Far From Funny

Mark Crispin Miller's analysis of President Bush is utterly chilling. As author of The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, Miller has read and analyzed transcripts of Bush's public speeches in the last several years, leading him to believe that:

"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."

Miller goes on to note that Bush speaks fine when he's talking about violence, revenge, punishment, etc., but he makes his infamous mistakes when he talks about ideals, democracy, altruism, compassion. I highly recommend the whole article, but toward the end Miller concludes:

This, then, is why [Bush is] so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says — not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."

Miller's assessment of Bush is eerily consistent with the picture painted by Bob Woodward in his new book, Bush at War. (See the Washington Post's multi-part series on the book, which starts here.) I admit I haven't read the book, but in all the coverage and reviews I've read, the book sounds like it paints Bush as very serious, smart, and determined. In other words, just as Miller says, Bush is not stupid. But he is myopic, he's impulsive and reactionary (a self-confessed "gut-player"), and he's a true-believer (aka: a fanatic or a zealot). To his credit, Bush seems to truly believe he's doing good things. He thinks he's making the world a better place. But that's exactly the problem. If Miller is right (and I definitely think he is), Bush's idea of "a better place" is a very, very scary place, indeed.

According to one of the pieces in the Post, this is what Bush thinks:

Elaborating, [Bush] said that underlying his foreign policy "there is a value system that cannot be compromised, and that is the values that we praise. And if the values are good enough for our people, they ought to be good enough for others, not in a way to impose because these are God-given values. These aren't United States-created values. These are values of freedom and the human condition and mothers loving their children."

Yet simply proclaiming these values is not enough. "You can't talk your way to a solution to a problem," Bush said. "And the United States is in a unique position right now. We are the leader. And a leader must combine the ability to listen to others, along with action."

Here Bush confirms two important facts that anyone looking can observe about his approach to the world: First, the entire world operates according to god-given values, and those values just happen to be American values. Isn't this the definition of a "fundamentalist"? How is it different from Islamic fundamentalism? Bush's conviction that there is "one true way" explains why he feels no compunction about imperialist wars and regime change—these actions only fulfill god's wishes. In other words, like the "fundamentalists" he's waging war against, Bush really doesn't believe that any other legitimate values and/or gods exist in this world. (This trait is fairly common to all fascists throughout history, I believe.)

Second, we learn that discussion and dialogue are relatively meaningless to Bush. This is why he puts so little effort in diplomacy and is always "beating the drums of war." This is why he vehemently dismisses the International Criminal Court and appears to have no respect for the system of international law that the world has struggled to build since WWII in order to prevent war. Bush believes that physical force is the only way to accomplish things, and on an international stage, physical force is military force, i.e. war. Again, this connects with Miller's assessment of Bush's speeches: He's an angry, violent man who only understands anger and violence. Hail to the chief.

Posted 11:16 AM | general politics

Harvard Law's Amazing Race

I'm sad to say I've become a regular watcher of The Amazing Race. If you watch the show, then you know that this season's race featured a team of recent Harvard Law graduates, Heather and Eve. Depending on how you look at it, Heather and Eve were eliminated either for: a) being unable to correctly read a clue and follow directions, or b) trying to cheat and hoping they would get away with it. Either way, their performance doesn't say much for the critical reading and/or ethical training they received at Harvard, now does it?

Posted 10:30 AM | law school

Cornflake Girl

If you're a Tori fan, be sure to check out NPR's nice report on her new album (scroll down a bit to the Real Audio link). I still haven't heard it, but maybe I will soon (hint, hint).

Posted 10:08 AM | life generally

Burn Baby Burn

Random: The students at Texas A&M University just love their bonfires. Remember the fire that killed 12 people in 1999? Apparently it's a big tradition, and isn't it funny and strange how attached university students are to traditions like these? I wonder where they get that attachment. When I was in college, I scoffed at tradition, almost on principle. I thought that a healthy contempt for tradition was what defined a college student. I guess I was some kind of freak.

Anyway, those Aggies are determined to have their bonfire, so whatever. What's noteworthy about this is the way the AP story about it is written. According to this article (first seen in the Billings Gazette real paper edition, but found online at CNN):

Several thousand current and former students gathered in a darkened field about 10 minutes east of College Station for the lighting. "Burn bonfire burn" was a familiar refrain—shouted by student leaders who lit the pile with torches and flares and individuals in the crowd.

