New (to me) Blawgs

Since even *I* am tired of my righteous indignation about current political affairs, I've been doing a little "light" reading around and have found two great new blawgs with which to while away the hours.

First: Screaming Bean is a 2L somewhere that has ice in March. I haven't had time to cruise through all the archives for more detail, but what I have read suggests there's lots of good stuff in there for those of us heading to law school soon. The tip for these directions for building a Starship Enterprise out of a floppy disk is definitely worth the price of admission, as is the link to a new law info portal, Legal Beetle. We all need our own Enterprise and more law info, don't we?

Second: In addition to having chosen an ingenious name for a blog, Mixtape Marathon also sounds a little (ok, very little) like my doppelganger. In her (I'm assuming) opening post, Bekah writes:

I graduated from undergrad with a double major in English and Philosophy, and went straight to law school. Law school was my choice because I couldn't decide between English and Philosophy grad school and because I didn't want to do math on the GRE. I now know that this reasoning is not really the most logical, or the most satisfactory. And yet, I can't think of anything else (other than nothing) that I would rather be doing with my life, so I guess my reasoning wins by default. Although I do think about what it would be like to just be a construction worker, like Peter in Office Space ("I did nothing, and it was everything I hoped it would be"). I have friends that are traveling now, working on farms and in restaurants, seeing the world, and I envy them. I especially envy them on really beautiful days when I just want to be able to ride my bike for hours, or sit by the fountain in the park and read a Victorian novel, and instead I'm trapped inside reading about limitations on implied warranties in the Uniform Commercial Code. But I know if took the proverbial "year off" I would just be prolonging the inevitable. My bitter friends and I who are in school or in abysmal jobs like to assure ourselves that we are doing something worthwhile--that we made smart decisions. And I know we're right. Law school isn't an end in itself: it's a means to an end. And like law school, I'm a work in progress, so of course I won't be satisfied immediately.

Ok, this doesn't sound like my doppelganger, but it is at least a bit like the doppelganger of me in my early 20s, sans the Philosophy part of the double major and the fact that she went straight to law school out of undergrad instead of going off to do some of the fun things she's watching her friends do. I, too, think about being a construction worker (just last night as I was walking down the street I had a brief but intense desire to be a cab driver), or better yet, like Peter in "Office Space," I dream of doing nothing (which, by the way, I'm doing now—it's great). And I've spent a few years traveling and riding my bike for hours (as a bike tour guide at least part of the time, so I actually combined bike/work/travel into one—why did I leave that job!? oh yeah, there were reasons), and I've sat by fountains reading decidedly non-Victorian novels (although I love George Elliot—just not Middlemarch so much, since I didn't ever really finish it). And although I really didn't want to do the math on the GRE, I did it and did horribly but it didn't really matter because I still got into a respectable grad school for English and after four years of that I'm finally going to law school. And so, having done at least some of the things Bekah sometimes wishes she were doing, I still feel as unsure (aka: ambivalent) about law school as ever. Maybe that will make Bekah feel better. Maybe not. She has her own travel stories now, so maybe her perspective has changed, anyway...

Posted 09:20 AM | law school

Give 'em the boot!

Since it was possibly the most insane idea to come from the military in a long time, you've probably heard about the demise of the futures market on terrorism. Andrew Raff rounded up some of the coverage yesterday, and it's all over the place. Salon's Scott Rosenberg explains just a few of the reasons the idea was so whack, and politicians seem to be falling all over themselves and each other to condemn the terror futures market. But the best news I've seen on the issue is that Barbara Boxer is calling for the ouster of the freaks responsible for the idea. Boxer said:

"There is something very sick about it," Boxer told Wolfowitz at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq. "If it's going to end, I think you would end the careers of whoever it was who thought that up, because terrorists, knowing they were planning an attack, could have bet on the attack and collected a lot of money. It is a sick idea."

And perhaps even better, today the NY Times editors send a clear message to the Pentagon: Fire John Poindexter!

The "Policy Analysis Market" would actually have opened for business on Oct. 1 had Senators Ron Wyden and Byron Dorgan not blown the whistle. Despite Mr. Wolfowitz's pledge to kill it, however, the problem of Mr. Poindexter remains. He is a man of dubious background and dubious ideas. A retired rear admiral, he served as Ronald Reagan's national security adviser and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to the rebels in Nicaragua. He was sentenced to six months in jail for lying to Congress, a conviction overturned on appeal. He resurfaced under the Bush administration at the Pentagon. His first big brainstorm post-9/11 was a program known as Total Information Awareness, designed to identify potential terrorists by compiling a detailed electronic dossier on millions of Americans.

Congress agreed earlier this year to subject that program to strict oversight and prohibit it from being used against Americans. In light of the revelations about the latest Poindexter scheme, Congress obviously did not go far enough. It should close his operation for good. The Senate recently agreed to do just that, adding an amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill that would terminate funds for the program. The House must now follow suit.

And the Boston Globe agrees wholeheartedly:

Poindexter's past performances suggest a pattern. An intelligence analyst scrutinizing Poindexter's record - or for that matter a sharp gambler looking for a sound betting proposition - would be tempted to guess that the admiral has been functioning as a mole sent by some foreign power to embarrass the United States.

The Defense Department should sever its ties with Poindexter before he can humiliate Americans again. Indeed, President Bush should have dismissed him last year and owes the nation an explanation of how his administration nearly implemented such a bizarre proposal. This distortion of a fashionable faith in pure market forces betrays a radical detachment from reality.

Perhaps we need a futures market for Poindexter's job. Oh, but never mind: This is the Pentagon under the Bush Administration where it's become common practice to admit someone is incompetent, then in the next breath assure us that we should have complete confidence in that incompetent person. Whatever.

Posted 07:55 AM | general politics

Tuesday Law Links

Just when I learn for sure I didn't get into a top-10 school, Sua Sponte warns future law students to apply to and attend the highest-ranked school to which they can possibly gain admission. A lively discussion has ensued in the comments section about the value of rankings and how important they should be to your choice of law schools, and the most recent comment links to this alternative ranking that, while a bit heavy on the frat-boy pick-up scene mentality, manages to make the point that there's a lot more to life than rank. Specifically, I agree that the availability of Fat Tire Amber Ale, hiking, mountain biking, and skiing should all be somehow figured into the next U.S. News rankings. Since all of those things are most readily available in the Rockies, my advice would be to apply to any school in Colorado or Montana. Idaho would work pretty well, too.

(Aside: Sua Sponte has been making noises about moving to MT; I hope she can transfer her archives and comments, because she's built up a great repository of opinions and information for 1-Ls and pre-1-Ls.)

But a bit more seriously, i hate stupid people (ihsp) and effinchamp have both offered some wise thoughts on how to choose a law school. ihsp's advice is eminently quotable; first:

Do not ever pick anything in your life just because it has the most gold stars. Figure out why the stars are there, and if you even like the things the star represents.

The U.S. News Rankings may end up giving you some pretty empty stars. But ihsp continues:

I suggest that you can't figure out where you want to be until you figure out what you want. Take as a given (for shits and giggles; just do it) that you will end up hating the law you think you want to practice, you will not return to the jurisdiction where you wish to practice, you will not get a coveted large firm internship and you will not understand half of what is said in at least three of your classes. If that all happens, will you still be happy in your choice of school? Is the city cool enough to hang out in? Are the professors smart/interesting/helpful people? Are there other options for employment than the large firm three ring circus of fun? Are there enough large firms in the area if you wanted to play that game?

Like I said: Great stuff. Now where was ihsp with this advice four months ago?!?

On a completely different topic, Professor Cooper links to Dwight Meredith (also here) and Kevin Drum on "tort reform." Together, the posts form a convincing antidote to the periodic media droning about multi-million dollar jury awards for "frivolous lawsuits" that are driving doctors out of practice and raising prices and insurance rates for all of us, etc. I just started reading Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, which is at once fascinating, entertaining, and horrifying in its prescience. I mention it because its authors, Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, have some choice things to say about Bush's "almost amusing loathing for trial lawyers" (xxiv), which leads to his obsession with "tort reform." The gist seems to be fairly obvious: As someone "perfectly comfortable, perfectly at home, doing the bidding of big bidness" (xvii), Bush hates trial lawyers because they do, occasionally, end up forcing "big bidness" to pay for its mistakes and abuses of public trust and resources. The brilliance of the Bush administration's campaign for tort reform is that they're selling it as a way to help the average American, when really this "reform" will almost certainly benefit corporate America more than anyone else. But then, as far as Yubbledew and Co. are concerned, what's good for corporate America is good for the world. Strike that: For Yubbledew and Co., corporate America is the world.

