I Are A Novelist

• Frist draft of 32-pg journal “note”: Check.
• 50k-word NaNoWriMo Novel: Check

The to-do list just got a lot shorter. It feels good to be a novelist, even if the “novel” is incomplete and completely unreadable. By the rules of the NaNoWriMo game, it's a novel. My brain is empty of all cogent or meaningful content, but maybe that's just how these things go.

Although it's a bit old at this point, Chris Baty, the founder of NaNoWriMo, was on Talk of the Nation last Tuesday. He talks a bit about what seems to be the “normal” trajectory for NaNo novelists, which is that week one is fast and fun and furious and easy, followed by week two where you get tired and hit a wall and wonder why you're doing this, followed by a speeding up in week three and a beer and skittles race to the finish in week four. I guess that sort of fits my experience this time around. Week one was definitely easy and purely fun; words came quickly and easily, and it was exciting to get going. Week two I started dropping the ball, playing catch up, it became harder to motivate or maintain interest in my characters or plot. Week three, though, was really the worst, I think, because the doldrums of week two only got worse. The point is some advice to myself for next year: Days 10-20 or so are the hardest. Make a pact with yourself to keep writing through them, even if its just a couple hundred words a day. If you don't, you won't finish.

Posted 12:29 PM | Comments (9) | NaNoWriMo

Blawg Wisdom Lives & 5 x 5

Holy dormant websites, batman! Blawg Wisdom has been updated, this time with three hot new requests and some better late than never admissions tips. For the good of your fellow students and the future of humanity, please browse on over and offer some helpful advice if you have any. Thanks! Also, your humble blogger recently participated in a Five by Five: Law Student Edition over at the [non]billable hour, along with four highly esteemed colleagues. Since now is the time in law school (finals time) when we all have plenty of complaints about the monster, you might enjoy some of the suggestions over there. It appears a majority of us believe that law school should be either shorter or more focused on practical experience, or both. In fact, possibly the most consistent thread in all the suggestions is that law school should give students a better, more realistic idea of what it means to practice law. Or, as Jeremy Blachman so aptly puts it (in his point 2), “If law schools are trying to train their students to be practicing attorneys, no one has told the people writing the curriculum.” So sadly true. But since law school can't be everything to everyone, why not allow different schools more freedom to do different things? That would be the point of Anthony Rickey's first point, which suggests we eliminate the ABA's accreditation system. You won't hear any complaints from me. In addition to possibly making law school less expensive, would fewer accreditation requirements allow schools to offer different curricula to serve different learning styles? Perhaps you could have more practical schools, more theoretical schools, more firm-oriented schools, more public interest oriented schools. Sure, we have that now, but the differences could be greater, and that could be good. You could also have one, two, or three year programs, and that would be excellent b/c it would allow different students to choose the level of education they could afford. Here's another idea I had reading through all these suggestions and thinking about my own: Law school should last two years. (That's not the idea; lots of people have suggested that.) The first year should be general and broad, much like it is now but even more so, including more history, theory, and providing a better idea of the terrain of law so students will understand as early as possible what their options are. Then, the second year would be more focused. You would have to choose whether you want to do criminal law, tort law, corporate law, tax, etc. You specialize, just like you do as an undergrad, and you take a focused curriculum that gives you excellent skills in your chosen field. Then you go to work. And if you ever decide that you chose wrong, you can go back. For example, if you decide after your first year that you'd really like to be a corporate lawyer, but then you go off to a firm and hate it, then you go back to school for one year and one year only and take a focused and concentrated course in some other specialty. You'd always be free to go three or more years at the beginning to take multiple specialties—if you were rich and could afford the luxury, or if you just couldn't make up your mind what area of law you wanted to specialize in. But the option to save $30k-$40k would be there for the rest of us. This way, you get a more thorough education in your chosen field, and you only have to pay for the classes you really need. Why not?

Posted 07:52 AM | law school meta-blogging

Note to Self: Note Writing Is Fun!