Wow. This fire is so important that student leaders had to sacrifice individuals in the crowd in order to light it! Now that's what I call a fire!

Posted 10:02 AM | life generally

And Really I Am

Ok. For the record: I realize that my cynical and sarcastic thank-you list (below) is only half the story. The other half is that I really am thankful that I live in a country where I feel like I can say these things without any real fear of reprisal (at least for now). I'm thankful that, as broken as it is, our political system still offers us (American citizens) real opportunities and avenues to improve things. And I'm thankful that, regardless of our tendencies toward selfishness and insularity, Americans have done great things for the world and have immense potential to continue to do so (though not if we follow many of our current paths). If I did not believe this, I would already have packed my bags for some other part of the world (say, Sweden), and I certainly wouldn't be going to law school. What would be the point?

And so but anyway, check out Letterman's Thanksgiving Top Ten. It's really a lot like my own except simpler and funnier. I guess that's why Dave gets the big bucks...

Posted 09:44 AM | general politics

We Ought to be Thankful

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. It's great that we have a national holiday centered on the idea that we express thanks for the good things in our lives. My friends and loved ones know I haven't sounded really thankful for much these days, what with all that's going on in our wonderful world. But today I'm going to try to get with the program, to climb aboard the USA happy train and express my thanks for all the great benefits I enjoy as a U.S. citizen. With no further ado, a very partial list of things I'm thankful for:

• I'm thankful that so many stores are open today and that so many of them are running great sales and specials. Thanksgiving sucked when all the stores used to be closed and commerce basically stopped for a day. I mean, we actually had to spend time at home with our families and stuff, which was really a horrible way to spend a holiday compared to the joys of spending money and fighting through crowds at the mall. In fact, let me expand this to all holidays: I'm thankful that in the U.S. of A. I can basically shop 24-7-365. Just knowing that warms the cockles of my soul.
• I'm thankful that turkeys can't breed on their own anymore and have to be artificially inseminated. This is just one example of our technical and business prowess for which I'm just inexpressibly thankful, really.
• I'm thankful that Henry Kissinger will lead an investigation into 9-11-01 intelligence failures and whatnot. I'm sure he'll find the truth and tell us all about it.
• I'm thankful that the American People can dislike the Republican agenda, but still like their Republican president who leads the agenda they dislike. Such baffling contradictions are among the things that make America great!
• I'm thankful that satirists need permission to mock President Bush, and that the Candian official who called Bush a moron was fired. I'm thankful to live in the world that marches to the same drummer—unity is strength, I'm told.
• I'm thankful that my elected representatives pass legislation they don't read and which protects giant corporations from lawsuits (and which, incidentally, also makes it easier than ever for my government to spy on me). Better yet, I'm thankful that no one seems to know where this legislation comes from. I mean, who cares who writes it; it must be good if the president says it is. Anyway, what kind of awful world would we be living in if we did not assiduously protect the rights and freedoms of corporations!?
• I'm thankful that I'm free to go without health care if I can't find a good enough job that either pays for my care or pays me enough to pay for it myself. In other words, I'm thankful that my country allows me the freedom to suffer and die if I choose, since we all know that if I can't find and keep a good job in this "sagging" economy, or if for some reason I'm not healthy enough to work, that's my choice and my problem.
• Related to the above, I'm thankful that we have a for-profit health care system that allows insurance, pharmaceutical, and other health-related corporations to profit from human sickness and misery. It's good to know that someone might get rich from my death—kind of a silver lining in that whole death cloud thing.
• I'm thankful that my government is so vigilant about protecting U.S. access to global oil and ensuring that the price of a gallon of gas remains within my reach. On a related note, I'm glad those low gas prices allow my fellow Americans to drive extremely wasteful and inefficient vehicles which destroy the environment. I'm also glad that cheap gas gives federal, state, and local governments a good excuse not to develop quality mass transit options for people who might not want (or be able to afford) to drive everywhere. In other words: Thank God for cheap gas, amen!
• I'm thankful that my country leads the world in the manufacture and sale of guns and other weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, aka weapons of mass distraction. So long as we continue to stoke the global fires of violence and war in this way, we can also continue to be thankful that our military and security industrial complexes are among America's strongest economic sectors. Making and selling the weapons that are used against us, then making and selling the weapons we'll use against the weapons we've already made and sold—it's a brilliant and self-perpetuating business cycle. So there's something else to be thankful for: American business ingenuity.
• I'm thankful that my country's "defense" budget is practically larger than the military budgets of all other nations in the world combined. I'm thankful that this enormous budget for "defense" makes it impossible for my taxes to be spent on trying to prevent 15 million people from dying of starvation. I mean, who cares about mass famine and cycles of poverty when there are madmen like Saddam Hussein on the loose? I'm also thankful that my country's massive military budget means my taxes can't be spent here at home on improving education or health care in my own country, or on providing public funding for political campaigns, or on improving quality of life for our nation's homeless and indigent citizens. In other words, I'm glad that my government is so focused on the realthreats our country faces, and that no one in the U.S. is stupid enough to believe that ignorance, sickness, corrupt politics, or poverty are threats to our nation's "security."
• And speaking of political campaigns, I'm thankful that you either have to be rich or deeply indebted to special interests in order to win a contest for public office in our country. Sure, public funding for political campaigns might allow candidates with good ideas rather than deep pockets to win elections, but I'm thankful that money wins every time. That's just the American way, and thank God for that!
• I'm thankful that the media have been so quick to pick up on calling the U.S. "the homeland." Sure the term has Orwellian and even vaguely fascist overtones, but I'm glad no one seems worried about little things like that—we're at war, you know, so I'm thankful that we're able to stay focused.
• Probably above all, since it sort of encompasses everything else here, I'm thankful that the politics of fear are so damned effective so I and my fellow Americans don't have to think about all the complicated nuances of what's happening in the world. I'm thankful that my nation's leaders treat us like idiots and children, reducing everything to simple good vs. evil rhetoric so we can just focus on that—we're good, they're evil—leaving us free to shop and consume and drive our SUVs without real concern about world events.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. And God (or something/somebody) Bless America! (please?)