Posted 12:37 PM | law general law school

So That's That

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that there was still the most infinitesimal of chances that I might still be offered admission to the U. of Michigan law school for this fall. According to Michigan's website, that chance is now gone:

Notice to Applicants on our Waiting List:

We have carefully considered our incoming class for Fall 2003 and concluded that we will not be able to make any offers from the waiting list. We are, therefore, sending letters releasing from the waiting list the small number of people who remain on it. We are very grateful to all who participated in our waiting list this year, and wish you the best with your alternative plans.

So GW it is, then. It's better that way, I'm sure.

Posted 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | law school

No Betting on Terrorism

Just to update the previous post: It seems the Pentagon Terror Futures Market has been scrapped. Thank goodness for small favors. (And thanks again to L. for pointing out the link.) I wondered after I first mentioned this if the whole story was some kind of demented trial balloon. Why would anyone propose something so completely insane? I can't believe they seriously thought they'd get away with it, much less that it would be truly useful in making the world a safer, more peaceful place, so what could anyone have gained by even floating the idea? I'm completely baffled. But hey, at least it's not going to happen—at least not now and at least not in this form.

Salon has much more complete coverage; the longer story reveals that the party responsible for this incredibly stupid idea is none other than John Poindexter. That man should have been imprisoned for treason in the 80s. Barring that, can't we at least get him fired and barred from any future government service? So, ok, maybe his role in the Iran-Contra scandal wasn't enough to get him branded as an enemy of the state, but then he goes and tries to make American citizens spy on each other, and now he's created "a futures market on death"? I thought we had "three strikes and you're out" laws in this country. I guess those only apply to people who steal video tapes.

Posted 11:42 AM | general politics

PAM: It's Just Sick

Unbelievable headline of the day: "Pentagon's Futures Market Plan Condemned":

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is setting up a stock-market style system in which investors would bet on terror attacks, assassinations and other events in the Middle East. Defense officials hope to gain intelligence and useful predictions while investors who guessed right would win profits.

L. pointed this out to me and neither of us can believe it. How could anyone think for even a second that this was a good idea?!? But it appears to be real. Read all about the "Policy Analysis Market" (PAM)—it's got its own website with examples of what will be traded: "Issue A: Overthrow of Jordanian Monarchy"; "Issue B: Iraqi Regime persists after One Month of Hostilities." Oh yeah, great idea.

Not surprisingly, some of the bright lights behind this little scheme are from DARPA, which gave us the great idea of the TIPS Program, evidence of which has now been deleted. One of the things erased was information about retired Adm. John Poindexter, apparently because people started spying on him. That Poindexter—what a guy! So is he involved with this new
PAM game to create a betting parlor for terrorism and U.S. imperialism? And will PAM suffer the same fate as TIPS? Stay tuned for the next episode in the ongoing saga of the complete imbecility of the U.S. military and intelligence community!

Oh, if you have any comments about this whole PAM thing, be sure you send them in!

Posted 06:36 AM | general politics

Near Death Experience

I'm a big fan of public transportation, but this morning it came a little too close for comfort. My dog and I were out for our usual morning walk today when she (the dog) decided to stop and sniff something near the corner of a major intersection. No problem there; stopping to sniff is just what dogs do. So we stood there for perhaps a minute until her sniffer exhausted whatever little treasure it had found, then we resumed our walk. But that's when things went a little weird because suddenly the quiet of our pre-dawn neighborhood was broken by the incessant blaring of what sounded like the horn of a big vehicle. To my left I saw a large truck following a city bus, but before I had time to really connect the truck, the bus, and the honking, I was startled by a strange "splat!" directly behind me, followed by a sinister whisper that seemed to be dopplering toward my right side at high speed. I spun around just in time to see a huge tire and wheel flying by me through the grass. And as I watched it roll and bounce down the grassy slope and smack to a stop against the wall of an apartment building, my brain finally caught up with events to bring me to the realization: My dog and I were nearly killed by a flying bus wheel!

But, we weren't.

And no, we wouldn't have died if it had hit us, but it wouldn't have felt too great, I'm thinking. Fun in the city just doesn't stop, does it?

Posted 06:11 AM | life generally

Conservative Psychology

There's a new study of the psychology behind political conservatism. A quick summary:

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

• Fear and aggression
• Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Need for cognitive closure
• Terror management

It's all very interesting, but really not that earth-shattering. The full study is here (pdf).

This link comes via damnum absque injuria, which also points to comments on the study from The Angry Clam and Instapundit; in fact, you could probably spend all day following links around the right wing of the blogosphere on this study—they don't like it much, it seems. DAI also quotes President Clinton's remarks on the Bush yellowcake/SOTU imbroglio, which Clinton made the other night on Larry King when he was being interviewed about Bob Dole's b-day. Bloggers on the right are also having a field day with this because Clinton
basically said everybody makes mistakes so we can't really hold this against Yubbledew. And he'd probably be right if the Republicans hadn't spent the entire eight years of his own Presidency trying to impeach him for much smaller "mistakes"—like, um, "mistakes" that didn't lead to the deaths of thousands of people. For the record, Clinton also said:

I guess I sound like a card-carrying Republican tonight.

And that's true, which is why it's hard to take seriously the "centrists" at the DNC and the DLC who counseled Democratic candidates to be "Bush-lite," thereby making Democrats big losers in the 2002 election round.

And that's about all I'm going to say about that.

UPDATE: More thoughts on the conservative psychology study at The Yin Blog.

Posted 06:51 AM | Comments (3) | general politics

The Dean Says So

Hey, if you're starting law school in the next month or so, relax. That's the order from an Assistant Dean at GW who recently advised readers of GW's admitted students forum that:

Your final month will be best spent if you do nothing involving law. Most of you will begin reading law consistently for the rest of your lives starting August 18th. It will be hard work. Now is the time to get in a little better shape, visit a friend, read a novel, or go to a museum.

Now who am I to argue with advice like that?

Posted 01:15 PM | Comments (1) | law school

A Bunch of Stuff

Ok. After the interesting comments about various types of stress bombers, I really wanted to say something today about the "zero summers" and other personality types so well described in Brush With the Law. However, the day is slipping away so that'll just have to wait, along with all the other things I'd really like to wax poetic about, including:

"Congress to Bikers: Get a Car: Cutting money for sustainable transportation alternatives to cars is so short-sighted and stupid I just don't know where to begin. This is countered at least a little by "A green revolt against Bush," which I Hate Stupid People calls faith restoring. I don't know if I'd go that far, but it's a start.

Bradley's Almanac points to a frightening account of the FBI investigating what a random person was reading in a coffee shop (the guy was reading an opinion piece called "Weapons of Mass Stupidity"). Any faith previously restored is now gone.

L-Cubed continues its streak of provocative posts with a comparison of the different ways the Democrats and Republicans respond to criticism. Scott reports, you decide.

Dan Gillmore says "Voting machines need paper trails" and I couldn't agree with him more. He also provides some suggestions for action to make sure we can trust our elections in the future.

Unlearned Hand reports that the the pro-life movement has effectively stolen millions of dollars from U.S. charities (most of which have nothing to do with abortion, pro or con) and at least one of its members is fairly gleeful about that. Can you say "forest for the trees"?

Finally, Professor Jeff Cooper has returned from a brief break with a great roundup of the coverage of the Bush administration's alleged attempts to smear "whistleblowers" and some nice thoughts on the Tour de France and Apple's advertising.

So much to read and process, so little time.

Posted 09:39 AM | general politics life generally

Day Pop Top 40 Report

DayPop's Top 40 rarely fails to offer links to flabbergasting or otherwise outrageous material, and today is no exception. Did John Gilmore really get ejected from a British Airways flight for wearing a "Suspected Terrorist" button!? Has this been in the news anywhere? I mean, doesn't that sound completely nuts? I agree with the guy—airport security is a farce to make us feel "secure" while adding very little in the way of real additional security. Gilmore has filed a lawsuit against a plethora of parties (FAA, TSA, etc.), specifically the legality of requiring all passengers to show identification before they travel. Reason Magazine ("the monthly print magazine of 'free minds and free markets'") is covering the suit. Why isn't anyone else?

And in a related vein of the insults we suffer under the name of "homeland security," "Bush Suckers the Democrats" argues that the scandal over the African uranium claims in the State of the Union Address is just an empty show to make the Democrats look foolish—planned every step of the way by Yubbledew and Co. (I guess that's why Bush's approval rating is dropping like a stone then, huh?) Whew! That's a relief! Just when I was starting to think the world was a complicated place, The Weekly Standard pulls through to reassure me that everything is, in fact, very simple. You just have to stick with the truth. And we all agree about what that is, don't we?

