Ok, Now Shop!

Three Years of Hell doesn't think much of the idea of Buy Nothing Day, and I'm sure he's not alone. To me it's a symbolic protest, a thought exercise as much as anything. If the idea of buying nothing on the biggest shopping day of the year only makes you think of buying something you really don't need, something you "just couldn't justify to yourself," so be it. Such consumption is, in fact, the yin to Buy Nothing Day's yang; the protest (symbolic as it may be) would be impossible without the "sheerly pointless" consumption it attempts to comment on.

But that was so yesterday. Now it's time to shop! The Nation offers some nice political protest gifts for not too much money. But that will only please a few, so tell me: What's your favorite online shopping site? What's the best gift to give this year? And what do you hope to get?

I should be thinking about outlines and finals, so while I'm doing that, please fill the comments with gift ideas so that when I come up for air my holiday shopping will be quick and painless. Thank you.

Posted 04:59 PM | Comments (4) | life generally

Buy Nothing Day

It's probably too late for a lot of people, but in case you haven't headed out to shop yet, don't forget that today is Buy Nothing Day.

Enjoy!

Posted 10:24 AM | Comments (2) | general politics life generally

Food for thought

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! When you've finished your turkey or tofurkey or whatever is on your holiday plate, how about filling your mind with some incredibly satisfying thoughts. Here are a few:

First, an interview with Studs Terkel, author of Working and many other "memory books," including his latest, Hope Dies Last. If you don't have time to read the whole thing (and really, it's worth your while), think about this little bit:

There's a poem by Brecht: "Who Built the Seven Gates of Thebes?" When you ask who built the pyramids, the automatic answer is: the pharaohs. But the pharaohs didn't lift a finger. I was told, by Mrs. O'Reilly at McKinley High School in Chicago, that Sir Francis Drake conquered the Spanish Armada. He did? By himself? Brecht in the poem says that when the armada sank, we read that King Philip of Spain wept. Here's the big one: "Were there no other tears?"

To me, history is those who shed those other tears. Those whose brains and whose brawn made the wheels go around. I hate to use the word "the people." The anonymous many. But they're it. I know that the Internet has all sorts of democratic possibilities: That's how Howard Dean came up so fast, isn't it? At the same time, there's a fear of so much in the hands of so few.

I was also going to talk about the perversion of our language: To go more "moderate" means to go more toward the center, and to go toward the center means to go toward the right. If you could see me now, I could do a demonstration: If our physical posture followed our political posture and the perversion of our language -- I'd have to act this out -- we'd walk around leaning to the right. That's the normal way of walking. And then, the guy who's walking straight: "Look at that leftist!" Or if the guy who's walking straight leans a little bit to the left: "He's a goddamn terrorist!"

In a similar vein try listening to Christopher Lydon's interview with Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager. (Scroll down; links to the mp3 files of the interview are near the bottom of the page). Trippi discusses many of the reasons why people like Midge Farmer, a proud representative of the great state of Wyoming, are supporting Howard Dean. (This comment on Farmer's letter from the Kiwi Cowboy is also pretty good.) There's too much in Trippi's interview for me to transcribe; just listen and you'll see what I mean. He basically argues that if Dean can win the nomination—and then the Presidency—without being bought out by corporate interests, his election will be revolutionary because it will break the stranglehold big money has over politics.
So far, Dean's proving to be a people's candidate, not a party candidate:

He rarely smiles during his 30-minute stump speech, which he delivers without notes. He does not make small talk, does not open with cute quips and does not engage in self-deprecating humor. He does not talk about himself, nor does he tell members of the audience how wonderful their questions are. He does not pretend to feel their pain.

But Dean still has an incredible amount of work to do. For example, check out what New Hampshire cab driver David Berthiaume has to say about the election:

"I'll tell you where my vote's going: to our president. I'm not a Republican, I'm an Independent. And I'm pro-choice. But I think he's done a good job, and so does at least 51 percent of the country. Fine, he might have been misled about Iraq, but it needed to happen anyway. We kicked Saddam in the teeth, and now he's gone. We should all be happy about that."