Posted 01:14 PM | general politics

Scientia Est Potentia

Knowledge is power. Look at this logo and tell me it's not more Orwellian than even Hollywood could have made it. (The connections to The Handmaid's Tale are also inescapable: the secret police in the novel are called "Eyes" and are represented by a winged pyramid. Yikes.) If you're in the mood for more fun, check out "Dr." John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness System (TIA). [via today's Mondo Washington]

Are you scared yet? So if we're entering entirely new levels of Orwellian existence, shall we start assuming that everything "they" say means the opposite of what it would normally mean? What's the opposite of "Homeland Security"? Professor Cooper has some interesting thoughts and links on the matter (as usual).

Oh, and this just in: Homeland Security is now law. Read it for yourself here. The bill grew from 35 to 484 pages in length, which means most of the people who voted on it today have not read the whole bill. If you read that Post article you'll see that TIA is only the tip of this bill's iceberg of horrifying provisions.

And if that's not enough fun for you, see what the media is saying about Sciencia Est Potentia. Welcome to the brave new world of homeland security, everyone.

Posted 07:51 PM | general politics

Why Write?

The whole notion of "Total Information Awareness" (see previous post re: Homeland Security, etc.), combined with re-reading/teaching The Handmaid's Tale sent me on a little research about George Orwell. And since I'm currently supposed to be writing a novel for National Novel Writing Month, I was struck by Orwell's explanation of why he writes. Orwell says:

All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one's own personality. Good prose is like a windowpane. I cannot say with certainty which of my motives are the strongest, but I know which of them deserve to be followed. And looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.

Unfortunately, in unskilled hands (like mine), even writing with a political purpose can easily become rather lifeless and purple. Which is to say: Don't expect to see the fruits of my novel-writing labors anytime soon.

Posted 04:21 PM | life generally

Myths of Security

Still busy, but this is worth coming out of hibernation for. Is William Safire just trying to scare us with this "Total Information Awareness" and "virtual, grand centralized database"? There's some great discussion related to that question at Scott Rosenberg's blog.

It just so happens that I'm currently teaching The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Atwood imagines a near-future America that has been taken over by conservative religious fanatics who believe they're making the world a better place by waging war against those who hold beliefs opposed to theirs. This creates a state of permanent war both at home and abroad, but this arrangement also means that if you want to live in what the U.S. has become, you have to follow the religious rules. Anyway, the main point here is the method Atwood imagined the religious fanatics would use to take over the U.S. -- they centralized information about everyone in a computer database, reduced everyone to a number, and began methodically controlling people via this information. The parallels to what the Homeland Security bill makes possible are pretty spooky.

