« November 2003 | Main | January 2004 »
Happy Holidays!
It is done. Finals are over. Can you say anticlimactic? But it's a wonderful thing, nevertheless.
And now it's time for me to head off to the Mitten (Michigan) and the Mountains (Montana) for family time. I'm looking forward to reading some good books, playing cards, and probably eating way too much great food. Holidays are wonderful, aren't they? I hope yours are.
I'll leave you with Golum W. Bush (flash animation) who says:
http://flash.bushrecall.org/It's the ring ring, and the bling bling, and the power thing, and the right wing!
Also, if you haven't heard of it already, don't miss Bush In 30 Seconds —over 1,000 30-second commercial produced by folks around the country to highlight the most important reasons they think we need a new president in 2004. Hours and hours of holiday cheer.
God bless us everyone! See you in 2004!
Posted 05:11 AM | Comments (1) | life generally
Post-Crim Stuff
CrimLaw is history. For now. Although the exam was no picnic (6 questions, 5 of which had two parts each), it didn't feel quite as onerous as torts and contracts. Now, like Transmogriflaw, only one exam remains: CivPro (a.k.a. "that juris-my-diction crap"). By noon tomorrow, it's all over.
Meanwhile, there are many more interesting things in the world than Civil Procedure, don't you think? For example, following up on last weekend's big news:What does the capture of Saddam mean? Alternet has a bunch of good articles on the subject, including an argument that the media orgy (Saddamania!) was obscuring a lot of other important news, like the Halliburton fraud scandal, for example. William Rivers Pitt voices the sentiments of many when he says we caught the wrong guy: Where's Osama? But Pitt's bigger point is that the current instability in Iraq and the fact that all those American troops are there makes the place a playground for anyone who would like to attack the U.S. by killing Americans; Saddam's capture doesn't really change that. And Robert Scheer basically sums things up:
This was the basic gist of Howard Dean's comments on the matter in his national security address, delivered Monday in California. Dean said the capture of Saddam is a great thing, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush's unilateral foreign policy has angered and frightened the world, making the U.S. less safe, not more. It sounds like some people don't like hearing this (no permalinks, look at entries for 12/14-15), and Dean's opponents continue to try to tar him with the "irresponsible" or "incompetent" or "unrealistic" or even "delusional" brush. Lieberman's got the best soundbite with the accusation that Dean's fallen into a "spiderhole of denial" if he doesn't think Americans are safer w/Saddam in custody. Howard Kurtz rounds it all up in depth (again, no permalinks so look for today's looong entry).
Only time will tell who's right. I think Dean will again be proven correct in the long run, but it may not have been wise to make this question ("Is America safer w/Saddam imprisoned?") an issue. The real issue is whether America is safer in the long run as the world's bully, or if it's safer as the world's leader and peace-maker through dipolomacy and international cooperation. The funny thing that Dean's critics seem to want to ignore is that Dean isn't necessarily saying we should not have gone into Iraq, or that we should not have captured Hussein; he's simply saying we did it in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, and that's why all this violence isn't accomplishing the goals it's supposed to accomplish.
Enough with the political analysis, already. There are other important things going on. For example, Sandra was the Sole Survivor—hooray! Did she tip off her friends that she might be the winner so they could make money betting on her? We'll probably never know. Once thing we did learn from this season (something that diehard discussion board readers probably already know) is: There are really only two rules in Survivor: 1) You can't hit anyone. 2) You can't conspire to share the money. That last one explains everything; the show really is like "real life"—there are lots of structural barriers to cooperative action.
In the "there's still hope" file, did you hear about the shoe company that gave its employees a Christmas bonus of $1,000 for every year they've worked at the company? That would be SAS Shoemakers, which doesn't have a website that I can find. Why can't more companies be like this? Treat employees well, produce a good product, share the profits with the workers and the community—it's not so hard, is it?
Ok. Must think about CivPro.
But then, what's the point? Mixtape Marathon says law professors seem to let their satanic tendencies loose when grading law school exams, leading to a situation where students get bad grades when they think they performed well on an exam, and good grades when they think they performed poorly. So MM has a question for law professors:
So aren't I better off not studying? No, probably not.
But one more thing before I go: Yesterday JD2B posted links to some new blogs by Michigan law students, and while I don't have time to check them all out, at least one is definitely worth repeat visits. Glorfindel of Gondolin is an MD working on a JD who supports Dean, registers as left-liberal on the political compass, and links to this cool political map with fascinating analysis of how the 2004 election might shape up. Great reading.
Oh, and Think Inc. is a philosopher who doesn't like capitalism, so you know she rocks.