Dean's probably up against countless numbers of people who think just like Mr. Berthiaume, and it's precisely this kind of thinking that is unlikely to be changed by tv ads or newspaper articles. The only way to reach people like this is in person, one on one, listening to their thoughts and concerns, and explaining why Dean is a better solution to them than Bush could ever hope to be. If you listen to Trippi's interview, you'll have a much better idea of what I'm talking about.

Today I'm thankful for many things, but foremost among them is that I think Terkel is right: Hope dies last. But we can't just hope that our world will become a better place; we have to work to make it happen. The pharoahs didn't build the pyramids, Sir Francis Drake didn't defeat the Spanish Armada, and George Washington didn't win the revolutionary war. People did that. People like you and me. And it's only people like us who can change the direction our country is headed today. I'm thankful that for that, too.

Posted 01:58 PM | Comments (1) | general politics life generally

Quizzy Whizzy

Which 20th Century Theorist Are You?

I'm....

You are Louis Althusser! You tried to bring
together structuralism, Marxism, and Lacanian
psychoanalysis. Your brilliant analysis of
ideology and the state is still widely
influential. You murdered your wife, were put
in a sanitarium, and lived the last decade of
your life alone before dying in 1990.


What 20th Century Theorist are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Posted 06:55 PM | life generally

The Other News

While the media go goofy over yet another "Michael Jackson, accused pedophile" scandal, and mostly fall over themselves to show everything about Bush's visit to London except the thousands of protesters, there are actually some other pretty big things going on in our little world.

Did you hear about this little thing called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)? If you think NAFTA was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet; FTAA wants to be NAFTA on steriods:

Like NAFTA's Chapter 11, the FTAA's rules of investment would additionally allow corporations to sue governments for future profits lost (a recent example of this was when Canada's Methanex Corp. sued the state of California for almost a billion dollars for banning the use of MTBE in its gasoline, due to its high toxicity. Should Methanex win, California either has to pay out or significantly lower its environmental standards). A poor nation like Bolivia would have virtually no protection against the might of U.S.-based multinationals in a case like this. And the FTAA would also include services, which means that everything ranging from water to education to hospitals would be up for privatization.

Giving corporations the ultimate power to dictate everything from health policy to environmental standards? Sounds great to me!!

You may have heard a bit about this recently because FTAA negotiators are currently meeting in Florida amid more protests (also here w/out the subscription hassle). Don't be misled; the dispute here is not between "free traders" and "isolationists" or "protectionists." Those who support agreements like FTAA want unfettered rights to exploit the environment and the world's workers in order to make as much money as they possibly can. Those who oppose these agreements are simply demanding that business respect the environment and human rights. The protesters do not oppose trade, they oppose exploitation. There's a big difference. But you wouldn't know much about that from reading the mainstream news, now would you?

L pointed out the other big story that's getting a lot less coverage than it should: the arrest of 47 Wall Street currency traders. (You can't beat this headline: "Nightmare on Wall Street".) Why were these people arrested? Well gee, turns out they were stealing from thousands of people:

The scheme, known among the defendants as "the game" or "points for cash," involved bogus currency trades that included kickbacks paid to those who arranged them, Comey said.

In some cases the improper trades were converted into cash that would be delivered to people in diners, he said.

The charges allege that thousands of investors were ripped off. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission also are expected to file charges.

The important part to remember here is that "thousands of investors were ripped off." That could have been you, or your neighbor. Yet, here's a diagram (PDF) that suggests that the "victims" were banks. Um, I don't think so: "thousands of investors were ripped off." Isn't it likely that these were largely investors with the least to lose? I mean, if you have a lot of money, can't you afford to get good advice about how to invest it, and wouldn't that advice largely protect you from scams like this?

Who knows. We'll probably learn little about who the real victims are in these cases because, just as was the case with the Enron and Worldcom and and and scandals, the banks and investment and trading firms involved here are going to do everything they can to make sure we don't care about this. Just another bunch of suits stealing, move along please.