"Total Information Awareness" potentially means "Total Control." No matter how scared we are about "terrorists among us," I can't see a single benefit for democracy, freedom, or justice in this "Homeland Security" plan. In fact, these appear to be the very things the bill directly threatens. So where's the "security" in that?

Posted 07:44 AM | general politics

Printing Bliss

I know this will sound random and silly, especially since updates here have been so sporadic lately, but I just wanted to say that I love Mac OS X today. I love the way it prints. And I know some people have had problems with this, but it's been great for me. Here's why it's so great:

I just hit "print" in another program. Then I waited for the printout. And waited. And waited. And then I realized I hadn't plugged my printer into my computer. Damn! In the past, this could have been a nightmare—in the most extreme case, I would have had to cancel the print job, shut down the computer, plug in the printer, then reboot. With OS X, I just plugged in the printer (USB), and bam! it started printing. I didn't have to send the print job again or anything. That's obviously how printing should work, but can your computer do that?

(BTW: Sorry I haven't been keeping up here. My novel (try not to laugh) is taking up most free time (I'm up to almost 16,000 words), and I have at least about six other major projects and issues demanding small pieces of me at regular intervals. Things will slow soon, I'm sure, at which point, I'll regale you with stories of law application blues, "Master Law School Report" madness, and maybe even a final burst of LSAT loony-toons. In other words: Don't touch that dial! AI will return after these messages...)

Posted 01:47 PM | mac geek

NaNoWriMo Me

Over the weekend I spent some time in Barnes and Noble, writing my novel. That's right: I'm writing a novel. I have to keep saying it so I'll make it come true. Besides, it's a fun thing to say, and technically it's true. The sort of slippery part there is "novel," but for the purposes of National Novel Writing Month, 50,000 words is a novel, and I'm over one-fifth of the way there. Heck, I'm nearly a quarter of the way there, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. And of course it helps if the 50,000 words all work together somehow, in some semblance of connection, as in with a plot and characters and scenes and whatnot, but it's not critical. I'm not worrying about these things. That's the whole point. It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be.

So I was sitting there in Barnes and Noble writing my novel, and I overheard some guy ask one of the employees this question: "Can you tell me how to get to Borders?" The B&N employee was pleasant, even almost like purposely outgoing and friendly. He gave good directions. And when the questioner walked away, the B&N employee said "thank you." Is that professionalism, or what? Is customer service supposed to serve the competition?

Posted 07:40 AM | life generally

Replicants

The other day I graded oral presentations given by accounting majors here at the midwestern university where I work. (This is part of my "moonlighting" job; my primary job at the moment is teaching two introductory literature courses.) The students had to create a "Balance Sheet Scorecard" for some company of their choosing, and present this to the class. I learned a few things:

First, one group presented on Aldi Foods, a midwestern discount grocer that keeps its prices low by carrying no name-brand goods, by keeping goods in boxes rather than arranging them nicely on shelves, by forgoing coupons, glossy advertisements, and all those damned stickers all over the shelves in most grocery stores. In short, Aldi is a grocery store that's geared to serve the working poor, primarily. Now, it was interesting to me that these Accounting students would choose to study this company, since it's rather unlikely that any of them come from the kind of income bracket that would shop at Aldi. Be that as it may, the group claimed that Aldi differentiated itself from its competitors by offering "the highest quality goods at the lowest possible prices." This is what stumped the class. How can Aldi claim to have the highest quality goods when it doesn't carry any name brands? they wanted to know. Why would people choose to shop at a place like Aldi when they could just go to County Market instead? I kid you not; the class honestly seemed stumped. My takeaway: These accounting students have zero knowledge of or interest in the class and wealth disparities in America. These people believe they are all middle class, and everything not "middle class" is invisible to them—like it doesn't exist.