I think I went to the wrong law school. If I'd studied harder for exams I might have a chance of transfering to Michigan (or Temple or Columbia). It's certainly a thought. But now: Personal and subject matter jurisdiction, venue, pleading, and joinder. This is doable. By noon tomorrow, it will all be over.
Posted 09:17 AM | Comments (4) | election 2004 law school
Professorial Quotes
Studying for finals means going through my notes, which are excessively detailed. The excess makes it hard to sift through for what's important, so in the future I won't be taking notes like this, but the benefit of so much detail is that I captured a few choice comments from my professors. The best two are from Prof Torts, who, for the sake of context, is a graduate of the U of Chicago law school (bastion of the law and economics school of thought), a former Scalia clerk, and a dedicated proponent of Judge Learned Hand's "BPL" cost-benefit analysis—Prof Torts seems to think we should apply the BPL to every situation possible. He even went so far as to spend an entire class period arguing that HMOs should be allowed to dictate (a.k.a., "withhold") medical treatment on the basis of the BPL, and to introduce cost/benefit evidence as a defense when patients die and the HMO doctors get sued for malpractice. Doesn't that sound like a great idea?
So anyway, here's what Prof Torts says about tort law generally:
Ah yes, government is mischief. Is it true that the more money you have, the more you loathe the government?
Now here's ProfTorts on government today and how politicians feel about the BPL:
I'd like to make an argument that this goes beyond "bare non-disclosure" of information to the contrary and borders on fraudelent misrepresentation, but I'm done with contracts for the semester and we've both got better things to do. Oh, but speaking of contracts, ProfContracts was a bit lighter, if not more encouraging:
This is a great example of the kinds of jokes 4 out of 5 of my professors made all semester—jokes about the shortcomings in the law or the practice of law, with punchlines about how those shortcomings don't matter because, well, what matters is money! Ha ha ha! That's so funny! Not.
<mini-rant>
Approx. 500 new recruits begin studying law at GW each fall. A certain percentage are almost certainly going to law school because they'd like to make the world a better place somehow, not just for themselves, but for other people, as well. These 500 students then spend the next three years sitting in lectures punctuated by jokes suggesting the legal world sucks and the one thing that makes it palatable is cash. Many of these jokes also involve admissions that the law is patently unfair in some way; the punchline? "You don't have to worry about that because you'll still get paid!" So, after three years, how many of those 500 law students do you think will have given up on making a positive contribution to society? Why should they care about anything other than making money when their profs keep telling them that money is what really matters? Yay!
</mini-rant>
But one of my professors did not make jokes about scrupulous lawyers making money from injustice, and that was Prof CrimLaw. Instead, he told us to look for those places where the law seems unjust, or where society doesn't seem to be working as well as it could, and to ask questions and to try to come up with answers. On the last day of class, Prof CrimLaw made some self-deprecating comments about how law professors like to hear the sounds of their own voices, then he gave us some "wise words" to think about, including this semi-joke:
Gee, why would that be? And if it's not actually true (it probably isn't), why would it even sound plausible? See mini-rant, above.
ProfCrim went on to advise and encourage us to take CrimPro, since it's important and will teach us the kinds of things people expect you to know when they hear you're a lawyer. And he finished with a call for us to take seriously what we learned this semester. A rough paraphrase (at the time we were discussing the insanity defense and had just finished readings about the case of John Hinckley shooting Ronald Reagan):
My transcription doesn't adequately capture what he said, but you get the idea. ProfCrim was joking when he said he had some "wise words" for us, but those don't sound like so much of a joke to me. The main point is how starkly these sentiments contrast with those of ProfTorts and ProfContracts. I'll certainly be taking a closer look at a career in CrimLaw, but first I guess I better try to pass the final exam...
Posted 07:19 AM | Comments (5) | law general law school
Happy Monday
Monday's are better when they don't include class or finals. Sure, there's always studying, but... Today is an extra-good Monday, in light of yesterday's big news. But what to say that hasn't been said? This is good—a recognition that taking Saddam alive rather than killing him on sight was a testament to American ideals of justice and due process.
Beyond that, since the media orgy (capture porn!) started yesterday morning I've been longing for some perspective. What does Saddam's capture really mean? The talking heads keep saying "this changes everything" and I've even heard some calling Bush's statement yesterday a "victory speech." So "winning" this war means capturing Saddam? The goal of the conflict changes so often I just can't keep up.