Oh, but wait, it's really important that Michael Jackson got arrested again, right?

Posted 06:55 AM | Comments (1) | general politics

Christmas is Coming

I know, I know, it's not even Thanksgiving yet, but you know how time flies this time of year; it's really not too early to place an order for the perfect Christmas gift: the Pants on Fire doll!

If you're not into the consumption thing .... um, you're probably on the wrong planet, unfortunately. But if you're still able to enjoy gifts you don't have to buy, the Massachussetts Supreme Court handed down a great gift to U.S. citizens yesterday. Yeah, so "young adults are split on gay marriage," and older people are against it 4:1. So what? I'm sure if someone had been polling in 1860 they would have found that young and old adults were "split" on slavery at the time, too. It's called equality people, and our constitution says it's a foundation of our country, so, well, Merry Christmas!

A couple of time zones away, thousands of people in London are getting into the Christmas cheer early this year. They've assembled to promote peace, love and happiness (isn't that what Christmas is all about?), but some people are apparently pretty worried about all this positive energy, so they've turned London into a fortress for Bush's visit. As the lovable Jon Stewart said on Monday's Daily Show, Britain has deployed thousands of troops, just in case the people love Bush too much. And don't forget, London is the capital city of our closest ally. Of course, FOX News says Bush hasn't heard the "hecklers," so I guess everything's going to be ok.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., back in the U.S., back in the U.S.S.... oops! I was channelling those Brits there for a second. Back in the United States, the U.S. House is apparently in a festive mood—it's trying to give some whopping gifts to the energy industry. MTBE producers alone would get $1.75 billion from the bill, but hey, why should anyone complain about giving billions of dollars to people who make the chemicals that are ruining our environment? Those complainers just must not be in the right giving spirit.

And even more locally, if you're a law student, finals are also coming, so you've got some built in Christmas cheer right there. Think of your finals as gifts from your professors. Yeah, that's it. Your professors have spent hours (maybe) constructing intricate fact patterns that will wow you with their mind-numbing complexity. The best of them—the ones who really want to give you the best gifts—have buried all kinds of little pseudo-facts and red herrings in their hypos so that you'll have extra fun sorting the meaningful from the irrelevant. What could be a better gift than that!?

So yeah, Thanksgiving's coming soon, but I'm thinking we all better start getting into the Christmas spirit as soon as we can. You don't want to be left out, and from the looks of things, we're going to need all the good cheer we can muster in the next few weeks...

Posted 06:04 AM | Comments (2) | general politics law school

Happy Birthday Howard!

Today is Howard Dean's 55th birthday. I'm sure he'd be thrilled with a gift of any size.

p.s.: How cool is Googlerace.com? Check out this trend. Wow. That stat may just be its own kind of birthday present for Dean...

Posted 06:11 AM | election 2004

Protesting Bush

As Bush prepares for his black-tie dinner with the Queen of England, he seems oblivious to the fact that he's creating so many problems for Tony Blair. More important, he claims to be unfazed by the prospect of being greeted in Britain by huge protests, even as U.S. and British police/security people use the threat of terrorism as an excuse to try to shut down—or at least contain—the protests. But what are these protests all about? Time Europe has a nice first-person account from one of the activists who will be protesting, explaining why she's going to be there. Sure, she's not too happy that the U.S. is sending its old, contaminated "ghost ships" to Britain to be scrapped, as if Britian is a better place for American trash. And she's pretty angry over the war in Iraq and the way Britain seems to have become Bush's lapdog in that affair. But Laura Barton is also angry about something larger of which these developments just seem to be symptoms:

Though our hearts still beat for the land of the free and the home of the brave, we fear something larger is at stake — that Bush's War on Terror is not about liberating the oppressed so much as spreading homogeny, ironing out those troublesome creases to create a smooth, uniform way of life in which our wants and needs and opinions are all chosen from U.S.-approved merchandisers. We worry that America values diversity (and three weeks in California do remind you how multicultural the U.S. can be) because it means more things to sell. After all, a world that aspires to the same broad set of dreams is so much easier to bring into line; if we all dance to different versions of the same tune, it makes the Pied Piper's job a whole lot easier.