I have been deeply entrenched in writing a “note” for the journal of which I am supposedly a staff member, and you know what? It's kind of fun. You think I'm kidding, but I'm not. I mean, I've written more than a dozen 20-30 page academic papers previous to this (none published, all for grad school course requirements), but somehow, in the interval between each one I always seem to forget that both the research and the actual writing can be a real kick. The process of making an extended argument is a process of discovery, and of building something from a bunch of scattered thoughts and sources, making them into a coherent whole and creating something that just wasn't there before. In the process, you're often trying to destroy something as well, some bit of conventional wisdom, or some received way of viewing the world. Once in a while, at some point in the writing process, or at multiple points, you'll find just the right assemblage of quotations and transitions to create what seems at the time to be a very persuasive section. For some reason, when I'm lucky enough to enjoy those moments I can't help thinking, “I love it when a plan comes together.” (Although I never think of the A-Team in connection with that phrase, the show undoubtedly planted the phrase somewhere deep in my subconscious so it could rush to the surface at random moments as long as i live.) Also, as has happened so many times before, I now find myself with no time left to really finish my arguments in a convincing way. Why must I procrastinate something that really can be so enjoyable? So the advice to self: Just do it, you'll like it. The dreading of the paper is the hardest part, so next time, just skip it and get the damned thing done already! p.s.: The next time I mention that I have a paper of some kind due, will someone help me remember that I wrote this?

Posted 11:10 PM | 2L

Reality TV: Why Is it good to watch people being bad?

In my ongoing quest to do anything but the work I'm supposed to do, I've been keeping up with both “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race” and just wanted to note that “Survivor” is getting better each week, and “TAR” is just the best show ever ever ever on tv. “Survivor” is great because finally, for once, for the first time ever, a women's alliance against the men has held strong. Ok, in the latest episode it was shaken, and it was shaken earlier when Amy orchestrated the ouster of a woman who had said something that made her mad, but otherwise, it's been solid. What's funny about this is that nearly every season I've watched potential women's alliances fall apart, and this season when it first started looking like the women were going to run the board, I resented their ruthlessness. At first I thought Amy was far too mean and uncompromising in the way she manipulated her “team” of women. But then, each week, she earned my respect for both her brilliant psychological play and her excellent performance in challenges. She's simply been nothing but loyal to her original alliance and dedicated to her goal to be in the final two with another woman. If Amy doesn't win this season, it won't be because she hasn't been an incredible player. I'd say easily in the top five ever, maybe top two or three. The trick for power players, though, is always to manage the god complex tightly enough that you don't generate enough fear and resentment to fuel a viable alliance against you. Now, it may be too late for Amy; the last episode set the stage for her ouster, but she's strong enough that she could win some key immunities, and she's certainly proven herself smart enough and persuasive enough to outmaneuver her remaining rivals. This, my friends, is good tv. Prof. Yin has some additional interesting thoughts on what last night's episode might reveal about CBS. Nothing too surprising, really. Ridiculous, if CBS is editing out gay affection the way Prof. Yin suggests they might be, but not surprising. Oh, and the latest episode of survivor was a big ad for Powerbooks, Mac OS X, and iSight cameras from Apple, so of course you know the show has to be about the best thing on tv. I say “almost” because, as mentioned, “TAR” wins that prize. It combines great settings and exciting “challenges” with the most excruciating inside look at how mean people can be to those they supposedly love. For better or worse (pardon the pun), the most continuous theme I see is that men constantly underestimate and disrespect the women they claim to love, and this often comes with verbal abuse and public humiliation. The ideology of patriarchy exposed? To their credit, often the women involved display all sorts of retaliatory, defensive, and even offensive tactics, but still it's very sad. And sadly, it's great tv, too. While being on “Survivor” doesn't really appeal to me anymore b/c of its individualist qualities and the way it rewards ruthlessness, “TAR” is an entirely different story. I would love to try it, and I would hope I and my teammate, whoever it was, could find ways to cope with the stress and the inevitable setbacks and frustrations, w/out taking them out on each other. Of course, I'm sure many of the people who actually get on the show hope so, too.

Posted 10:54 AM | Comments (3) | tv land

Just *Don't* Do It

You're supposed to shop today. Can you resist the urge? And why are some people calling this “Black Friday” while actually promoting consumerism? I don't get it.

Posted 11:31 AM | Comments (3) | life generally

For the Record

This is the first time this month that my NaNo meter (not to be confused with a nanometer) has registered above the goal mark, and so, for the sake of posterity, I give you a sign of the 43,139 words I've written in the past 25 days.