Second, another group presented on Cadillac. Significantly, this group consisted of five men and one woman. They kicked off with a sort of mock commercial (complete with soundtrack) describing Cadillac's new models. One guy was the emcee, energetically extolling all the virtues of the cars, while his "assistant" strutted around the class with matchbox versions of each car; the assistant then posed up front holding the matchbox car aloft at different angles while the emcee finished discussing it. And do you think the "assistant" was one of the other 4 guys? Of course not; the assistant was the only woman in her group. Ok. That should be enough, right? But it gets better (or worse, actually): Each member of the group then spoke, the woman first. The woman ran her own slides (accounting students are addicted to powerpoint and all things M$), advancing them as she went, while all the men in her group stood back and watched her. Then, as each man was speaking, the woman stood beside him smiling and advancing his slides for him. I could not tell that anyone found this remarkable. I found it offensive.
My takeaway: These accounting students are either blissfully unaware of or consciously perpetuate patriarchal gender stereotypes. (And ok, I know there are some people out there that hear the word "patriarchy" and immediately dismiss whomever is saying it and whatever he/she might be saying, but, well, what other word is there to describe this?)

Overall takeaway for the day: Accounting majors (and Finance majors, in my experience as a teacher of business writing and lit classes) are replicants. At least at this university. They are the most rule-bound, normative, and complacent students I've known or worked with. They are also the most self-righteous about their values and beliefs. They don't just accept the status quo in all things, they embrace and extend it. It's scary and sad, but that's business for you, isn't it? This is exactly what these people are trained to do—establish norms and enforce them vigorously. And that's why it's so scary that the norms they're apparently all too ready to enforce are norms of social injustice, and gender and economic inequality. What's wrong with business in the United States? These are the future Harvey Pitts. And incidentally, my university's accounting program used to be a major feeder for Arthur Anderson Consulting. When I got here three years ago, a large number of my business writing students told me their dream in life was to work for Arthur Anderson, since so many of their predecessors in the program (and their friends) were already working there. But I'm just a grader...

Posted 09:37 AM | general politics

Under Cover of Election

While most of the country, and certainly the media, has largely been preoccupied with the elections, the Bush Administration has quietly been doing its dirty work. That work includes continuing preparations for war [via Two Tears In a Bucket] and pulling together a long action agenda [via E Pluribus Unum] to radically change life as we know it in the U.S. The changes the Republicans plan—and which we will surely see—are radical, but they are also brilliant for being largely incremental advances and intensifications of steps we've already taken down these "conservative" roads, therefore they won't look so radical to the average American. As Joe Conason says:

From drilling in Alaska to regressive taxation to unilateral war, the agenda of the corporate and religious right will shape our future.

Again, I say, the people who will suffer most from this agenda are the proverbial "least among us," who are not even on the Bush radar screen. (See today's "The Boondocks" to see what I mean. Sorry, I can't find a permalink, so just look for the strip from 11/6/02.)

Update: I recommend Jason Rylander and Jeff Cooper for more good links and commentary on the election.

Posted 02:11 PM | general politics

Black Tuesday

It's hard to imagine how Republicans could be much happier about the outcome of yesterday's elections, or how Democrats could be more disappointed. But there should be no disappointment among Democrats; yesterday's ugly defeat should come as no surprise. They have reaped what they've sown. They've shown no leadership, and garnered few followers. Last week William Greider called for a change in Democratic leadership, and that would seem necessary, except in order for Democrats to change leaders, they'd need to have a few in the first place. I tried to convince people to vote, but honestly it was difficult to find concrete reasons and examples from recent history of why anyone should support the Democratic party. Except for a few notable rebels (such as the few who voted against the resolution authorizing unilateral force against Iraq), Democrats have acted in the last two years as if they don't have a single thought in their heads or principle in their hearts. And since they've voted according to what do the polls say, I can only assume that for the next two years we'll not only have a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, but we'll also have a me-too/what-they-said Democratic minority constantly playing catch-up.

Meanwhile, as I listen to this morning's news reports, I hear snippets of victory speeches from Republicans like Jeb Bush and Elizabeth Dole, and what's most striking is that they sound like I'd expect Democrats to sound, saying things like "we're going to help working families, and reduce domestic violence and make sure mothers can get good child support and we're going to take care of the minors and nurses and custodians, etc." Those used to be Democratic lines; now they come from Republican mouths because the Republicans have learned that campaign rhetoric need not have any correspondence to political reality once they're elected. So we can look for more military spending, more "wars" on god knows what or whom [1], more attacks on the rights of women to control their lives and bodies, and more handouts and giveaways to corporations—especially oil and energy corporations. And if you think any of this is going to help women and poor working families (or make Americans or the world safer or more secure in any sense of that word), I've got a whole bunch of bridges to sell you.