But the talking heads have incredible power. Friday night's study break (my life is really just one big study break; I should talk about breaks from breaks, which is the time I actually study) was a screening of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," an incredible documentary about the attempted coup in April 2002 against Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. The coup was led by the upper-middle and upper classes, neither of whom like Chavez because Chavez's basic goal is to redistribute the proceeds from Venezuela's vast oil resources among all Venezuelans, rather than allowing a small elite siphon those profits for their personal gain, which has been the status quo for the past century. The leaders of the coup used Venezuela's private television stations to convince people the at Chavez was a brutal dictator; the tv stations told outright lies and lied by omission—showing only certain clips edited to make Chavez look as bad as possible, while withholding footage that made Chavez look good. There's evidence that the U.S. backed the coup, but of course, the U.S. officially denies it. At any rate, the coup failed, largely because the mass of people who voted for Chavez demanded he remain in power. Today, Chavez does remain in power, and his efforts to redistribtute Venezuela's wealth more equally among all its people continue.
The point? Simply another illustration of the powerful role the media can play in defining an event. Just something to think about as you digest the constant stream of pronouncements on what the capture of Saddam Hussein means to you, the U.S., the U.S. presidential race, Iraq, or the world.
And while you're digesting all that, consider something you're probably not going to see on tv—Michael Moore's perspective:
It's brash and bold, and definitely polemical in the current context. For a slightly less abrasive take on what Saddam's capture might mean outside of the media frenzy, leaders in other nations are expressing hope that it will mean a quicker return of Iraqi sovereignty. Finally, the Washington Post already has poll numbers on how the capture affected Americans' perceptions of the war, Bush, etc. Interesting, but probably not worth much so soon after the fact. Only time will tell. For now, I hear the siren song of CrimLaw...
Posted 08:25 AM | Comments (3) | general politics life generally
Goodbye Contracts I
The Contracts final yesterday was about as fun as standing beneath a shower of canned goods for three hours, but it's over. Stay of Execution says it's normal to feel like you've been dragged behind a bus after you take a final. I didn't really get that feeling after the Torts final last Tuesday, but yesterday, yeah, kinda like that.
For the entire semester I sat in Contracts class and thought how simple and easy it all seemed, but then I got to the exam and, well, let's just say I had a great teacher who made it look easy. I've learned a lot this semester about what I need to study and how I need to study it, and especially about how to organize my notes and outline as I go, so I'll look forward to Contracts II next semester. I mean, I don't have much choice, do I?
Now it's time to party on to Crimlaw and CivPro. Both are 3-hour funfests; Crimlaw will allow book only (no notes or additional materials), while CivPro is open note, open book. I'm kind of looking forward to Crimlaw—it's been my favorite class all year. But CivPro? Mega-ugh. If anyone out there likes CivPro, I'd love to hear something that might make me care about this subject. I mean, the way my prof taught it, the whole subject seems to be a way for lawyers and parties to avoid dealing with the merits of disputes by screwing around with procedural hocus pocus. Sure, jurisdiction and the due process the rules are ostensibly meant to ensure are vital the justice of our system, but in my ideal world, I'd be able to leave the procedural issues to someone else. If wishes were fishes....
Posted 06:26 AM | Comments (1) | law school
Bye, Bye, Torts; Hello Contracts
Torts exam is history. Thank goodness. It wasn't so bad; 6 single-spaced pages of a fact pattern revolving around the mishaps of two rich California heiresses spending a month on a back-country farm for a "reality television" program (a.k.a. "The Simple Life"). Yay. The exam was divided into four parts. First, one of the girls got into a "scuffle" with her host mother, who then locked her in her room for the night without dinner. Assault? Battery? False Imprisonment?
Second, one of the girls brought her pet dog, who was carried off by her host farmer's dog, who turned out to have rabies. The dog bit the girl. Possible issues of negligence on the part of several people (including, potentially, the cameraman who was witnessing everything, but case against him probably weak).
Third, the girls made a bet with each other to see if they could get the two brothers in their host family to fight over them. Possible IIED? The boys did fight. Possible intentional torts? Other issues were embedded in here as well.
Finally, the girls went out one night and bought alcohol—negligence per se on the part of the store that sold the beer because there was a statute forbidding such sale to minors. The girls then went drinking and driving (negligence?), had to swerve to avoid a rock that had fallen in the road because of a coal mine's recent blasting activities (strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities?), swerved again to avoid hitting a deer (hooray for intervening causes to make causation simply impossible!), and ended up running off the road and straight into someone's living room.
There were lots of other issues in there, and I'm sure I missed many and analyzed others poorly, but the important thing is, it's over. It's also curved, so how poorly could I have done? Nearly 9 pages of typing in 3 hours, 3,900 words (Extregity is so abysmal, but at least it has a word and page counter), and it's over. Over. Bye, bye Torts! I will not miss you.
Now, on to Contracts, tomorrow at 2 p.m. Offer? Acceptance? Status to contract? Fraud, misrepresentation, duress? Is a writing required? Would restitution be appropriate? Ugh.