Also from DayPop: The Dallas Morning News has a blog on which its editors hash out their opinions on various issues. How cool is that? Now if we could just get the Bush administration to do this, we might just have something like a democracy again.

Posted 07:07 AM | general politics life generally

Hey, Me Too! Me Too!

Now that Stephen Hadley has joined George Tenet in taking blame for the whole "Iraq has recently tried to buy significant quantities of Uranium from Africa" lie that Yubbledew told in his State of the Union address, I feel it's time for me to come clean as well.

I admit it. I, too, failed to ensure that the President did not mislead the world about Iraq. I mean, I really tried, but I failed. So blame me, too, ok? Because Yubbledew is responsible for nothing. You got that? Nothing.

Now, please join me in what I'm sure will soon be our required national mantra: "All Hail King George! Hoorah! Long Live King George! Hoorah!"

What? Did you say North Korea may go nuclear? Shaddup and shout, damn you! "All Hail King George! Hoorah!"

Posted 06:02 AM | Comments (1) | general politics

Law School and A Life Worth Living

I was just catching up on some of Jeremy Blachman's brilliance and read his Saturday post about why he might be in law school. Jeremy writes:

Before law school I worked in marketing for a software company in Austin, Texas. I'm from NY, so that was far away. And probably the hardest thing about it was that being on my own, being in a new city, having a job and an apartment -- it all meant I had to really make a life for myself. And that's sort of hard. Because without doing anything pro-active, it's easy to end up going to work, coming home, going to sleep, repeat, sleep and run errands on the weekends, and never really *do* anything, or see other people, or have a life. So it's on your shoulders to make plans, find activities, make friends, do things -- in a way that it's not at school, because you have classes and extracurriculars, and friends, and things to read and write and study, and purpose and meaning, and all that jazz... And I hate thinking that one of the reasons I'm in law school is because I like going to school, and because I like the lifestyle of being a student, and that I find all of this easier than making a life for myself. Because thinking it kind of makes me feel like I'm just postponing the inevitable, or that I'm wasting time and money, or that I'm being sort of stupid. But if it's not one of the reasons I'm in school, it's at least one of the side benefits... .... ...being at school is on the whole nicer -- in my head -- than having to really make a life for yourself, I think.

I'm glad he wrote all that and didn't delete it (as he considered doing) because, well, I worry about the same things. A lot. I mean, law school sure is an expensive way to make sure you have friends and quality stuff to do, isn't it? Plus, this will be my second post-graduate degree; isn't about time I face the music, grow up, and "really make a life for myself"?

And then I remember: Going to school is really making a life for yourself—you can't do the former without at the same time doing the latter. So the question is not one of "school vs. life," but rather different kinds of life, so that perhaps it's safe to say we go to school to make a better life for ourselves. And if that life includes more and better friends, and more and better opportunities to socialize in fulfilling ways, and more and better ways to fill our time, then that's all good, isn't it?

Yet, while I believe that's all true, I still have this fear that I'm just "postponing the inevitable." I worry that I'll end up with a J.D. and be right back where I am right now—looking at a job market that seems to hold very few really worthwhile and fulfilling ways to spend my time and still make enough money to live comfortably. I think it's safe to say that this is a fairly common fear among grad students in many fields; it's the fear of wasting effort, time, money, to get a degree that turns out to not really change your prospects in the world. I don't think there's really any good answer to those fears—there are no guarantees in life—but I'm thinking the odds are good that having a J.D. will allow me to do much more with my life, but in ways I can't predict precisely at this point. Again, I'm reminded of "Charles," the pseudonymous law student whom I quoted a few months ago:

The point of a J.D. is the sudden power it brings you. I have to work from the inside. … It doesn't matter whether I'll feel satisfaction or believe in what I'm doing. Don't you see? It's war. War.

So while having a J.D. won't necessarily make it any easier to do the things Jeremy's thinking about—the need "to make plans, find activities, make friends, do things"—I have high hopes that a J.D. will increase the value of those things because it should allow me to plan and do things I simply could not have done if I hadn't gone to law school, and to know and befriend people I couldn't have otherwise known. Therefore, even if I am just postponing the inevitable, I'm confident that I'm doing it for good reasons and that, in a way, I'm making an "investment" that will pay off later when that "inevitable" eventually comes.

In other words: Going to law school is a potential way to make your life more meaningful and less alienated. Working many 8-5 jobs (like it sounds like Jeremy had in Austin) is an alienating experience. It demands a lot of your time, but it gives you close to nothing in return except for cash. Many jobs don't give you a sense of accomplishment, a sense of doing something worthwhile, a sense of spending your time in a way that will make you feel satisfied with your life when you lay down to die. So spending 40 hours a week at a job like that can be a sort of soul-killing experience. On top of that empty work there's all that business about finding friends and activities, which, as Jeremy says, can be difficult. Some people are so tired out by their jobs (if not physically, then emotionally and psychologically) that by the time they come home in the evening they can't face much more than finding dinner and watching tv, leaving weekends for laundry and the other general life maintenance tasks that accumulate when you spend the majority of your productive waking hours chained to a money-making proposition. So all jobs take your time, some take your physical strength, and many take your emotional and psychological energy as well, leaving you very few resources (besides the money you make at work) with which to "build a life."

Enter school. School is stimulating, not draining. People are in school because they're interested in something (at least some of them are interested in something; others are just about the money and they'll probably never ponder the kinds of questions Jeremy's pondering). School rewards the effort and the time you give it in ways that are infinitely more satisfying than a paycheck. Obviously, you get grades, but that's like a paycheck—empty. Going to school and working hard at it for grades is like getting a job and working hard at it for money—you're missing the point. The real rewards of school are what you learn about the topics you study, about the world you live in, and about yourself as a person, a thinker, a citizen, a friend. The rewards of school are also your interactions with other intelligent people who are interested in things you're interested in, and most of all the rewards of school are what your education and the work you invest in it allow you to do, which is to give something more to the world than you could have given without that education. A side benefit is that the work you eventually do when you have to start your postponed "real life" will be more rewarding to you, as well, because you'll be in a position to do something you find meaningful and worthwhile.

So yes, one way to look at this issue is that some people probably do go to school because it seems easier than trying to "make a real life" on their own. But it should also help them build a better life eventually—better in lots of ways—and that's a good thing.

Posted 11:37 AM | Comments (3) | law school

Aiding the Enemy?

In "Who's Unpatriotic Now?" Paul Krugman turns the tables on the war-hawks who have spent the last year saying that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq is only aiding Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Krugman writes:

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes.

Yeah, let's talk about that, why don't we? How about we start with some good answers to the sixteen questions Howard Dean is asking about the whole line of "we gotta go to war immediately" products that Yubbledew and Co. were pushing so hard for so long. (I guess most of those goods have passed their expiration date, huh?)

On the other hand, it appears some people continue to defend the "technically, it wasn't a lie" story. Hmm. Ok, but as a former English teacher I feel compelled to submit that willful suspension of disbelief is really probably best reserved for movies, novels, short stories, plays, and other works of fiction; when real lives (not to mention historical precedent and the friendship, trust, and goodwill of nearly the entire world) are on the line it's probably better to, um, I dunno, be a teensy bit more critical. But hey, what do I know?

UPDATE: Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat [link via Joe Conason's Journal]

Posted 10:30 AM | general politics

What, Me Worry?

The summer is flying and participants on the GW admitted students discussion board are exchanging vital info about where to live, what cell phone service to get, and how much they love their shiny new Dells. Good for them, I say. I'm just bitter because the one thing everyone on the board seems to agree on is that Sprint's cell service sucks, and they're absolutely right, but that's what I'm stuck with for the next 8 months. Where were these people in March when I got my phone!?

But in addition to confirming that I have the sorriest excuse for cell phone service in the universe, the posters at the GW discussion board (which I'm not linking to because it's all password-protected and whatnot) also introduced me to Law Nerds.com, which offers a "free, 6-step workshop" to help prepare you for law school. It's basic, but hey, so am I, plus it's short, which means I may even read it all. In addition to the vitals like explaining IRAC and how to brief a case, the Law Nerds advice includes more subtle gems like daily affirmations (!?) and staying away from the "stress bombs":

Some people purposefully create stress as a motivator for themselves. They freak out at the workload and use it as a way to bond with other students. Stay away from the people who are stressing out. Stress creates stress, and you want to focus your energies on studying, not stressing out.