In a comment to my last post (below), Muraii explains that he didn't vote because he didn't have time to keep up with issues and candidates:

I think this is a significant factor in the apparently decreasing voter turnout year in and year out. Americans, at least, are working longer hours than ever before to achieve our standards of living. Families are especially hit logistically, I think, because there are all sorts of issues (child care, education, etc.) which affect them more directly, and this only makes the task of becoming an informed citizen that much more daunting.

Muraii is correct: Working people often simply don't have time to stay informed, and the partial and inaccurate information found in the mainstream press doesn' t make that any easier. But the fact that people work harder and longer to maintain their standard of living is no accident of history, instead, it's a direct result of tax cuts and increased corporate spending, both of which decrease public spending, the kind of spending that might provide child care and/or health care for those working Americans, so perhaps they wouldn't have to work so damned hard to make ends meet.

One more reason Americans either don't vote or don't vote in an informed way is that, simply put, keeping up with politics and world developments is bloody depressing. (Negative television ads only exacerbate this problem.) Compared to some people, I only half keep up and today, thinking about the implications of these elections and the possible future we face at the hands of a completely Republican Congress—frankly I'm terrified and probably about as despondent about life in general as I've ever been. And I know that if I just tune it all out and concentrate on books and television and movies and work and all the other nice distractions of our contemporary world, I won't have to feel so depressed anymore. My life will go on, even if lots of Iraqi lives don't. So it's no wonder average Americans remain uninformed; it's difficult and dirty work trying to be otherwise, and what's the payoff? (Of course, if everyone committed to do this work, in time things might get better and the work would neither be so arduous or dirty, but....)

So I'm wondering if the silver lining here is that the Republicans will now have enough rope to hang themselves by 2004. With majorities in both houses, perhaps their irresponsible economic plans and their cowboy foreign policy will mess up our economy and our world to such an extreme degree that the American People^TM will finally get angry and demand change. [2] The trouble with that as a "silver lining" is that it suggests the world is going to get a great deal more ugly before it gets better. I hope I'm wrong.

And finally I wonder: Is it time for that third party yet? The Greens, perhaps?

Footnotes:
[1] Now we kill by remote control. Note how differently this is being covered by the Glasgow Herald (UK) and USA Today, then ask yourself how so many Americans could vote for the party of war while the rest of the world is appalled by U.S. military actions. The different coverage of issues like this helps explain, at least to me, a lot of that disparity. Americans who rely on the mainstream press for their news are simply not getting an unbiased or anywhere near complete story, and we all know politicians are liars, so people simply don't have the information necessary to make good decisions about voting.

[2] The fact that people aren't angry is shocking and significant, and is obviously working in favor of Republicans. Perhaps voters don't want to blame anyone because, post 9-11, simple cause-effect connections seem harder to make. There's certainly something to that (hello postmodern world), but it doesn't help that no one is pointing fingers at Republicans (which is what the Democrats should have been doing for a long time now, polls be damned).

Posted 07:54 AM | Comments (2) | general politics

Vote for Peace

Here's a good idea from my email box:

Damu Smith, of Black Voices For Peace, has sent out a call to action to influence tomorrow's elections. Mr. Smith believes voting is an essential part of the American political system, and that people must vote as one way to affect change. To this end, he is mobilizing a Peace At The Polls action, encouraging people to go to the polls and vote for candidates in support of peace.

"Black Voices For Peace urges all people of conscience to go the polls tomorrow and cast a vote for Peace with Justice at home and abroad," says Mr. Smith. "That means, vote for candidates who are against war and who are for education, health care, jobs and human needs at home. Last week, thousands of us marched in the streets in scores of cities around this country, making known our opposition to war; now in the thousands, we need to march to the polls and make our voices heard for peace and justice. In the streets and in the voting booth, we have make our voices heard.

"Black Voices For Peace urges everyone to vote for those Senators and Congress Members who did not support Bush's latest war resolution. This will send a message to all that we support those who support peace and justice."

The email goes on to quote Michael Moore saying "the choice is no longer between the lesser of two evils, but the evil of two lessers." Funny, but also sadly true. Still, I don't see how not voting will improve the situation. Politics is usually a game of inches, not miles. If one candidate is just a hair's width better than the other, it seems to me the better candidate should get your vote. If we wait until we get a chance to vote for people we admire and trust and who we can support unconditionally, we'll be waiting a lot longer than we'll have the right to vote. So I encourage you to take Mr. Smith's advice (above) and Vote for Peace. As Jesse Jackson says, "We can go a better way." I hope you'll all do your part to see that we do.