But you know, it's actually great to finally be taking exams. It's like a relief. People have been warning me for about a year about how hard the first year of law school is, about how the exams are so horrible. And no, they're not really fun (although, if you knew you weren't being graded, you might be able to enjoy the sort of adventure sleuthing aspect of picking up clues to spot issues and the remedies/arguments your professor has embedded in the facts), but none of it's really that bad. I will live, and I'll live a lot better when these silly rituals are over. I've been spending time longing for a paper to write instead of exams to study for because I'm better at thinking more slowly and in depth than I am at memorizing and spilling my brains out on a tight schedule, but the great thing advantage exams have over papers is this: If you just wait long enough, exams will be over. And that's true. Regardless of what I do for the next week, by noon on Thursday, December 18th, I'll be finished with the first semester of law school, and I have to say that will be a wonderful thing.
Meanwhile, I guess I'll study a little...
Posted 09:48 AM | Comments (4) | law school
Gore's Endorsement of Dean
Of course I think this is a great thing. It may not quite be worth $100 million, but I doubt it's going to hurt. Some people are saying it means bupkis, and if Gore had been sitting around doing nothing since the 2000 election debacle, I'd be tempted to agree, and even to fear that Gore's endorsement might hurt Dean. However, as Joe Conason notes, Gore's thinking seems to have changed since the 2000 election debacle. If you don't think so, check out the speeches he's given in the last year (one in September 2002, another last August, and another just last month which I attended).
Scott Rosenberg has a good response to those who say that Dean simply isn't electable : they were wrong before when they said Dean had no chance of winning the nomination, so why should we listen to them now?
Some people seem to think the race for the nomination might be over—and that was even before Gore's endorsement. They might be right, but it would certainly be foolish for the Dean campaign to start working on that assumption. As everyone kept saying at last night's debate, nothing's over until the votes have been cast; even if Dean wins Iowa (possible) and New Hampshire (seemingly certain), he's looking a bit sad in South Carolina, and there are many more races he needs to win before he could take the nomination. Check out the most recent Pew Poll for a breakdown of the early primary numbers by race, class, gender, and education, among other variables.
FWIW, I think Kucinich was the hands-down winner of the debate last night. (Of course, his campaign thinks so, too.) Kucinich clearly nailed Koppel and ABC on their deliberate strategy to focus the debate on the process of campaigning rather than the issues. That process is important and certainly a worthy debate topic; one of the reasons Dean is getting so much support (I believe) is that he's saying that the way we elect leaders in this country is broken because elections are merely sold to the highest bidders, which are always corporations and special interests. See, for example, today's announcement that only countries that supported the war in Iraq will be allowed to bid on contracts there—that's not a move that's good for America, it's a move that's good for the corporations that put Bush and Co. in the White House. The medicare "reform" package that just passed is another, just as blatant example: HMOs will begin getting billions of dollars in payments from the federal government almost immediately, while the much-hyped prescription drug benefit—supposedly the reason for the whole bill—won't even begin for two more years. Can you say "pay-offs to corporate donors"? I knew you could. Oh, and don't forget the revolving door between government and industry—another way the money flows to control public policy.
Sorry. Tangent. The point is, if we hope to break the stranglehold those corps and interests have over politics, then yes, we need to reform the election process, and Dean seems to be doing that, so making the process at least some part of the debate was worthwhile. However, Kucinich's bigger score was to point out the way the media can manipulate campaigns through the questions they ask or don't ask, the things they emphasize or ignore. Kucinich showed he wasn't afraid to offend Koppel or ABC, and that willingness to stand up to the media is something we certainly need in a president. Finally Kucinich delivered a terrific little manifesto (near the bottom of the page) with his last comment linking the Iraq quagmire with problematic domestic issues:
Our entire domestic agenda is at risk because of our occupation of Iraq. That's why I suggest it is urgent to put this on the agenda, to end the occupation, to get the U.N. in and the U.S. out. We want this country to be safe. We want this country to be secure. Our presence there is leading to greater instability. My administration, my election will be about the end of fear and the beginning of hope in America.
Yeah, I support Dean because I think he has the best shot of winning. But my real hope is that a Dean presidency will simply be a good step closer to the day when a candidate like Kucinich could actually be elected. That day just isn't here. For now, we've got to work with what we've got, and that's a front-running Dean who is saying many of the right things and, so far, is not prostrating himself before the altar of corporate financing, which is great. Today's Washington Post suggests the race might come down to a battle of Dean v. Clark. Part of the theory being that Gore has made a play to create a new "wing" of the Democratic party separate from the so-called "Clinton wing," which is thought to back Clark. And the race continues...