I saw this in my English grad program all the time. There were some people who couldn't seem to have a single conversation—or even exchange greetings in the hallway—without reference to their workload, lack of sleep, problem students in the classes they were teaching, or other stress factors. In my first year, every time I'd talk with one of these people I'd walk away thinking there must be something wrong with me because I didn't feel nearly as behind as they did (even if I had more work I needed to catch up on), and I certainly didn't feel stressed about any of it. By the second year I'd spent enough time with people like this that I started to be like them. They taught me what should stress me out and how to magnify those things (and my stress from those things) into conversation pieces and life-dominating albatrosses. It got to the point where every gathering of grad students was just a big exchange of what we were stressed out about. It was pretty sick. And it's a self-perpetuating cycle. As the Law Nerds say, unless you're one of these people who can only function if you're stressed to the verge of exploding: Stay away from people like this. Far away. If you walk away from a conversation with someone in your first few weeks and you feel more stressed than you did when you began the conversation, think really hard about whether you really need to talk to them again. Of course, a certain amount of stress is probably a healthy motivator for all of us, so a good strategy may be to try to find friends and study partners who are a good mix of more and less stressed than you are. The more-stressed people can help keep you (and your group) on your toes, while the less stressed people can be a voice of sanity, reminding you (and your group) when the stress is going beyond the healthy point.

I'm just thinking out loud here.

This whole avoiding stress thing has a corollary, which the Law Nerds put this way:

Putting in more hours doesn't necessarily lead to more knowledge.

This will be vital to remember if you find yourself surrounded by stress bombs. They'll be talking about how many all-nighters they've already pulled and about how they've read three extra books that weren't even assigned and yadda yadda yadda, and you'll be going, "um, I've been sleeping 8 hours a night and I haven't even done half the assigned reading, let alone anything extra." At first you'll be ok with this, but beware! The stress bombs have planted seed of doubt in your mind, and if you're not careful, before you know it you'll be panicked and paranoid that you're not working hard enough and will be doomed to failure if you don't also read many extra books and stay up all night doing it. And of course you know if you go that route you'll just get strung out and more paranoid and worried, rather than less, so you don't want to go there, right? Right?

Um, did I mention I was just thinking out loud here?

And while I'm at it, let me just say that signing the promissory notes for the $36,330 I'm borrowing to pay for the next 9 months of my life was, well, a sobering experience. Suddenly firms look very different to me, as in, well, maybe not so bad. I mean, it's good experience to work in a firm for a year or two, right? It doesn't have to be awful, right? And as L. pointed out, some top law students are lucky enough to get great paying gigs during their 1-L and 2-L summers; we've known people who made close to $70k total in just two summers "interning" for firms. So forget what I said about not wanting anything to do with firms. Where do I apply?

Which reminds me: Just about every law school advice book (and someone from the PR boards a while back) tells you to get your resume polished up before law school starts so you'll be ready to send off applications for summer work when the application process begins on Dec. 1. Just FYI.

Posted 11:36 AM | Comments (2) | law school

Old Rag Mountain

It was a beautiful weekend in the DC region, so on the spur of the moment Saturday night, I decided to take a little hike. I'd previously searched for recommended hikes in the area, and found Local Hike's list of 5-star hikes , and of course I wanted to do the one billed as the "best hike in VA!" L. and I did the Bull Run "hike" a few weeks ago and found it to be less hike than walk, except for the low spots, which at the time were filled with water, making the "hike" more like a "swalk"—a swap walk. We also picked up some friendly tics there, as did our favorite dumb animal (our dog), so all in all Bull Run was nice, but I hoped that Old Rag Mountain would offer more climbing, varied terrain, and better views.

Old Rag did not disappoint. As the picture below should suggest, aside from the "smokiness" of the mountains, the views were pretty darned good.

And if you want climbing, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find more of it in the DC area than you'll find on Old Rag. As the Local Hikes description indicates, you climb over 2000 feet in around 4 miles. The "rock scramble" is also no joke; there were places where the rocks were so vertical I had to stop and examine them pretty closely to find a way up. However, since Old Rag is such a popular hike those few tough spots aren't really so tough—all the likely hand holds (including nearby trees and branches) are worn smooth from all the hands that have grabbed them over the years, and all the good toe holds are blackened by the scrapes of shoe rubber. So although it's a pretty challenging hike, it's well-traveled so you can hike in the knowledge that if you get in any kind of trouble someone will likely be along shortly to help you out.

If you want a great hike in the D.C. area, I highly recommend Old Rag. However, I'd add a couple of things to what the Local Hikes page says about it. First, it took almost exactly 2 hours to reach the trail parking lot from the Bethesda, MD area—follow directions to Nethers, VA if you want to look it up on Yahoo maps or something. Also, since you have to park 0.8 miles from the trailhead, this is really an 8.8 mile round-trip, not 7 miles. Finally, the 4-hour pace is a pretty brisk one. I did it, but it was kind of a forced march and I only spent about 10-15 minutes at the top. I imagine most hikers will want to take a more leisurely pace, so plan for 5-6 hours, at least. Other than that, take lots of water and have a great hike.

So what's next? If you have recommendations for hiking or biking (mt. or road) in the DC area, the comments link is calling your name!

Posted 11:07 AM | Comments (5) | life generally

Really Good Wretchedness

Kick off your week with some award-winning wretchedness! Feast your eyes on this:

They had but one last remaining night together, so they embraced each other as tightly as that two-flavor entwined string cheese that is orange and yellowish-white...

So begins the winning entry of the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest ("where WWW means Wretched Writers Welcome"). The BLFC is "a whimsical literary competition that challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels."

But what if you like string cheese?

[Link via Random Neural Misfirings which is definitely random and includes this nice little roundup of recent events.]

Posted 07:16 AM | life generally

Funny Business

I'm increasingly late to these fun link parties (i.e.: when someone finds something so insane or cool happens that everyone links to it and sends it to you in email), but it's better late than never in the case of Paul Kelly Tripplehorn Jr., the brilliant Washington intern who wrote such a horrible breakup email [pdf]—both humanly and grammatically—that he ended up losing his job. See Life, Law, Libido for more insight on the issue (also a follow-up here, plus a bonus link to the most hilarious thank-you letter [pdf] I've read in a long time. (And that's saying something; as a recovering business writing teacher, I used to teach students how to write interview thank-you letters, so I've read quite a few in my day.) To fully appreciate the letter, don't miss the recipient's interpretation of it at the end of LLL's post. What's funny about this is that, after having read so many letters like this, I know people send crap like this all the time; maybe not quite this bad, but bad. Perhaps that's something to think about that the next time you get worried about your competition in law school (or just about any other field, for that matter).

All this hilarity and horror comes via DG who, despite being "busier than a one-legged man at a butt-kicking contest," * is still somehow able to offer up daily posts that never fail to entertain and inform. She recently checked out the Dean for America and to me her comments demonstrate what I've been thinking more and more: Dean is looking like the best candidate to beat Yubbledew because Dean's not just some lefty wacko. Instead, he is (or he is selling himself as) a pragmatist who doesn't want a revolution, just a few changes here and there so people will have health care, a quality education, and a safe world. But who knows. Someone told me the other day that Dean is "losing his luster," so we'll see.

Posted 06:35 AM | Comments (4) | life generally

Denial and Deception

So now that you've seen the weapons of mass destruction Google trick a zillion times in your email and on various websites, here's the next big serendipitous indictment of Yubbledew and Co. on the whole war in Iraq issue:

1. Go to the official White House transcript of the 2003 State of the Union Address
2. Read the banner at the top: "Iraq Denial and Deception."
3. Read the speech.
4. Read the banner.
5. Vote to impeach Bush.

Ha! It would be funny if it weren't so scary. [Link via Buzzflash.]

Posted 03:01 PM | general politics

Windoze Security = Swiss Cheese

Heard about the most recent Windoze security hole? [Thanks to Famous P. for the link!] It sounds like a doozy:

"This is one of the worst Windows vulnerabilities ever," said Marc Maiffret, an executive at eEye Digital Security Inc. of Aliso Viejo, Calif., whose researchers discovered similarly dangerous flaws in at least three earlier versions of Windows. .... Maiffret said that inside vulnerable corporations, "until they have this patch installed, it will be Swiss cheese — anybody can walk in and out of their servers."

Gee, GW's decision to require all students to use Windoze laptops is looking better all the time. Famous P. suggested I send this story to the GW computer people to show them what a stupid computer policy they've got, and I was only barely able to restrain myself from doing exactly that. And that's nothing; now our "national security" is being entrusted to M$:

The announcement [of the Windows security flaw] came one day after the Department of Homeland Security announced that it awarded a five-year, $90-million contract for Microsoft to supply all its most important desktop and server software for about 140,000 computers inside the new federal agency.