I wish Bush would listen to protesters like Barton, but the fact that he won't is what makes his praise for the right to protest ring so hollow. I wish the protesters good luck, and I thank them for their efforts. Although Bush will never understand what you're saying, many others do, and that's what makes the protests worthwhile.

Posted 06:06 AM | general politics

Fantasy Justice

Here's some possible weekend fun: Lawpsided's Fantasy Supreme Court League. I'm just the messenger.

And now it's back to memo revisions (damn! I'd been hoping the draft wouldn't need so much work the second time around) and class outlines. But first, NaNoWriMo has begun beckoning again and I haven't been able to resist its siren song.

Now I'm 12,000 words into some schlocky thing about cab drivers and tv watchers and Professional Finders (thanks for the idear, seester). So words words words! Studying for finals in law school is so way overrrated, don't you think? ;-)

Posted 08:18 AM | Comments (1) | law school

Politics of Fear

It has begun. As the pundits begin to talk of Dean consolidating his lead in the field of Democratic candidates for President, they've also begun to stoke the fires of fear against him. The pundits are probably getting plenty of help here from the Republicans and from the other Democratic candidates, but the fearmongering seems go like this: Dean's got a bad temper, and that's going to make him a bad leader.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the politics of fear. I'm tired of Democrats who are so afraid of offending anyone that they'll compromise with everyone and everything. I'm tired of Democrats who pretend that the current Administration and the Republican leaders in Congress are anything other than extreme ideologues who are quite simply destroying out country. There are plenty of reasons to be angry with them and their policies, and Dean certainly is. Does this mean he'll turn his anger on foreign leaders and diplomats, despite the fact that he's always said the first thing he wants to do as President is restore the U.S.'s relationship with the world? I don't think so. Dean is not the Cowboy that Bush is; Dean is angry at the things all Americans should be angry at, and I—along with over 3 million union members—am willing to give him the chance to show that he can put that anger to good use as our next President.

Update: Salon recently ran an article about Dean as "angry man", and now their readers weigh in. Good stuff.

Posted 05:49 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004

Disgusting Durst

Life is may often be stranger than fiction, but in this case, it's also much more sad and disgusting:

Robert A. Durst, the New York multimillionaire who admitted that he had butchered his 71-year-old neighbor's body with a bow saw and dumped the parts into Galveston Bay, was acquitted of the man's murder on Tuesday. Mr. Durst told the jury that despite what happened afterward, the killing itself had been accidental and an act of self-defense.

What the hell? You can admit to killing someone, sawing up the body, dumping the body parts in the bay, and be acquitted? And all this was after Durst's first wife mysteriously disappeared, his "confidant" was murdered without explanation, and he'd been running from the cops and displaying all kinds of off-his-rocker behavior. Yet a jury said, "Oh, yeah, all that's a little odd, but it's ok. We don't think you should be punished for any of that."

Apparently, the experts are scratching their heads, trying to understand this obscene verdict:

Legal experts in Texas said yesterday that local mores might play some part in understanding the not guilty verdict, but could not explain most of it. Several factors were possibly at work, they said the most obvious being the stunning strategies of the defense team, Mike Ramsey, Dick DeGuerin and Chip Lewis, who overcame what looked like impossible hurdles standing between Mr. Durst and acquittal.

But they're never going to figure it out because they're not even seeing the most gross and obvious factor here: Class. Durst is a rich white man, and rich white men can simply get away with murder in our society. Does anyone think that if Durst had been poor he would have been acquitted? Or if he'd been black or Hispanic or, god forbid, "Arab," would he have been acquitted? Somehow I think not. But our society gives rich white men a pass. In fact, we encourage them to get rich by lying, stealing and cheating, so when they're successful at that, and they actually outright murder someone and chop up the body, we say, "So?"