Posted 09:29 AM | Comments (3) | election 2004
Super Study Break
Have you noticed how many extremely fun things beg for your attention when you're supposed to be doing other things (like studying for finals)? There are so many diversions, it's hard to know where to begin.
But first things first: Be sure to chew gum during your exams! It supposedly improves your memory performance. Thanks to Ditzy Genius for the tip (and these other tips), and congrats to her as well for surviving exam numero uno.
On to study breaks and things to think about other than law school exams! First, Three Years of Hell (TYH), who is also studying, recommends the "I Hate Republicans" song, which is certainly entertaining, if a bit bracing. The same site (Bushflash.com) also created this "Mission Accomplished" animation, which it then adapted for the Dennis Kucinich campaign. TYH doesn't agree w/any of this, by the way, but it was nice of him to point it out.
In a similar vein, you might enjoy FOXed, which ingeniously combines that disconcerting "Matrix"-themed Poweraid commercial from last summer with clips from those fair and balanced folks at Fox. Sure, it's a 2.2 MB download, but you can study while you wait!
If you feel like doing something a little more than watching movies, you could chip in a few dollars to a good cause. Here's an appropriate one for me at the moment: "Procrastinators for Dean." Or donate something for the troops via a USO Care package. Donate in someone's name as a Christmas gift to them, or donate in your favorite candidate's name as a way to promote your candidate. Or just donate. It will build good karma that you can harvest on your exams.
Want a break from politics on your study break? Then take a gander at this gigapixel image of Bryce Canyon National Park. Very cool, but what will we do with gigapixel images? I mean, yikes, it's almost too much information, isn't it? And here's another great gift idea: The Pop-up Alice in Wonderland. If you don't feel like buying, you can listen to an interview with the bookmaker, or even better, make your own pop-ups!
Finally, you could begin getting into the Christmas spirit by reading or listening to John Henry Faulk's Christmas Story (sappy/touching), or listen to David Sedaris' Santaland Diaries (hilarious).
I'm off to a torts final soon. I just hope no one assaults me along the way. Again, good luck to all test-takers!
Posted 09:43 AM | Comments (2) | law school life generally
Torts Nightmare
I'm not very well prepared for finals, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm starting to have nightmares about them. Last night it was torts. First, at a Q & A between my entire 1L section and the dean and our other professors, I raised my hand and asked, "Are we supposed to be getting a general introduction to torts in our first semester, because all we got was negligence and strict liability. Isn't there more?" ProfTorts (in my dream) responded, "I'm glad you asked that; we're going to cover everything else today."
Then I got lost on the way to class.
When I finally got to class, ProfTorts had a surprise for us. Without saying a word, he simply started handing out exams! Everyone around me started working industriously on theirs, but I could only stare at mine in disbelief. This was supposed to be the review session! ProfTorts looked at me and smiled. "I thought we'd just get it over with," he said.
Finally, I imagined I typed my exam on a PDA-type device (like a Palm), and that there was no way for me to print it out or transmit a copy to my professor. Total nightmare.
I think I better study harder. Torts final is tomorrow. I'm wondering about suing myself for negligence in exam-taking. My theory of negligence is that I should have studied at least two more hours every day since November 25th (just before Thanksgiving). If I run the BPL, it seems that the cost of such a precaution would have been fairly low—I probably would have simply needed to cut my web-surfing time and studied instead. Meanwhile, the likelihood that I'll do poorly on exams because I didn't study those extra two hours seems rather high, and the seriousness of the injury I'll incur by doing poorly also seems pretty high (though certainly debatable). I suppose those two variables would be left to the jury; what would a "reasonable person" say?
Is there such a thing as a reasonable person when it comes to deciding how much studying for law school finals is sufficient? You certainly couldn't use a "reasonable law student" because, on this question at least, that would be a contradiction in terms. Some law students would certainly be panicked if they'd studied the same amount as I have, but then, perhaps those people aren't khaki. It's so true: No one sees my grand master plan!! But will that be a sufficient defense if I'm found negligent?
My defense against my theory of negligence might be that law school grades are infamously arbitrary; more studying does not necessarily mean better grades. Therefore, it's a mistake to assume that my negligence caused my bad grades. Other possible explanations include the capriciousness of the grader, what I had for lunch before the exam (what should I have? I wonder...), and the fact that I had to use a Windoze computer to take the exam. It's been statistically proven that people who use Windoze are less likely to be smart. (Ok, I made that up. Is it ok to make stuff up on exams?)
Here's another question: Would failing your law school exams allow you to use a res ipsa loquitur argument to get to a jury in your negligence action against yourself? But for the fact that you can't sue yourself, I think so. I mean, it's pretty much a given that if you study, you'll pass, so failing would likely give rise to an assumption that someone has been negligent, don't you think?