Posted 09:07 PM | Comments (1) | general politics

While I Was Sleeping

I spent a bit of time today catching up on blogs I haven't read in weeks, and in some respects it feels like I missed a lot—discussion of Senator Wellstone's tragic death, lots of thoughts on upcoming elections, the Microsoft anti-trust indecision, etc.—in other respects, not so much. The more things change...

Really, it looks like some of the biggest news in "blawgdom" recently has been "girls club." Check out Alice's thoughts, as well as her link to this great summary of the first episode of the show. Even Professor Cooper is somewhat sad to see the show has been cancelled, since it provided good fodder for teaching.

On a more sobering subject, Cooper links to Dahlia Lithwick's recent column in Slate, "Free the Baby Lawyers!". While it's good to be reminded of why I don't ever want to work for a firm (even though I realize I may have to, maybe, for a little while), it's scary and sad to get this inside look at big-firm life. According to Lithwick, after associates at Clifford Chance were asked for suggestions on how to improve their lives at the firm, all they could come up with was a lame "more perks and toys" response. Lithwick writes:

Associates in law firms knowingly sign away their health, leisure time, and relationships for a monstrous salary and hefty bonuses. This is not news. What is news is that the associates at Clifford Chance ask for both too much and too little. They want law firm life to be about more than just the commodification of their time, even when it is. And yet faced with an opportunity to reclaim their lives, they are willing to settle for a "hi" in the hallways and a better-appointed cage.

I see the beginnings of this myopia in my students every day. They seem to have no sense of a life or values outside of work and dollars. Somehow our culture seems to have produced a generation that has never stopped to ask the big metaphysical questions: What is the meaning of life? Why am I here? What is my purpose on this planet? Or if they have asked those questions, all the answers seem to be translated into dollar signs. (The decline in paper delivery boys and girls carrying their own papers must have something to do with this. It's like a cosmic connection, I tell ya.)

The comments following Lithwick's piece are also very enlightening, as "baby lawyers" rant about the hardships of paying for law school and the Faustian bargains they've made with firms to do so. See also this discussion among associates—especially this post from a teacher-turned-lawyer who says the pressure in teaching is greater than he's ever felt as a lawyer; amen to that, brother! And also this inspirational post and the thread that follows it—such comments give me hope that I'm not being completely naive to think I can avoid the young lawyer's Faustian bargain by taking advantage of my school's LRAP.

The discussion on Slate seems to rage on. See, for example, this thread that suggests that, in real terms, NY associates who make $125k/year are really making the equivalent of $42k/year, when you've accounted for all the time they're putting in. Or this advice: Don't go to law school. Hmmm. The replies to that one are more encouraging.

Posted 01:51 PM | Comments (1) | law school

State of the Union

This morning when I was out walking the dog, I saw my neighbor delivering newspapers. This neighbor is probably 11 or 12 years old, and every morning he gets up to roll and throw his papers. But he doesn't get up alone; one of his parents also gets up with him to drive him along his paper route. The family owns a Toyota Corolla, a Ford Explorer, and a restored 1940s Ford pickup. It's usually the dad who drives on the paper route, and he usually drives the Explorer, but sometimes the pickup. The kid sits in the back of whichever vehicle, the vehicle's tailgate up (in the case of the Explorer) or down (in the case of the pickup); the kid's legs dangle outside the vehicle as it moves down the road, so he's always ready to spring out and deliver a paper to the next house when the vehicle stops. But I've never seen him spring. Instead, he waits for the vehicle to stop, then typically reaches slowly for a paper before he saunters up to the door to drop the paper, then return slowly to the vehicle. I see this nearly every day, and I'm reminded that this is what we've come to as a people: We use our least fuel-efficient vehicles to drive our kids around their paper routes so they can make $5-10/day. I wonder: What is this paper boy learning from this experience?

