinking things like "Only an hour and I can be done with the LSAT forever!" But I still had a section or more to go. Take lots of full practice tests beforehand under conditions as real as possible so your body and mind will be drilled on the length of time you need to stay focused on the test. Once my mind started to wander like that, I know my answers became a lot less certain.

Overall, I left feeling like this was either the worst or the best of the LSATs I've taken. I think the games went better than usual, but I'm concerned that the LRs and the RC section were not as strong as usual. The RC section in particular seemed much more challenging than normal, so that doesn't bode well. The writing sample? What the hell is that for, anyway?

Now for the next steps: Letters of recommendation, transcripts, making sure I'm signed- and paid-up with LSDAS, and deciding where the heck to apply. I'm told three years in Hawaii could be very nice....

Posted 09:57 AM | law school

LSAT Strategy Dreams

I'm dreaming LSAT questions now, which I take to mean I've studied about as much as is healthy. The dreams are not anxious, exactly; they're strategic. In one dream, the LSAT was sort of metaphorically transformed into a great mtn. bike ride—lots of hills and valleys, rough terrain, screaming downhills, gut-busting climbs, the whole deal. At one point in that dream I had to get off my bike and scout ahead for the right line through a tricky stretch of rocks and sand. The LSAT will be the same: choose the right "line" and you'll sail through; take a wrong turn (with your strategies or confidence), and you could end up on your ass.

In another dream, I just kept this verse from Billy Bragg's song, "A Lover Sings" (from Back to Basics):

There is no real substitute for a ball struck squarely and firmly, But you're the kind of girl who wants to open up the bottle of pop too early in the journey. Our love went flat, just like that.

How could this verse possibly apply to the LSAT? Well, obviously you have to take the test with confidence—strike the ball squarely and firmly. And for me, when it comes to logic games (or what the LSAT calls the "analytical" section), I make the most mistakes when I try to move too quickly and rush through the game. In other words, I always want to open up the bottle of logic game pop too early in the journey, which makes my answers go flat, just like that.

Ok. Maybe I'll keep my crazy LSAT strategy dreams to myself from now on.

Posted 08:16 AM | law school

NaNoWriMo

It's back... almost. November is National Novel Writing Month, which means NaNoWriMo is just around the corner. Want to write a novel in a month? (A "novel" is considered complete at 50,000 words, for purposes of NaNoWriMo.) It's grrrreat fun! I only made it to 30,000 words or so last year, but it was the most fun I'd had with words in a long time—and that's saying something, really, considering all the reading and writing I do. Besides, would you rather:

1. Listen to a pompous windbag tell you not to write a novel? or....


2. Listen to a quirky writer tell you that anyone can write a novel?

Choice 2 please. And why wait? Sign up now! You weren't planning anything for November, anyway, were you?

Posted 03:36 PM | Comments (2) | ai books

Logic Games II

I was quickly schooled in the appropriate method for solving the problem below. For many of you, this was an easy game; and you're right—it is easy, as long as you read it right. I sometimes wonder if I have dyslexia when it comes to things like this. But then, I know I don't. What happens is I psych myself out, read the setup quickly, and almost automatically jump to the conclusion that it's way too hard. That means when I take a second look, I've already blocked out the possibility that this game might be relatively easy. In other words, I make these things much harder than they need to be. Still, some of them I just can't figure out. If you're into games, here's a doozy:

------
Each of exactly six doctors—Juarez, Kudrow, Longtree, Nance, Onawa, and Palermo—is at exactly one of two clinics: Souderton or Randsborough. The ffollowing conditions must be satisfied:

• Kudrow is at Randsborough if Juarez is at Souderton.
• Onawa is at Souderton if Juarez is at Randsborough.
• If Longtree is at Souderton, then both Nance and Palermo are at Randsborough.
• If Nance is at Randsborough, then so is Onawa.
• If Palermo is at Randsborough, then both Kudrow and Onawa are at Souderton.

1: Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the doctors thatt are at Souderton?
a) Jaurez, Kudrow, Onawa
b) Juarez, Nance, Onawa, Palermo
c) Kudrow, Longtree, Onawa
d) Nance, Onawa
e) Nance, Palermo

2: If Palermo is at Randsborough, then which one of the following must be true?
a) Juarez is at Randsborough.
b) Kudrow is at Randsborough.
c) Longtree is at Souderton.
d) Nance is at Randsborough.
e) Onawa is at Randsborough.

3: What is the minimum number of doctors that could be at Souderton?
a) zero
b) one
c) two
d) three
e) four

4: If Nance and Onawa are at different clinics, which one of the following must be true?
a) Juarez is at Souderton
b) Kudrow is at Souderton.
c) Palermo is at Randsborough
d) Four doctors are at Randsborough

5: If Kudrow is at Souderton, then which one of the following must be true?
a) Juarez is at Souderton
b) Nance is at Souderton
c) Onawa is at Randsborough
d) Palermo is at Souderton
e) Palermo is at Randsborough

Posted 07:55 AM | Comments (1) | law school