Beautiful.Tell me again why people buy Windows? ;-)

(Ok, to be fair, it's likely that if 99.9% of the world's computers used Unix or Linux or the Mac OS, security flaws and viruses and whatnot would be more common on those platforms, too, but that seems more like an additional argument for diversity in computing than anything else.)

I know. I've got to get over this stupid computer policy. I'm working on it. As Bob (as in "What About Bob") would say: "I'm baby-steppin! I'm doin' the work!"

Posted 10:06 AM | law school mac geek

Primaries and Presidents

Yesterday's Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum was a bit anti-climactic. I'd been hoping to see some sparks fly between some of the more conservative and progressive candidates, but it was not to be. The forum was highly structured, with only one candidate appearing on stage at a time so that there was no dialogue between the candidates. Each candidate gave an opening statement, answered two questions (and whatever additional related questions moderator Sam Donaldson decided to put to them), and gave a closing statement. To control things further, the candidates knew the questions in advance so they had prepared answers to make them look as good as possible. You can see the archived webcast of the forum here, but the bottom line was that what the candidates had to say was fairly empty—for the most part they just rehashed statements you can find on their websites. What was important about yesterday's forum is that it happened at all. The fact that the HRC could get seven presidential candidates (all except Edwards and Graham) to speak at their event—even in such tightly controlled conditions—shows that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues have come out of the closet, so to speak, and are finally legitimate topics for national public debate.

But now that the first-quarter money race is over, the top candidates are really starting to look toward the primaries. According to Politics1, Presidential politics will start getting at least a little hot on January 13 when the District of Columbia holds its "Presidential Preference Primary." That's followed on Jan. 19 by the Iowa Caucuses, followed on the 27th by the New Hampshire Primary. (I've heard rumors that some people in New Hampshire are angry at DC for trying to steal the title of "nation's first primary," so some New Hampshire-ites have vowed to vote against anyone who campaigns in DC. I hope that's just a rumor, 'cause that's just nuts.)

But since I'm actually living in a suburb of DC, I'm supposed to be interested in the Maryland Presidential Primary on March 2, which appears to be "super Tuesday." The Maryland process for getting a candidate on the ballot looks a little sketchy. According to the Maryland Secretary of State, the ballot is up to him or her, in conjunction with the state and national media:

The Office of the Secretary of State is responsible for designating the people whose names appear on the ballot for each primary election. This is done when the Secretary has determined that the candidate's candidacy is generally advocated or recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in Maryland and in accordance with party rules.

Wow, sounds democratic, doesn't it? Not.

Meanwhile, factions of the Democratic party are going on about some huge battle between the left and right wings of the party, which to me only highlights how successful the Repubs have been in shifting the terms of debate to their end of the spectrum. The only candidate to mention this "division in the party" at yesterday's candidate forum was Lieberman, which isn't really surprising since he would definitely be one of those in the right wing. But this little battle could be troublesome for someone like Dean, who is rising in the polls primarily because he's doing a better job than anyone else of straddling this little divide. Although Dean's image as too liberal is fading, he'll still have to work hard to sell his definition of "center" to the nation as a whole. Steve Snyder, in a letter to Salon, does a beautiful (if highly cynical) job encapsulating the challenge facing the "democratic wing of the democratic party" in politics today. Snyder writes:

What we Democrats fail to realize is that at some fundamental level the triumph of popular conservatism in our politics represents the interaction of basic human nature with the changed reality of life in our advanced society. Ultimately, the Republicans win -- and continue to win -- because the rhetoric of "serve yourself" beats "let's work together" in all but truly dire times. Let's face it: Community is hassle. You have to deal with disagreeable neighbors and you can't always do what you want. And the Republicans understand this. Their rhetoric is always based on the idea that you shouldn't have to be bothered by anything unpleasant: Taxes are annoying, so get rid of them. Zoning ordinances, environmental laws, nagging labor unions, affirmative action to rectify past injustices -- all are a drag.

This rhetoric proves even more appealing when the circumstances that necessitate living in a community recede into the past. Most of the people who bother to vote today grew up in middle-class suburbs and segued fairly smoothly into their careers, homes and money. In fact, most of those likely to vote have never known really hard times. Americans once lived their entire lives with the knowledge that they were only a drought away from starvation. For them, accommodating the demands of annoying neighbors wasn't just a lofty idea; it was a survival strategy.

But today -- as the Republicans recognize -- those most likely to vote have reached a level of affluence that evokes the illusion they can buy their way out of the inconvenience of community altogether. That leaves the Democrats to make the rather joyless argument that "we're all in it together," which, unfortunately, will necessitate paying some taxes and doing the hard work of learning to live with one another.

In the end, the Republicans will keep winning because they champion what we secretly desire: a world where we can have all the goodies with none of the larger responsibilities. Their policies are an adolescent's wet dream, and, sadly, we are a politically immature nation.

I think Snyder's got the issue right—it's a self-centered worldview that sees society as the enemy vs. a bigger picture worldview that sees society as the whole point of existence. The "we're all in it together" ethos underlies the most biting critiques of recent U.S. foreign policy, but it also lines up behind critiques of "globalization" and "free trade" schemes that sacrifice human needs for balanced budgets and corporate profits. And yeah, that's a hard sell to people who see so many short-term benefits from the "server yourself" way of doing things. But that doesn't make those benefits last any longer.

Posted 04:13 PM | election 2004

New Kids on the Block

Hello to FalconRed (a pre-blawger just getting down to that nasty LSAT studying bi'ness), and Household Opera, an academic blogger who's a little less than satisfied with the old academy. Welcome to this blogging thing! And props to both of you for your great reading habits. ;-)

Posted 03:36 PM | Comments (3) |

Car Rental Gotcha

While clearing my desk I ran across the receipt for the car I rented during my recent travels West. The total bill was $423.16 to rent for one week a recent model Chevy Cavalier, 4-dr., automatic, w/air conditioning and cd-player, and unlimited miles. It was a good car, it did the job nicely, and the rental company was fine. The problem is that I reserved the car and made all my travel plans based on the fact that it was supposed to cost $127 for the week. That's right: I was quoted a price of $127, but I ended up paying $423.

SO, this receipt reminds me that I wanted to rant about what a rip-off car rentals are and how there appears to be no such thing as "truth in advertising" when it comes to this crap and why aren't innocent and naive consumers (like myself) protected from this kind of scam!?

But why bother? In a few years I'll be a lawyer, and then, well, let's just say the car rental business better watch out. Paybacks are a bitch.*

*Yeah, I know having a J.D. won't probably enable me to sue the pants off of car rental companies for lying to their customers, but I'm told an active fantasy life is healthy, ok?

Posted 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | life generally

Welcome to Reality

Scroll down to the bottom of this White House transcript of Yubbledew's remarks yesterday about Iraq and you'll find Yubbledew said:

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

Now read it again. It says Saddam Hussein wouldn't let weapons inspectors into Iraq, and that's why we went to war.

As Joe Conason reminds us, that's an outright fabrication. So either Yubbledew lies so much he simply can't keep all the lies straight, or he lives in a fantasy world, or both. Either way, the question is this: Yesterday on the afternoon and evening news I heard repeated sound bites from the remarks Yubbledew made yesterday and all of them included the first two sentences quoted above; none of them included the rest of the statement. Why not? Why is the press giving Yubbledew a pass here? Why why why?

Grrr...

Posted 05:45 AM | Comments (3) | general politics

Linux, Anyone?

Just in from the fine folks at GW tech support: They explain that I might be able to scrape by with something other than a windoze-based system in some cases, but the here's where the rubber meets the road as far as they're concerned:

The bottom line, however, is that the law school cannot condone any student coming here intending to use anything other than a windows-based machine that meets the minimum specs. Sorry if this message unnecessarily covers familiar ground for you -- I just wanted to be clear about the situation here at GW Law.

Got that? GW cannot condone any intent to use anything other than a windows-based machine. I can't think of a better way to welcome your new students than with rhetoric like that.

So here's the thing: I can maybe make peace with buying a machine that runs Windows, but I'd like a certain kind of machine and I need your help. My requirements would include:

• a non-Intel processor, meaning I suppose something from AMD (Athlon?)
• a machine on which I could run Linux for everything that's not Windoze-only

So I guess what I'm looking for is a small, lightweight laptop with an Athlon processor that ships with a dual OS installed—some wi-fi friendly variant of Linux and Windows XP Pro. Any suggestions?

I'm pretty clueless here, so any help will be appreciated. What's the best (most consumer-friendly) version of Linux, anyway? Thanks.