Only 6,861 words to go, with five whole days remaining. I won't jinx it by saying anything about my chances of finishing at this point, but I will say that it feels much better to be at 43k than the 33k I was on just two days ago. Sure it's all crap crap crap, but hey, every word is a good word! Um, maybe I should now spend a few words on that paper I have due on Monday. You think?

Posted 07:01 PM | Comments (2) | NaNoWriMo

Novel Turkey

It has been rumored that the ambivalent novel will not be completed by the deadline of Nov. 30 at midnight; however, after a burst of 5,000 words last night, the novel is almost back on track, and is at least within a plausible striking range. The fat lady has still not sung a note. To the editors of the journal for whom I supposed to be writing a “note,”: Um, sorry. I'd rather write a novel. To the professors who will grade my finals and shake their heads in dismay as they plant my GPA irrevocably in the bottom left of the bell curve: Run run run, fast as you can, you can't catch me I'm the stinky cheese man! To everyone else: Happy Turkey Lurkey!

Posted 08:31 AM | Comments (3) | NaNoWriMo life generally

Gifts that Keep On Giving

Without meaning to, it seems I've been posting about contentious or controversial things recently, but it's getting to be holiday time around this here imbroglio, so let's talk about stuff that's really important ... like Secret Santas!

To use Secret Santa, all you need is a wishlist* at Amazon. First you tell Santa about yourself. Then on December 10th you will be told who you're buying a gift for. And by Christmas Day, everyone has a sparkly present to open!

So sign up, why dontcha? The Secret Santa also offers gift suggestions for those in need of such things. As far as I can tell it's not linked in any direct way to Amazon, although it sure would be a smart marketing move it were. Anyway, it's about that shopping time, so get crackin' and move this economy forward! If you're a true patriot, everything you buy this year will be imported so that our trade deficit can get even larger and we can continue proving to the world how “exceptional” America is. And speaking of exceptionalism, just look at our national debt—largest ever ever ever! No one can beat the U.S.A.! Oops! Did I say that? Sorry, lost the holiday spirit for a moment when reality intruded. But not to worry, there's more gifty goodness going on at tauntinghappyfunball, which is spearheading a blogger mix cd exchange:

Basically, you make a CD for a stranger and send it to them. Simple. All it takes is a bit of a time commitment and a few bucks to get a CD and mail it. But the best part is that you aren't trying to tailor it to anyone in particular. In fact, I think the best way to do it is just see who wants to do it, make the mixes, and then have one person randomly assign a recipient. Since it's my idea, I'll be happy to do that.

Definitely a cool idea! Scheherazade took it in a slightly different direction by offering a mix cd to the first 20 readers who responded to her offer. Also a cool idea! Don't you think the ambivalent imbroglio needs a soundtrack? I mean, America has a soundtrack (to which I've been listening a lot, recently); doesn't ai need one, too? Ah, but there are those finals coming up.... So until I get around to actually making an ai soundtrack, you might enjoy the Top 40 Band In America Today from the information leafblower. Sounds like a pretty great soundtrack to me.

Posted 10:14 AM | Comments (1) | life generally

Public Interest Law: It's Not About You

In a rough draft of an article about why he's not going to work at a firm, Jeremy Blachman recently wrote:

I have heard people defend their decision to work at a law firm by comparing it to public interest work. That you work the same hours doing the same kind of work but you get paid a lot less and don’t get free coffee. I might try and argue that there’s public interest work that’s more rewarding than firm work, because you might feel like you’re doing more good for the world. That might not be a very good argument. Even if it is, I’m not the right one to make it. Other people can make it better than I can. My argument is that even if that’s true, it misses the point. Even if law firms come out on top if you compare them to public interest jobs, it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t the only jobs out there. There’s a whole world of other things people do. I feel like it’s easy to forget that. And if practicing law is your passion, maybe it’s okay to forget that. Maybe that really is the entirety of the universe of jobs that interest you.