Posted 06:02 AM | Comments (5) | law school
Kahki Study Break
If you were in my position (having wasted way too much study time to really prepare adequately for finals) you might be thinking things couldn't really get much worse in your little world.* But no; it gets worse when you take a silly internet quiz to give your brain a rest, only to find out you're color is Khaki:
Your dominant hues are red and green, so you're definately not afraid to get in and stir things up. You have no time for most people's concerns, you'd rather analyze with your head than be held back by some random "gut feeling".
Your saturation level is lower than average - You don't stress out over things and don't understand people who do. Finishing projects may sometimes be a challenge, but you schedule time as you see fit and the important things all happen in the end, even if not everyone sees your grand master plan.
Your outlook on life is bright. You see good things in situations where others may not be able to, and it frustrates you to see them get down on everything.
But why is that khaki? I mean, the description seems fine (and fairly accurate, I think), but what's khaki about it? The trouble w/khaki is it's so boring slash military. And speaking of boring, what's the difference between beige and khaki, because to me they look a lot the same, and I just don't want to be beige. Oh, what have I done wrong!? ;-)
So what color are you, then? (You know you want to find out, it only takes 2 seconds.) If that study break won't do for you, type "miserable failure" into Google and spin the "I feel lucky" button. Of course, this google bombing thing can be used for good or ill, but it's fun for the moment, isn't it? And one more study break: StrongBad's Trogdor Email—a friend pointed me to this months ago, but it's even funnier now if you think of one word: The Governator (#81 on the list of 2003's Most Annoying Conservatives). Watch the animation and you'll see what I mean.
* All students and former students: Have you noticed how small your world can get around exam/finals time? Your physical world becomes limited to books, notes, computer, desk, maybe library, maybe coffee shop, but it's your mind that gets really confined, forced to range over a very small and bounded set of material. This is the only situation in which I might wish my mental universe was even smaller, because that would mean less to study! But this is also probalby why I prefer papers to exams as evaluative/pedagogical tools; paper-writing asks you to focus but allows more freedom (generally) in the terrain you travel. . . . I'm glad vacation's coming; I think these travel metaphors suggest I need to get out of this place.
Posted 01:52 PM | Comments (7) |
Winter Finally
For the last two or three days the local media have been giddy with predicitons of winter stormy doom.
Finally, something like said stormy doom has arrived here in DC, although as you can see, it doesn't seem all that doomy.
Still studying. The doom is this: I'm going to spend way too much energy on torts, then fail crim. The solution? I'll just make mediocre effort for them all! [Insert mad scientist evil laugh here. Yes, it's like that.]
Posted 06:57 AM | life generally
Wal-Martization
If you live in DC, try to avoid shopping at Safeway for a while.
Why? Something like six weeks ago, grocery workers walked out of Vons stores in California after Vons offered them a contract that would effectively eliminate health care benefits for workers over time. Then Kroger and Ralphs stores locked out their employees to show their support of Vons. Isn't it nice to see corporations showing such solidarity? Apparently no grocery corporation in California wants to provide its workers with health care benefits, even though they've all been doing so for decades. The CA Attorney General thinks the grocers are perhaps a bit too solid—he's investigating them for anti-trust violations.
Safeway owns Vons. Safeway has stores all over D.C. Now, the UFCW (Union of Food and Commercial Workers) has expanded its picket lines to D.C. Safeway stores. The union hasn't asked D.C. Safeway employees to walk out—yet. At this point, the union just wants to keep shoppers out of Safeway so that Safeway will understand that it's going to lose more money by fighting the than by simply agreeing to a reasonable contract.
So why are Safeway and its fellow grocery chains fighting so hard to reduce worker benefits? According to the corporations, the reason is . . . Wal-Mart. Safeway argues that because Wal-Mart is a non-union employer (Wal-Mart has a very aggressive union-busting organization that successfully fights every effort of its workers to organize), Wal-Mart can pay workers less (and not provide health care), therefore it can charge less for goods, and therefore it can drive the grocery chains out of business. Welcome to "everyday low prices."
And welcome to The Wal-Martization of America.
Did you hear the one about FAO Schwartz? It declared bankruptcy yesterday:
Hey, look—it's Wal-Mart again! In the 1990s, Wal-Mart, the ultimate "category killer," put thousands of mom and pop stores of all kinds out of business on main streets throughout the U.S. Now Wal-Mart is taking over groceries and toys, even in big markets. What's next?
Posted 05:37 AM | Comments (4) | general politics life generally
Huh?
Two to four inches of snow expected by morning!? Whaaa? Why start now?
Disturbing evening headlines:
1) Justice to review request for medicare vote probe: Did someone attempt to bribe retiring Rep. Nick Smith of Michigan to get him to vote for the medicare bill?