Posted 01:55 PM | law school

GW's Computing Regime

So when GW says it requires students to have a laptop that runs Windows XP Professional, what do you suppose that means? As I mentioned the other day, I don't want to buy a Windoze pc, and in fact this is one of the more glaring issues I have with attending GW in the first place. I wonder how many other schools are getting so authoritarian in their computing policies.

For the record, GW says you must have a certain Cisco wireless networking card for your computer because GW's network uses Cisco's LEAP encryption. However, it appears Apple's Airport wireless networking cards work fine with LEAP, so long as you follow these directions for using Cisco's LEAP authentication via Airport.

GW uses Extegrity for its exams, so that's definitely Windoze-only and emulators like Virtual PC almost certainly won't work. It also uses SynchronEyes computer lab instruction software for its legal writing and research course. This is another program that appears to take control of your desktop, so it might not work in emulation either.

It may be that buying a windoze laptop is a compromise I have to make to go to law school, but what may be most disturbing about this is the slippery slope fear it creates. What other compromises lay ahead? And are they really worth making? As the clock ticks down to just slightly more than a month until school starts, these questions are no longer academic, and my level of dismay over what should otherwise be a fairly trivial issue suggests that I'm not really ready for this reality.

*sigh*

Posted 12:43 PM | Comments (2) | law general

Fearing Fear Itself

Are you more afraid now than you were in 2000?

The Democratic presidential candidates finally start attacking Bush's credibility for lying to get us into war. Apparently Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt—who both all to give Bush permission to attack Iraq—have finally found a way out of the dilemma they've been in as that pro-war stance made them increasingly unpopular with Democratic voters; now they can just say that the reason they supported the war is that they believed Bush, but now that they know he lied, they can vehemently condemn both Bush and the war. Lucky for them. Will this reduce Dean's lead? As the most "mainstream" candidate who has opposed the Iraq war all along (although he says the invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing to do), Dean was able to distinguish himself on this issue, but that distinction may now become less clear.)

This comes at a time when I'm just baffled that more people aren't just irate about this issue. Why do the same people who got upset that Clinton lied about a blow job (which hurt no one directly besides Clinton, Lewinsky, and Clinton's family) seem so unconcerned about Bush's lies, which have effectively killed thousands of people? Some analysts seem to think the answer is fairly simple: Americans are just scared silly. In fact, it seems we've been whipped into such a frenzy of fear that we'll accept just about anything. For example, in "Trading On Fear", PR analysts Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber look at how Yubbledew and Co. (the Bush administration and corporate America) have stoked the fears of the average American and then profited from those fears. And in "A Nation of Scared Sheep" Louise Witt looks more closely at the fears driving Americans to give Yubbledew and Co. a pass on the lies it told to get support for an invasion of Iraq. Very simply put, it seems we are being manipulated, and apparently it's working.

First Rampton and Stauber explain how television propaganda was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public, but they also debunk the idea that the crap we see on television is just the networks and studios "giving the people what they want":

Fear is one of the most primitive emotions in the human psyche, and it definitely keeps us watching. If the mere ability to keep people watching were really synonymous with "giving audiences what they want", we would have to conclude that people "want" terrorism. On September 11, Osama bin Laden kept the entire world watching. As much as people hated what they were seeing, the power of their emotions kept them from turning away.

Fear is an awesome force. Its power is obvious since even though we can all say intellectually that fear was what caused the Red Scare or the Salem Witch trials or whatever, we still can't seem to help ourselves when someone tells us to be afraid and to do stupid things because of our fear. It was 1933 when Ike said:

first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Ike may have overstated the case a bit—surely there are some things we should fear besides fear itself—but we really don't have much room for such quibbling at the moment. Yubbledew and Co. are still on the loose trying to salvage and extend their "scare and plunder" methods of governance. Currently they're trying to squirm out of the mess they're in by blaming George Tenent and by asserting that they didn't, technically, lie. "We got the info from Britain, and Britain did put that info in a report, which is all we said. We didn't say it was true, we just said it was a claim made by British intelligence." So why does that make it any better?

I'm sure tomorrow will bring new developments. Meanwhile, the good news is that the most recent polls show that the Yubbledew teflon is cracking. Happy Monday!

Posted 09:25 AM | election 2004 general politics

Sunday Fun

From one Mr. X in today's email:

1. Go to google.com.
2. Type "weapons of mass destruction" in the box (no real quotes necessary).
3. Click on "I'm feeling lucky."
4. Enjoy!

Thanks Mr. X!

But I still can't figure out why Americans seem to just think this is funny. Why don't people get angry about the fact that they were lied to?

But if you prefer to laugh at things that would otherwise make you mad, treat yourself to this joke, which I first heard from a retired Wyoming oil patch worker. A horse's ass and a cowboy hat pretty much sums it up. Here's another good one:

WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - A tragic fire on Monday destroyed the personal library of President George W. Bush. Both of his books have been lost. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president was devastated, as he had not finished coloring the second one.

Poor Yubbledew!

Posted 07:59 AM | Comments (1) |

The Cost of War

This speaks for itself. What does it say to you? [Link via So Sue Me]

Posted 11:41 AM | general politics

NOW Presidential Forum

Will Lester's Associated Press story (also found here) is the only coverage I can find this morning of the NOW Presidential Forum L. and I attended last night. Lester's story hits a few of the high points, but skips over a lot of what seemed the best moments of the night. This only confirms the importance of voters getting the chance to hear the candidates for themselves so we can all make up our own minds about who to vote for (or against). If you think the media don't shape electoral politics, think again. For example, although I think Dean is probably the most viable—and therefore best—candidate, it's misleading for coverage of last night's forum to focus so much on Dean. There were four candidates at the forum last night (Carol Moseley Braun, Dean, Kucinich, and Al Sharpton), and the crowd cheered them all about equally. NOW's forum wasn't about Howard Dean, it was about women's issues, social justice issues, the more progressive factions of the Democratic party, and the kinds of things the Democratic party can do to address these issues. It's also significant that Lester's coverage didn't even mention the conspicuous absence of the other candidates. Don't Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Graham and Gephardt care about NOW's votes? Or more to the point, do they know that their equivocating about the war in Iraq and other issues has already destroyed their hopes of winning support from NOW? Lester should and easily could have found someone to comment on such questions.

Still, Lester's coverage is better than none. L. had the best take on the NOW forum when she said: "This shows how well Nader did his job," by which she meant that if Nader's goal was to move mainstream politics to the left, he accomplished that goal and then some. The evidence for this is in the kinds of things these candidates were saying, and the fact that at least Dean is being taken seriously for saying them.

Opening Statements: Carol Moseley Braun
Carol Moseley Braun opened the forum with a terrific quotation from William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech. Bryan said:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.

Bryan's grassroots sentiments nicely captured the tone of the whole forum, with each candidate competing to show that he or she was the most dedicated to empowering the people from the bottom up. Moseley Braun also got in some more great lines, including (the following quotes should be considered close paraphrases only; I tried to get every word but I'm sure I missed a few):

Moseley Braun on the "war against terror," and the Patriot Act:

If they spent as much time looking for Bin Laden as they do looking at what Americans read, they'd have found him by now.

Moseley Braun on her candidacy and approach to the race for the Democratic nomination:

I have no intention of dropping out. I'm often reminded of the civil rights mantra: 'If not now, when? If not me, who?'

(Moseley Braun appeared happily surprised when the crowd joined loudly in echoing this mantra. The energy in the room was incredibly positive for Moseley Braun, although, again, there was a lot of support for all the candidates.)

All of the candidates (except perhaps Kucinich, who was fairly serious and earnest throughout) tried to inject some humor into their remarks where appropriate and Moseley Braun was no exception. When forum moderator Elayne Boosler tried to cut her off for going over time, Moseley Braun said something to the effect that she always got cut short while the guys who follow her always go over time. The crowd roared and Moseley Braun got a few extra minutes to finish her opening statement. (The Washinton Post recently ran a good piece on Braun.)

Opening Statements: Howard Dean
Dean followed Moseley Braun and drew big laughs with his opening statement:

This is every politician's nightmare: Following Carol Moseley Braun at a NOW convention!

Dean was the only candidate to stand up for his opening and closing statements, which may or may not mean anything. He and Al Sharpton were also the two candidates who seemed to speak without notes, while Moseley Braun and Kucinich stuck fairly closely with prepared remarks, at least for their opening and closing statements. Perhaps that's one reason why I got fewer quotes from Dean. What follows is more a paraphrase of high points.

Dean covered a wide range of subjects and I was only able to record a few high points. He said "the President chose tax cuts, but you could have had health insurance for every American." He also noted that we could have had quality education for every American child, a strong economy, and several other things I missed, but we got tax cuts for the rich instead.