Does this matter? Maybe not. Perhaps it just strikes me as significant because I actually delivered newspapers for nearly 10 years—from age 9 to age 18. During that time I always had at least one morning route, sometimes two; and for a couple of years when I lived in Iowa I had both a morning and an evening route (two different papers—the Des Moines Register was the morning paper, and the local paper, the name of which now escapes me, was an evening paper). And I'll admit that there's no way I could have delivered papers that long without lots of help and encouragement from my family. For many years, in fact, my mom and sister also had paper routes, so we'd all get up together and help each other to get our jobs done. Sometimes my mom would drive me to the start of my route, which was about a mile from my home. My mom also provided vital help with collections and keeping the books for my routes, so I couldn't have done it without her. Still, the only days I accepted a ride around my route were when the temperature was less than 40 degrees below zero (that usually happened a few times per year in Wyoming), or when I was injured and unable to walk or bike the route. So I know I sound like an old goat to be even talking about this, like the cliche of the old man complaining to the younger generation, "When I was a kid we didn't ride busses, we walked to school—uphill both ways! And we liked it!" I don't mean to sound like that. But still, these parents driving a lazy looking kid around his paper route every day just strikes me as a sad waste. I really think the whole Protestant work ethic is overrated, but still....

Posted 12:35 PM | general politics

Regime Change Begins at Home

And he's back. I apologize for the loooong hiatus. Where did October go? Is it just me, or did it just seem to evaporate?

So I had to stop posting a couple of days after Congress voted to give Bush authorization to attack Iraq. I was just so disappointed and angry that the only things I wanted to write here were bad political tirades, so instead I just decided to take a little break. In the meantime, I found a great slogan for the next few days: "Regime Change Begins at Home! Vote!" Get the poster while you still can! I highly recommend you print several copies, put them in your car windows and drive around a lot for the next three days. Then vote yourself, will you?

Another closely related reason for my non-posting period was the big anti-war rally held last Saturday (Oct. 26) in D.C. You see, while others have spent some time coming up with some great names for a war, I'm still hoping that such action is not necessary. And I've also become convinced that we can't rely on "world powers" to make sure Bush doesn't attack—the burden is on us. So I spent many hours in a van caravan with some 50 other people from my community to get to the rally/protest, which I found to be refreshing, exciting, rejuvenating, uplifting, and many other positive superlatives. [1] If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out A.N.S.W.E.R.'s coverage of the protest, which includes links to some major media coverage (at least until the article slides off the front page -- permalinks are good things). There's also Salon's pre-event coverage, on which there is some great commentary here. And finally, don't miss Salon's coverage of the event itself, which also generated some terrific letters. If you read nothing else, read the third letter down (from Abe Ogden). Satire strikes again!

What else has been preventing me from posting? Well, there's that whole "applying to law school" thing, which, frankly, is a pain in the you-know-what. But I think the hardest parts are finally complete. I have three great people writing three great letters, and all of them have given me three solid promises to have the letters in the mail by the end of next week. That will allow my LSDAS file to be complete by the end of Nov., which will allow me to make Georgetown's "early action," deadline, which is a good thing. I also learned that, by some miracle, my LSAT score came out a not-stellar but I think respectable, 167, which I was happy with since it was 3 points higher than my highest practice test. It's a relief to know that my numbers are pretty firmly within the averages of the schools to which I'm applying. And finally, after a couple of late nights, lots of swearing and pacing the house, and too many travels down old lanes of memory that I maybe didn't need to revisit, I've completed a draft of a personal statement that I don't hate. So the ducks are lined up. I just have to shoot them down by completing those application forms, which, incidentally, I can't do at home because the LSDAS software doesn't support Macs. Trust me, it's taking considerable restraint for me to withhold my "the Wintel borg sucks and so does any organization that supports it exclusively" rant, so consider yourselves lucky.

And finally, I haven't been able to post because I 've simply been watching too much TV (I think as a sort of escapist balm to soothe my stressed and anxious brain), which has shown me that it's true: everyone on tv is either a cop, a doctor, a lawyer, or a "perpetrator" or a victim. What a wonderful world. But come on! Can you really tell me you can resist "Girls Club"? But alas, apparently most of you can resist, since the show's already been cancelled. This is truly a loss for humanity.

Footnote:
[1] For those of you who are familiar with the IMF/World Bank protests of late September in D.C., or if you've read Jason Rylander's comments about them, I assure you that the A.N.S.W.E.R. anti-war protest was something completely different. It was dominated by people who believe in non-violent resistance, and it was entirely peaceful and very powerful because of that.

Posted 10:09 AM | law school