Call me crazy, but I think we should reverse our twisted assumptions. Think about it: One of the best ways to get rich in our society is to lie, cheat and steal, and very often the people who do this are white and male. See Enron, Worldcom, etc., not to mention the countless manufacturers who have moved production overseas to exploit cheap labor and the lack of environmental regulations and worker protections. Therefore, we should begin from the assumption that wealthy white men are more suspect, more morally culpable, more liable to do bad (and criminal) things, than are poor or working class people, and/or people of color.

But nevermind. For a second I forgot: We live in a classless and colorblind society. The Durst verdict proves that, doesn't it?

Posted 05:34 AM | Comments (2) | law general

Inflatable Justice Playthings

For your reading enjoyment: Yesterday's CrimLaw hypos (we're covering inchoate crimes, a.k.a. attempts):

Hypo 1: Prof CrimLaw has "an anatomically correct, life-size, inflatable Justice Clarence Thomas plaything." It's so real that if you saw it, you'd think it really was the Justice. Prof CivPro doesn't like Justice Thomas, so when Prof CivPro sees the plaything, he pulls out a gun and shoots it through the heart. Is Prof CivPro guilty of attempted murder under the MPC (Model Penal Code)?

(Answer: Probably, because he had the requisite intent. See MPC 5.01.)

Hypo 2: Prof CrimLaw has the same "anatomically correct, life-size, inflatable Justice Clarence Thomas plaything," but he tells Prof CivPro it's not a plaything, it's actually an authentic Voodoo relic. Prof CrimLaw further explains that if a person were to stick 20 needles into the relic, the real Justice Clarence Thomas would die. Prof CrimLaw leaves the room, and when he returns, he finds Prof CivPro inserting the twentieth needle into the "anatomically correct, life-size, inflatable Justice Clarence Thomas relic." Is Prof CivPro guilty of attempted murder under the MPC?

(Answer: Probably, but see MPC 5.05(2), Mitigation.)

I think Prof CrimLaw just enjoyed saying "anatomically correct, life-size, inflatable Justice Clarence Thomas plaything." Try it; it's fun.

Posted 06:12 AM | Comments (2) | law school

Pre-Finals Reminder

As DG has been noting, it's getting to be that time when the library is full of intensely studying peoples and the stress levels start going into interstellar orbits. So of course there's no better time than now to pause and consider Dahlia Lithwick's "Letter to a Young Law Student" for a quick reminder of what you're doing here in the first place. [Link via Professor Yin.] Remember Lithwick's sage words:

If there is one law of law-school thinking it's this: "If everyone else wants something, I must want it, too." Not since the days of the Tonka backhoe and Malibu Skipper will you have so lunged for stuff in which you have no real interest, just because everyone else is lunging. Law school manages to impose odd new values on virtually everyone. And each step of the way, law students make choices—to interview with certain firms, take certain classes, apply for certain clerkships—based on an impoverished sense of other options and the fear that other people will get all the good stuff if you don't grab it. This is hard advice to give and harder, I expect, to take. Fear and conformity dig some pretty deep paths at law school. Don't just follow because they are there.

The other day, So Sue Me posted her advice for incoming 1Ls which I also recommend, especially tip #7:

If you are not comfortable with idea that you will become cynical, do not apply to law school.

I'm wondering if perhaps the two peices of advice go together. Does the massive pressure to conform actually produce the cynicism?

As for me, I'm honestly just tired of it all. I'm tired of reading cases and never getting to really discuss them (the Socratic method is absolute shyte, pedagogically speaking—just ask Professor Leiter), and tired of talking about outlines and study habits and whether to attend the next BarBri review session and what's going to count or not count when I'm working for a firm. That reminds me, I think I'm going to get a t-shirt to wear every day that says: "No offense to you if you're hoping to get a firm job, but please don't assume that I sympathize with your hopes because, well, I don't."

Oops, that cynicism might be getting the better of me.