On the Bush administration's amicus brief against the University of Michigan's affirmative action admissions policies, Dean noted that Bush used the word "quota" five or six times on the evening news, knowing that word would inspire fear in many Americans that minorities were going to steal their jobs and take over their way of life. Dean then said "the President played the race card" and said we can do better than that.

Dean drew laughs by mentioning that he'd recently spoken with Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues. "See, I'm a doctor, I can get that word out," Dean said. But he became serious again when he turned to his next topic:

We're going to talk about something no one is talking about: Domestic violence.

After citing some shocking figures about the prevalence of domestic violence in the U.S., Dean noted that he hasn't heard the Bush administration say a word about the issue, then concluded:

You cannot fix a problem until you're willing to talk about it. We need to talk about domestic violence now.

In response to a later question, Dean cited impressive figures for how much levels of child abuse and domestic violence had fallen during his tenure as Governor of Vermont, thanks largely to the fact that all children had adequate health care.

Finally of note in Dean's opening remarks was the fact that in the recent fundraising quarter over 60,000 people gave the Dean campaign less than $100 each, while Bush is raising all his money from big donors at $2,000 a pop. Dean was the only candidate to appeal several times directly to his audience for their help and their votes, reminding us that we had the power to change the direction of the U.S. through our votes, dollars, and hard work. It was a populist, people-power message that apparently has resonated well with voters so far.

Opening Statements: Dennis Kucinich
Kucinich's remarks revolved around what seems to be the theme of his campaign, which he repeated several times in different ways:

We can have the America we envision. We can have the America of our dreams.

Kucinich went on to talk repeatedly about his plans for government-funded child care, pre-kindergarten education for all kids, universal health care, a U.S. Department of Peace and many other expanded social programs which he plans to pay for by rescinding the Bush tax cuts and buy slashing the Pentagon budget, which he says is full of waste. At one point he mentioned that the Pentagon has over a trillion dollars in budget items it cannot account for, and that military spending is so out of control they don't even do audits on Pentagon accounts anymore.

Kucinich on the war in Iraq:

We went to war in Iraq because of a pattern of deception from the top down.

Kucinich on WMDs:

We must recognize that poverty is a weapon of mass destruction, and we know where these weapons are, and we know how to eliminate them.

(Kucinich listed other things as WMDs, but I missed them. I think they included things like lack of health care, perhaps low wages, etc. This formulation of the issue brought lots of applause and I just missed what he was saying.)

Kucinich on tax cuts:

It's time to take back the tax cuts from the people who don't need that money and put that money toward the future of America.

Overall, Kucinich gave the impression of wanting to deliver more social services to Americans than any other candidate, but he had lots of dollar amounts and statistics to suggest he knew exactly where the money for each social program would come from. As I mentioned, Kucinich seemed sincere, earnest, idealistic. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat but I fear too many people will find him too radical. If he could do it, Kucinich should license John Lennon's "Imagine" as his theme song.

Opening Statements: Al Sharpton
Sharpton got the crowd going right away with his first sentence:

The goal must be in 2004 the unequivocal defeat of George Bush!

He went on to explain to much applause that it was important the defeat be "unequivocal" so the Republicans don't (and again, I'm paraphrasing here) "rob us again." Sharpton was, hands down, the best speaker of the bunch at the NOW forum, peppering his comments with highly quotable and crowd-pleasing soundbites that fit into more serious riffs against George Bush and the Republican agenda. As Lester's article suggested, Sharpton made the point that women, African-Americans, gays and lesbians and other minority groups are not the "special interests" Beltway insiders make them out to be. He then turned to the question of whether "fringe" (my word, not his) candidates like himself were good for the Democratic party.

They ask if we'll hurt the party. Well, I missed something. The party doesn't control the Congress, the Senate, the White House or the Supreme Court. I think they're the ones hurting the party.

Sharpton then drew lots of cheers with a reference to conservative, Bush-lite Democrats who are little more than "elephants in donkey jackets." Other crowd pleasers included:

Sharpton on abortion:

Do I believe in a woman's right to abortion? No. I believe in a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body!

(In response to a later question, Sharpton stressed that he doesn't think religion has anything to do with abortion; it's a human rights issue.)

Sharpton on Iraq and state budgetary crises around the U.S.:

It's ridiculous to me that we can't find money to save the 50 states we occupy, but we can find the money to occupy and 'rebuild' Iraq.

Sharpton gave the impression that he's very sharp, he's an incredible speaker, and he might just make one of the best presidents the U.S. has ever had. Still, his, well, mixed past (for lack of a better word) is troubling and I tend to agree w/the mainstream pundits who say he's highly unlikely to convince enough voters that his maverick ways will be the best methods to lead the U.S. for the next four years.

Questions:
Boosler and the rest of the panelists (including Helen Thomas, who appeared to be wiping tears from her eyes when the crowd gave her a standing ovation) asked the candidates a series of questions on issues important to NOW members. My pen got tired before it was over, but I did manage to record the following:

Dean on abortion:

Abortion is none of the government's business. What I find most offensive the gag rule. I'm deeply offended that a bunch of theocratic politicians are telling doctors how to practice medicine.

Dean on his position on the political spectrum:

After hearing all the opening statements I hope the press will stop writing that I'm too liberal to get elected. It's nice to be the centrist for a change.

(Sharpton hissed into his microphone at this and the audience laughed and clapped.)

None of the candidates had many good things to say about the No Child Left Behind Act. Dean and Moseley Braun denounced it as an unfunded mandate, Kucinich talked about promoting a "qualitative rather than a quantitative approach to education," and Sharpton said that a quality public education for every child should be a right added to the Constitution.

The candidates agreed with varied amounts of enthusiasm that gay marriage should be fine and that who a person chooses to marry should be none of the government's business.

Moseley Braun on the Iraq war and Bush's credibility:

This is a failed presidency. We should just call it for what it is. I think this issue will be enough to shake Americans' faith in this President.

Kucinich on the same issue:

We have to take America away from domination and back to cooperation with the world.

Boosler asked what I thought was a particularly good question framed in terms of an issue that was important to many in her audience:

We can strike pre-emptively at another nation, but a battered woman can't get the police to come to her house until a guy hits her. It seems our nation is suffering from some kind of battered women's syndrome—we're showing faith in a President who keeps lying and beating us up. Ho will you break Americans' irrational loyalty to this President?

All the candidates agreed that the best strategy was to get more people out to vote. Sharpton got in a jab at Dean by saying that Democrats must reach people who aren't on the internet, while Moseley Braun said she'd motivate voters by asking Ronald Reagan's question: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

Conclusion:
That's where my notes end. The event lasted close to two hours so there were obviously more questions and answers, but I couldn't get it all. What I took from the experience was this:

1. Every voter needs a chance like this to see the candidates answering substantive questions. If all you know about the candidates is what you see in the newspaper or hear on the nightly news, you only know what the reporters think is important, which means you'll be missing a great deal.


2. Sharpton is a great speaker. No news there.


3. Kucinich is an idealistic dreamer. He has terrific ideas, but I don't see him winning a majority of votes. For example, his idea for a U.S. Department of Peace makes eminent sense, but it's too easy for fearmongers like Yubbledew and Co. to reduce it to some kind of joke.


4. Moseley Braun is charismatic and convincing in person. She has good arguments against those who would dismiss her for lack of experience or many other reasons. If the press would stop saying she doesn't have a chance, she might really have one. (The same is probably true for Sharpton.)


5. Dean is far more "conservative" or centrist than some of his opponents. Of course, he's probably more "liberal" or "progressive" than many of the others (see Lieberman, for example). This is why I think he's probably the best candidate: He's saying the right things to win support from those on the far left who are sick of Bush-lite Democrats, but he's also working to reassure the middle-left (and even the Bush-lite Dems) that he's really representing their values, as well. Plus, unlike some of the other candidates, Dean also has a very solid record of experience that shows he's capable of doing the things a President needs to do. As you can read in Lester's piece, Dean closed by saying he was from the "'Let's beat George Bush' wing of the Democratic party." That's the most vital and important wing of the party at the moment, and I agree with Dean (and Sharpton) that that's where our focus should be.

The candidates are keeping busy with forums like this. According to this report, Dean Sharpton, Moseley Braun, Kerry, and Graham will all speak at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention tomorrow in Miami, and Moseley Braun, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, and Sharpton will all speak at the Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum next Tuesday in D.C. I have my ticket already for the HRC event, so I'll let you know if seeing the "left wing" candidates go up against some of the more Bush-lite candidates produces any good fireworks.