2) Missing prosecutor found shot, stabbed:
Luna and the defense attorneys negotiated through the afternoon Wednesday and reached a plea deal about 5 p.m., Quarles said. The men entered their guilty pleas about 11:30 a.m. Thursday, and they remained in custody.
Smith agreed to plead guilty to one count of distribution of heroin and to possession of a weapon for the purposes of drug trafficking. Poindexter agreed to plead guilty to three counts of distribution of heroin to a government witness.
The parties were expected to appear Thursday morning to enter the agreement, but Luna was not present, the judge said.
Crazy. Who knew being a prosecutor could be so dangerous?
Posted 04:39 PM | Comments (1) | life generally
Common Sense
In today's news, the Dean campaign is going old school. Following the lead of Thomas Paine who helped inspire the American Revolution with his pamphlet, "Common Sense," the Dean Campaign has produced "Common Sense for A New Century." It's online at that link, but it's more fun if you print it (sheet 1 and sheet 2), read it, then pass it around, to other people. The pdfs were designed for print, using a classic, heavy serif typeface and traditional typographic tricks, like woodcut-esque initial caps and dingbats for organization. See? Old school. Cool.
But "Common Sense for A New Century" is not just cool because someone took the time to design it well. For the past three years I taught Paine's version of "Common Sense" to several intro to American literature classes, and each time it seemed more relevant than the time before. I loved teaching it, because it gave my classes the opportunity to talk about the ideals of justice and equality on which the U.S. was ostensibly founded. Students generally found it easy to see how far we've strayed from those ideals, but just as important, they quickly saw the gap between the kind of activist citizen who would write and distribute a pamphlet like "Common Sense" (and thereby help effect a revolution), and the kind of passive citizens most of us are today (who wouldn't know a revolution if it hit us over the head). The first few sentences alone are brilliant:
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
What could be more true of our current situation? "Our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." In much of its approach, but especially in its release of this newly updated "Common Sense," the Dean campaign seems to understand both what Paine was saying and how it applies today. They understand at least well enough to make it a selling point of the campaign. Are they cynically manipulating the activist passion that motivated Paine and which today motivates many Americans? Perhaps, but if they are, I hope they're ready for what could come of that. The Dean campaign seems to be waking people up from an extended slumber of ambivalence and inaction; what will they do once they've had their morning coffee?
There's some irony in the fact that this new "Common Sense" comes at the same time as this headline in today's Washington Post: Dean Now Courting Party Insiders. If Dean's the "revolutionary" candidate who wants to get back to America's core values, what's he doing cozying up to the establishment? The Post sums it up like this:
But Dean, a savvy strategist and tactician, knows that the road to the nomination and the presidency is much more treacherous if he continues to alienate lawmakers and party insiders the way he did early on, several supporters said. A few veteran Democrats have pulled him aside in recent months to deliver that message.
The trick for Dean is to rail against Washington in public and rally insiders behind the scenes, party strategists say.
"There's a danger some will call it hypocritical . . . or some of his original Internet warriors won't understand he needs to consort with those they feel are the enemy," said Democratic strategist Jenny Backus.
The strategists are right—Dean is going to have to walk a thin line here. Still, it's true that Dean is going to need as many friends as he can get if he's going to win, and even if he is courting the insiders, he's doing too many new and different things to be considered just like every other politician. For example, his campaign seems to be expanding to help elect a Democratic congress, as well. As the Post says, "A non-incumbent presidential candidate raising money for members of Congress this early is unprecedented." Many things about the Dean campaign are unprecedented; let's hope one of them is this: Dean will keep his campaign promises to (borrowing from Paine) take the necessary evil of government out of the control of special interests and give its power to punish back to the society it was designed to serve.
Sidenote: Is the Gephardt campaign playing dirty by trying to create bad blood between unions?
Posted 08:04 AM | election 2004 general politics
Foot in Mouth
Yeah, it's yesterday's news, but what isn't? So: U.S. Defense Secretary Ronald Dumsfeld has won the "Foot in Mouth Award" from Britain's Plain English Campaign for the following statements:
You know it.
Don't miss the runners-up, including The Governator with:
The previous winners are also quite amusing.
Strangely, Dummy has also been named "non-EU citizen of the year" by a European Union affairs newspaper for his statements about old and new Europe. Europeans sure know how to make lemonade out of lemons, don't they?