I actually haven't heard that argument before—that public and private interest law are really the same except that one pays better. Is that really an argument people make to justify working at a firm? While Jeremy is right that there are lots of other things to do besides public interest legal jobs or working in a firm, there are also many more (and more important) differences between public and private interest law besides the money. First, I know lots of public interest lawyers and most of them do not work anything like the same brutal hours that firms are notorious for. They get paid less, sure, but their “benefits package” often includes good health care, a casual dress code (so they don't have to waste money they don't have on clothes for work and can wear what they find comfortable rather than what the partners or clients expect or demand), more flexible vacation time, and shorter hours. And, of course, one big benefit of working in the public interest is that you're more likely to be able to go home at night feeling proud of how you spent your day because you did something good for society. And that's just it: The most important difference between public and private interest law has nothing to do with what it does for you, the attorney. No, the real difference between these two career paths is what they do for other people. Simply put, if you work in the private interest, your clients will be mostly people with money trying to keep that money or get more of it, and the purpose of their litigation will often be their own private gain. Another term for private interest law (not all of it, but too much) could be: Greedy Law. On the other hand, if you work in the public interest, your clients will mostly be people without money trying to get justice or protect themselves from people with money, and the purpose of their litigation will often be the maintenance and protection of their own basic civil and human rights. Another term of public interest law could be: Public Protection Law. (I would include the dread “trial lawyer” or “plaintiff's attorney” in this category, as well.) So when someone suggests that private and public interest law are really the same except that one pays more, that's just not true. One attempts to make the world a better place for whoever can pay the most, while the other attempts to make the world a better place for all of us. And a good way to see the difference is to stop asking what a particular job can do for you, and ask instead what a job could allow you to do for other people. That makes the differences more clear for me, anyway. Disclaimer: I know there are thousands of terrific people working in firms and other “private interest” legal jobs who are doing great work that both pays well and also makes things a little better for all of us. Not all private interest jobs are “bad,” nor are all public interest jobs “good.” The above differences are generalizations made for the sole purpose of helping to clarify what appears to be some confusion about the differences between the two career paths.

Posted 11:20 AM | Comments (12) | law general

Conference: Public Service and the Law

FYI for public interest law geeks: The U of VA School of Law is hosting a conference on Public Service and the Law on February 11-12, 2005, featuring a keynote by Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU.

Posted 02:46 PM | law general

Humble Pie: ABA Not Awful

As you can see from the comments in the post below, I wasn't being very accurate when I made a leap from passing the bar exam to a critique of the ABA. II apologize for the misfire. To a large extent, I don't know what I'm talking about, but let's see if I can clarify it a little. My understanding is that one of the functions of the ABA is to act as an accrediting body, just as Princeton Review says here:

In most states, a law school graduate cannot take the bar exam without having attended an ABA-approved school (or, in legal lingo, a school that has earned ABA accreditation.) And in most states, passing the dreaded bar exam is a requirement for the practice of law, so a degree from a non-ABA-accredited school is a ticket to nowhere.

So there's a connection between the ABA and the high cost of law school, which was really the complaint at the heart of yesterday's rant. Exactly what the connection is, I'm still not sure. What are those accreditation requirements? How much do they add to the cost of law school? Do they stipulate the three-year requirement, or is that just something all schools have decided to do on their own? Also, according to the Princeton Review again, “[m]ost states won't let you take the bar exam if you haven't attended an ABA-accredited school,” so while joining the ABA is purely voluntary, the organization can have a pretty sizable impact on anyone who wants to practice law, regardless of whether that person decides to become a member of the ABA. Beyond that, state bar associations are largely responsible for the vague UPL statutes in many states, as well as the selective enforcement of them. So it's not the ABA's fault if these statutes don't serve the public interest, but is the ABA blameless here? Doesn't it have some influence over the state bars, which in turn have a lot of influence over the state legislatures that make these laws? But whatever. I'm sure the ABA does many very good things, and for that I am thankful. Consider all this a bit of constructive criticism from someone who really doesn't know enough about the details involved. If you can fill in the gaps a little, please do. UPDATE: A bit more on accreditation, including a link to the ABA standards for approval of law schools. Also, it appears Barry University School of Law recently sued the ABA over its accreditation standards, calling them monopolistic and racist. Sounds fascinating, but I don't have time right now for deeper digging...

Posted 10:12 AM | Comments (7) | law general

Damn you, ABA!