"Maybe all I need is a shot in the arm." —Wilco.

Anyway, good luck to all you 1L peeps in getting through this November hump. May your outlines write themselves and may all your cases be short from here to December.

Posted 07:58 PM | Comments (2) | law school

Law and Economics (Chicago School)

What is the value of Chicago School style Law and Economics?

Exhibit 1: A scene from "Fight Club" in which the Narrator (played by Ed Norton) is on a plane describing his job to a fellow passenger:

Narrator: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Business woman on plane: "Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?"

Narrator: "You wouldn't believe."

Business woman on plane: "Which car company do you work for?"

Narrator: "A major one."

Exhibit 2: Judge Learned Hand's decision in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947) in which Hand describes how to determine a barge owner's duty to provide against injuries caused by barge acccidents. Hand says the duty is a function of three variables:

(1) The probablility that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. Possibly it serves to bring this notion into relief to state it in algebraic terms: if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B: liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B [is less than] PL.

Discuss.

Posted 07:53 AM | Comments (2) | law general law school

Give 'Em Hell, Gore

Yesterday, Al Gore gave another in his continuing series of speeches condemning the Bush administration for its so-called "war on terror." I spent the day volunteering at the event, which was sponsored by MoveOn.org and the ACS. It looks like the speech is beginning to get decent coverage from the press, but you can also read the full text here.

Although the major press seems to be focusing on the sensational comparison of the Bush Administration to Big Brother, the real crux of the speech for me was the way Gore explained that argument. Gore said:

I want to challenge the Bush Administration’s implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists. 

Because it is simply not true. 

In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.

In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target.

In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country.

In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy. 

In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually weakening not strengthening America.

In both cases, they have used unprecedented secrecy and deception in order to avoid accountability to the Congress, the Courts, the press and the people.

Indeed, this Administration has turned the fundamental presumption of our democracy on its head.  A government of and for the people is supposed to be generally open to public scrutiny by the people -- while the private information of the people themselves should be routinely protected from government intrusion. 

But instead, this Administration is seeking to conduct its work in secret even as it demands broad unfettered access to personal information about American citizens.  Under the rubric of protecting national security, they have obtained new powers to gather information from citizens and to keep it secret. Yet at the same time they themselves refuse to disclose information that is highly relevant to the war against terrorism.

Funny, isn't it? One of the most secretive (if not the most secretive) administrations in American history is also the most eager to rewrite laws to enable government agents to pry into our private lives. Again I wonder, why would anyone even consider voting for Bush in 2204?

Posted 06:55 AM | election 2004 general politics

Fun Legal Quote:

Lord Chancellor Northington said:

"Necessitous men are not, truly speaking, free men."

Vernon v. Bethell, 2 Eden 110, 113 (1762). I couldn't agree with him more.

Posted 05:28 AM | law school

Crazy Legal Fact

How many lawsuits would you guess are filed each year in the U.S.? Before starting law school, I would probably have guessed a few million, at most. I would have been wrong. According to Joseph P. Glannon's Civil Procedure: Examples & Explorations, I would have been very wrong:

In 1998 an astounding 91,000000 cases were filed in the courts of the fifty states, while some 1,700,000 were filed in the federal courts (56).

Holy litigious society, Batman! Yikes.

p.s.: Batman can't fly, but the batmobile can. Discuss.

Posted 06:01 AM | Comments (11) | law school life generally

Poor Representation

Just "finished" memo number two. The question presented was:

Will an immigration judge or the BIA grant asylum to our client on the basis of his political opinion, given that, a) he and his family were attacked numerous times after he wrote an article critical of a local political leader, and b) that political leader’s influence may extend beyond our client’s home region?

Fifteen pages, way too many of which are facts. What I really wonder is: How many people get poor legal advice because bumbling associates and junior lawyers procrastinate memos and end up submitting half-baked approximations of legal arguments rather than well-researched and well-written legal advice? Too many, I fear.

Posted 06:12 AM | Comments (5) | law school