Posted 07:07 AM | general politics
Dean's Records
Taking a break from studying contracts (where's the consideration!?), I scanned this transcript of Howard Dean's appearance on Hardball (last Monday night, I believe). Here's how Dean explained the sealed records I mentioned yesterday:
Of course some records will be sealed, and there's no way for the average media consumer to know whether Dean really sealed more records than "normal" or whether opposition campaigns are simply trying to blow this up into an issue. After reading the rest of the Hardball interview, I'm still ready to give Dean the benefit of the doubt. Most of the time, he doesn't talk like a "normal" politician, and that's a good thing. Check this out:
It's true, isn't it? But would you ever hear this from Bush or Lieberman of Kerry or Gephardt?
William Greider also has a nice piece in the most recent issue of The Nation: Why I'm for Dean.
Ok. Back to contracts: A contract is a promise or set of promises that the law will enforce. No promise is enforceable unless there is a basis for enforcement. The three modern bases for enforcement are consideration, reliance, and, in a few special cases, "moral obligation." Consideration is a promise or performance bargained for (sought and given) in exchange. To enforce a promise based on reliance, the plaintiff must show not only reliance, but also that (1) the defendant made a promise; (2) the defendant could reasonably expect the plaintiff to take an action; (3) the plaintiff took an action; (4) the action was induced by (i.e., taken in reliance on) the promise; and (5) enforcement of the promise is necessary to prevent injustice. Enforcement on the basis of moral obligation is rare, but a court will enforce a new promise by the defendant to reaffirm an old obligation that was (1) discharged by a statute of limitations; or (2) discharged by bankruptcy proceedings; or (3) voidable because of infancy. Restitution can sometimes be a substitute for enforcement: When the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant made an enforceable promise, the plaintiff may seek "restitution" from the defendant if the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense.
Doesn't that sound like great fun!?
Posted 11:22 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004
December Already
December already. Hard to believe, isn't it? Where did November go? For L, it went into writing a novel—congratulations, L!
Fifty thousand words (approx. 200 pages) might not sound like much, but try pulling 50,000 words out of your head in 30 days or less and you may find it's not as easy as it sounds. I stalled out at almost 28,000 words, but I did find some interesting characters and an interesting story I might come back to someday. Perhaps I'll return to it in March for NaNoEdMo.
The campaigns for president are heating up. Bush is raising money like crazy and his campaign claims it wants to build the biggest grassroots organization the U.S. has ever seen. That's a scary thought. Dean and Gephardt are locked in a tight race for Iowa. Meanwhile, MoveOn.org continues to grow and gain attention—both positive and negative. This weekend, MoveOn is sponsoring nationwide screenings of the new film, "Uncovered: The whole truth about the Iraq war."
The Dean campaign continues to grow; however, the dirty laundry is beginning to come out. Apparently, Dean sealed his records last year to diminsh the amount of ammunition his opponents will have against him. One source of ammunition may be statements he made about judicial appointments. Hmmm.... This appears to be politics as usual, which is what makes it so disturbing. The big advantages Dean has as far as I'm concerned is that he seems to be doing something unusual with his campaign—he appears much less compromised by special interest money than the other candidates, and he appears willing to stand behind his ideas and actions. So why seal his records? I understand his fear that his opponents won't play fair with whatever they might learn about his past, but the idealist in me would have more respect for him if he'd simply say, "Hey, I've done things that people are going to say were wrong and bad. I'm human, and I learn from my mistakes, just like everybody else." The idealist in me says Dean should believe in voters enough to trust that we'll be able to tell when his opponents are unfairly smearing him, and when a past mistake really does matter. But, of course, we don't live in my ideal world, do we?
Another election development I just learned about: America Coming Together plans to campaign to defeat Bush in 17 swing states. Great idea, no? One problem: their website only offers one way I can help—they, like everyone else, want me to give money. I don't have money. I don't even have time. But I coulde "make" time, and I do have skills and energy they might use if they'd provide a way for me to do so. This really is one thing that has made the Dean campaign very different—it says "help us," then it provides the tools for you to help in whatever way you can. Just about every other political group that would like to change U.S. policy on some issue would do much better if they'd stop simply asking people for money and start giving them ways to take action for their cause.
Oh, and Dennis Kucinich hasn't found love yet, but it sounds like he's having fun looking.
I'm supposed to be thinking of nothing but finals, but I'm having trouble focusing. Stay of Execution has some good, practical, and calming study tips for 1Ls, although it feels a little late for making posters. Still, posters would be better than outlines; Mixtape Marathon has restored my faith in the humanity of law students (a faith I think I pretty well lost somewhere in November, but that's another story) by noting that law school outlines are evil. Some of my professors have sometimes sounded as evil as the outlines we're supposed to create for their classes, so I fear section IV of Bekah's wonderful outline could begin: "Many law practitioners transfer the soullessness of their outlines and exams straight into practice." I guess we'll see.
Posted 07:31 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004 law school life generally