Thinking about passing the bar (since Mr. Poon just did that and all) forces me to face the fact that I, too, am striving to become a member of one of the nation's most antisocial cartels. This is not a source of joy; the ABA is not a friend of the good and the just, as far as I can tell. For one thing, it forces its members to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of joining, then appears to exist for no other reason than to ensure the majority of those members can charge their clients enough money to pay back the debt required to get that coveted membership in the first place. Yeah, the ABA sure is a great thing. The ABA calls itself “the largest voluntary professional association in the world.” What a joke! Sure, it's “voluntary” in the sense that no one is forced to join . . . unless you want to practice law. IIn fact, every state has an “unlawful practice of law” (UPL) statute that makes it a crime for unaccredited individuals to do the things that lawyers do. These UPL statutes are notoriously vague and broad and allow the Bar in each state to harass and criminalize people such as paralegals who may be so audacious as to try to help people accomplish simple tasks like getting a divorce or writing a will. Why would Bar Associations do this? To protect their monopoly and the unconscionable fees it allows them to charge. Oh yeah, membership is voluntary, all right. What else does the ABA do? It claims to provide “law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public.” And there you have it. The ABA's law school accreditation helps police law schools to make sure they have nice buildings and overpaid faculty so that they can justify their extortionate tuition. It also requires that law school be three years, rather than the one or two that could easily be adequate. This forces many law students to start their career with so much debt they don't have time to think about anything other than making money, which is just fine w/the ABA because that's what it cares about too. I can't speak to the ABA's continuing legal education (CLE) requirements, but they sound incredibly hokey and rather than ensuring that lawyers remain qualified to practice it sounds like they ensure that hotels and conference planners will have plenty of customers. And I'm sure the ABA gets some nice fees every time someone wants to offer CLE credit for one its conference talks or whatever. Money, baby, that's the name of the ABA game. As for the ABA's other self-professed activities, I know that another word for most of the mail I get from the ABA and its affiliate is “junk,” not “information about the law.” And while I'm sure that the ABA offers some great programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, I'm also sure that we don't need the ABA for that; independent non-profits and local governments could probably take the best of those programs over and do a better job with them. Finally, the ABA's “initiatives to improve the legal system for the public” seem like a hypocritical joke. The ABA is responsible for legal services costing so much that huge swaths of the public can't afford them, and then it claims to be improving the legal system for the public? Yeah, right. Ok, so some sort of organization of law practitioners might be a good thing, but the ABA has gotten way, way, way out of control; if it ever served the public interest, I really can't see how it does now.

Posted 09:22 AM | Comments (4) | law general

Congratulations Mr. Poon!

Mr. Poon has officially passed the bar, and for that, we salute him.

Posted 06:19 PM | Comments (1) | law general

Congratulations Mr. Poon!

Mr. Poon has officially passed the bar, and for that, we salute him.

Posted 06:13 PM | law general

Anecdotes from today's schools

I've recently heard some disturbing stories about what's happening in public schools today. First, on a recent Monday morning in a public school kindergarten in the Midwest, the teacher asked her class of eager pupils, “How many of you went to church yesterday? Raise your hands.” All but one child raised his hand. To make matters worse, the teacher then said, “How many of you did not go to church yesterday? Raise your hands.” And of course, the same child sat alone in the room with his hand raised. I have no idea why the teacher was asking these questions, but it seems obvious that even if she had some pedagogical reason for talking about church attendance in her kindergarten class, she used the opportunity to strongly suggest that there was something not normal or even “bad” about people who don't go to church. Hello? This is a public school! Second, in an East Coast middle school, parents recently attended a “parents' night” to hear from the teachers what was going on at the school. There, the parents learned that the school has an official policy that teachers will never use the word “evolution” because it is too controversial; they also teach the principles of evolution as a “theory” among others. Teaching evolution as a theory is fine; that's what it is. It happens to have lots of support, but ok, we can't be “certain.” (of course, by the same logic we really can't be “certain” that we actually exist; our existence is a theory supported by lots of facts and information, but hey, we could be brains in a vat.) The point here is that this is a public middle school. I think the average 11-14 year-old can handle the massive controversy surrounding the word “evolution.” No wonder our nation seems stupid; we're teaching our kids to be that way.

Posted 08:32 AM | Comments (5) | general politics

Friday Question: Movie Double Dip?