Posted 11:21 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004

Back in the Mix

It's Friday, so here's a poem by Secretary of Defense Ronald Dumsfeld (it's deep, so hold on to your seat so you don't fall in):

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Now, wasn't that special? I told you it was deep. Slate offers more wisdom in this vein, or you can go all out and buy the book. L. and I went to the bookstore last night and she entertained me with choice selections from this little tome. Wow, that Dumsfeld really makes you think! (The comments on Amazon are nuts. Are these people for real?) And if even the book doesn't give you enough of this "existential" circularity, just keep watching the news—I'm sure Dummy will offer plenty more gems as the tangle of lies he and his pals have been telling begins to unravel. Stay tuned!

So I'm back, and about all I can say is: Wyoming rocks. But if that's not eloquent enough for you, check out the view from 12,000 ft.:

This pic was taken looking southwest from Medicine Bow Peak. Although the peak is at 12,013 ft, the hike to get there is only 2 miles and easier than it looks from the bottom. This hike has become something of a tradition for me; I do it just about every time I return to Wyoming (which isn't that often anymore—this was the first trip in 4 years) and it always reminds me of all the best things about my home state. Although this picture doesn't really show it, Wyoming is exceptionally green this summer thanks to some heavy spring snows and quite a bit more spring and summer rain than the state's had in recent years. I remember many July Fourth holidays when the state's meadows and prairies were already burned to a light golden brown by the hot summer sun, but this year the various shades of green from the grasses, sage, pine, cottonwood, aspen, willow and myriad other plants compete with each other for attention. In addition to a great hike in the Snowies, the fam-damily and I also made our way over the mountains for a dip in Saratoga's "hobo pool", which is fed by a natural hot spring and sits right on the banks of the North Platte river. At around 112 degrees, the water may be a little hot for July, but if you're ever in the area when there's snow on the ground, the hobo pool can't be beat. If you're feeling adventurous, go in late January when there's likely to be at least a foot of snow on the ground. You'll be able to get overheated in the hobo pool, dash out through the snow to the river for a shocking dunk in its freezing waters, then dash back to the hot springs to start the process again. It's a little like a Finnish sauna, but wetter. (And you don't have to take my word for it; if you'd like to know what life is really like in a small Wyoming town you can get your local Saratoga scoop over at Life In A Northern Town.)

So the trip West was a nice walk down memory lane in a lot of ways, but it ended horribly with a return trip that took over 16 hours. It seemed that just about everything that could go wrong, did. First the alarm in my hotel didn't go off and I had to dash out of bed and get to the airport—22 miles away on the other side of Denver—in 1.5 hours. Somehow, I made it: 40 minutes from the second I opened my eyes I'd dressed, dashed out of the hotel, driven across town and out to the airport, dropped off the rental car, and made it to the ticketing desk, and all of that rushing only to find that my 7 a.m. flight had been delayed until 9:45! A mixed blessing, but fine. Things started to go seriously downhill when the 9:45 time slipped to 10:30, then 11, then the flight was postponed indefinitely and I was rerouted completely, pushing my arrival in D.C. back from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. Ok, no big deal. I finally got on a flight to St. Louis with no real problems, but in St. Louis I learned that it was raining in Baltimore and our flight would be delayed. After two more delays and a good 45 minutes in the plane on the runway waiting, we finally took off and made it to BWI where, of course, my one checked bag did not arrive. I wrangled with the luggage people as quickly as I could and made it to the last bus of the night that took me to the last train of the night which finally brought me home. Whew. Damn American Airlines!

If this is what traveling from DC is going to be like, maybe I should just learn to like it here.

And perhaps I will, but first there's a new tiny wrinkle in the whole law school saga that came in the form of an email from Michigan in the early part of last week that said:

As we enter July, we at Michigan have just a few extremely strong candidates left on our waiting list, and you are one of them. You are without question a candidate we would be happy to admit in any year, but our enrollment target made it impossible for us to extend you an offer during the regular admission season. 

Right now, we do not believe we will need to go to our waiting list, but we also know we can't predict these things with perfect accuracy. It may be that we will have a high number of withdrawals in the next couple of weeks, or it may be that when registration and orientation come, we will have a high number of no-shows, which would lead us to run to the waiting list. I am therefore writing to you now to assess your interest in remaining on the waiting list.

Of course I told them I'm still interested. I mean, how could I not be interested in going to the #7 law school in the country? Not to mention the school's public interest cred. And of course I have no idea whether I'd go if they called (this ain't an ambivalent imbroglio for nothin', folks!). And, of course, I understand the chances that they will call are about a million to one. Still, wrinkles are fun, don't you think?

And, though perhaps I shouldn't say so, it's especially fun at the moment to think of being able to tell GW to take a hike. Why? Because I'm a freak. But really, I'm sick of getting mail from them scolding and scaring me about the risks and dangers of not buying a Dell laptop through their special purchase program. I'm certain that if they could, GW would hold a gun to the head of every One-L and force him/her to buy a Dell laptop through their special program. But since GW knows it can't actually do that, it's trying to hold a rhetorical gun to my head and that's just not giving me a positive impression of the place. Sure, it bugs me that they're trying to force me to give money to Intel and M$, but beyond that their rhetoric is infantilizing and shows a distinct lack of respect for their audience.

Ok, so I'm blowing things out of proportion and probably conflating my distaste for GW's rhetoric and computer policies with other concerns I have about the place and about going to law school more generally. Many of those concerns are the same ones I had when I made the decision to go to GW in the first place, but now they can all be boiled down to the fact that it was never top of my list for any reason, but more of a default choice. I had a bit of a crush on American because of how it sells itself as something of a progressive school, and I liked Georgetown because, well, it's Georgetown. Now that I've spent a few months telling people my plans, I keep hearing the same question: "Did you say you're going to law school at Georgetown?" No, I say, it's George Washington, to which people invariably respond with, "oh," and a furrowed brow that says, "why not Georgetown? That's the only DC law school I've ever heard of." Sometimes they save me the trouble of having to guess what they're thinking—they just come right out and say it. When I visited GW last March I detected a distinct inferiority complex among the people I talked to; they'd always mention Georgetown in condescending ways and even explicitly say things like "we think we're better than Georgetown." And maybe they are. The point is, it seems like very few people—neither students nor faculty— end up at GW by choice; instead, they end up there because they couldn't get in (or hired) at Georgetown.

Is that true? No, I'm sure it's not. And it shouldn't matter. It doesn't. And I was never really excited about going to Georgetown, either. Maybe the problem is I've never been outright excited about going to law school at all. Maybe my trip West made me think crazy things. Maybe I just have too much time on my hands to complicate my life with hypotheticals. To quote again from the great Dummy:

We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know.

Right. And it's the weekend so there's fun stuff to do—like the NOW Presidential Candidates Forum tonight. And there's another one next week. See, it's cool living in the nation's capital.

Posted 01:14 PM | Comments (3) | law school

Heading West

ai will be on temporary hiatus for the next week as your humble blogger travels west to see the famdamily. Have a happy 4th of July!

Posted 08:10 AM | Comments (2) | meta-blogging

Dean's Progressive Cred

Michelle Goldberg got to it first, but Don Hazen has written the best summary I've seen of last week's big events in the Democratic race for president. Hazen acknowledges both Howard Dean's tremendous rise to the top of the fundraising heap in the second quarter, and the impressive success of the MoveOn.org virtual primary. However, Hazen also discusses why "Beltway progressives" support Kerry, and why more hardline progressives (for lack of a better term) prefer Kucinich. In all, it's a must-read for progressive voters trying to get a better sense of the field.

One detail I haven't get enough coverage in all this fundraising, early money primary hoo-haw, is the fact that Dean's average contribution was $112. That's right: Dean raised $7.5 million in three months at an average of around $100/donor. That means there were somewhere around 70,000 Dean donors. Meanwhile, Yubbledew is bragging about raising $30 million in just a few weeks. But what's Yubbledew's average contribution? Most of his money is coming from $2000/plate fundraisers, which translates to about 15,000 Yubbledew donors. Think about that: Dean's got 70,000 people giving him money, while Yubbledew has only 15,000. Which of these two candidates is running a more democratic campaign?

Meanwhile, don't miss NPR's interview with Dean (transcript here). At one point, Dean goes on for several minutes about the different lies the Bush administration told in order to get its war with Iraq. Listen to that and then stop and think for a minute: When is the last time you heard Yubbledew speak in complete sentences for more than a minute without a teleprompter or other script? Yeah, that's what I thought.

You can also access NPR's interviews with the other Democratic candidates here.

Posted 08:08 AM | election 2004