Do you ever double dip at the movie theater? By that I mean, after you've seen one movie, do you ever exit that movie and slip quietly into another that's just about to begin in the same multiplex? When you pay $10 to see a movie, do you feel justified in seeing two? Anonymous responses welcome, of course. I'm just curious. I don't feel any qualms about this myself b/c I feel I've paid for about a thousand extra movie screenings in all the exorbitant movie tickets I've purchased, but apparently some people are very opposed to the double dipping. Where do you stand on this burning issue? ;-)

Posted 08:19 AM | Comments (10) | ai movies

Creepy “Good Job”

If I had more time.... I'd track down video footage of every time Bush has nominated a new cabinet member recently, and check the footage to see if Bush says “good job!” to the new nominee after the nominee says about three sentences. He did it with Condi and with Spellings, the new education secretary. Is it just a patriarchal thing he's doing with women, or is it something else? Whatever it is, it creeps me out. The short remarks by the nominees make them sound uncertain, lacking in confidence, and to have Bush step in and tell them they did a “good job” because they completed three sentences makes it seem like he's treating them like children. So the overall impression is that the relationship between Bush and his new cabinet is that of father to children, or possibly master to sycophants. Whatever, the darkest days are still to come...

Posted 09:09 AM | general politics

Kids these days!

Conversation between two undergraduate women in line at Einstien Bagel on the GW campus:

1: “So have you been talking online?” 2: “No, on the phone! Every week!” 1: “Even better! Is he seeing anyone?” 2: “I doubt it.” 1: “That's so cool.” 2: “He's so sweet. Last night he told me he had this new music and that I was gonna love it. He said I'd start taking my clothes off the minute I heard it.” 1: “Ahh, that's so sweeeet. I wish I knew someone who would talk to me like that.”

This is what passes for smooth these days? Is this what it feels like to get old?

Posted 11:14 AM | Comments (8) | 2L

I am not a witness

Ok. Being a witness in a trial is hard. The better the lawyers, the harder it is. Or maybe it's just being a pretend witness in a mock trial that's hard. I've now performed the role of the latter twice, and both times I've found myself underprepared and too easily flustered by the cross examination. They fluster you by picking an obscure word or fact from your earlier deposition (sworn statement) to quote back to you, asking you if you said that before in an accusing way that makes it seem like you probably committed a crime if you did say that. It's not fun. Yesterday I was supposed to be a doctor testifying about a former patient who was now dead. The patient's insurance company was trying to prove that he committed suicide, because then the insurance company wouldn't have to pay his wife's claim on his life insurance policy. So I was testifying about a conversation I had with the deceased several years before he died, and on cross examination the attorney asked me: “Didn't you say that he feared he might not be able to take care of himself or his family?” Sitting on the stand, I knew he had said he was worried about taking care of his family, but did he say he was worried about himself, or was the attorney trying to get me to extend my testimony in a damaging way? And then, in hindsight, the question doesn't matter anyway. Sure, he said he was worried about whether he could take care of himself; he just lost a big promotion and was worried about his future in general. Nothing unusual about that. That's a long way from any sort of suggestion he might kill himself. But the way the question comes at you it's not a question, it's an accusation, and it's easy to get defensive. Get defensive, and you look like you've got something to hide. Juries don't like that, and then you might cause the poor impoverished widow to lose her case against this nasty insurance company. That would be sad. But while I'm a pretty terrible witness, these mock trial things are still fun. And now I know that if I'm ever cross-examining a witness, one good strategy is to make my questions sound like accusations, and then the witness is mine! (insert evil laughtrack and perhaps an evil Mr. Burns fingertip temple for good measure here).

Posted 07:30 AM | Comments (4) | 2L

Should've Known Better

Note: You can safely ignore this post. I'm sure it's just the typical pre-finals angst here and everything will look rosier come December 15 or so when those finals are over. Or maybe the rosiness won't come until grades come out in February. Or maybe that will kill the rosiness. Whatever. It's all cyclical and predictable and really, I should just go study. Ambivalence about law school reigns. While good law students like Energy Spatula spend hours in the library trying to nail down complicated rules (and getting jobs—congratulations!), I've been feeling like law school is a distant acquaintance I haven't seen or really thought about in years. It's time to buckle down, outline, study study, but... Well, as regular readers known, and as you can see again from the lengthy discussion in comments of this post, I haven't been thrilled with my experience of law school so far. That's no shock; lots of law students aren't thrilled with law school. If we took a survey, we might just find a good majority of current and former students actually loathe (or loathed) law school. Why? I could list reasons, but they all beg the question: Does law school have to be such a crap experience? It doesn't, but it is. Everyone told me it would be like this. (Well, not everyone; I know practicing attorneys who loved law school, but only a couple.) I knew it would be like this. I mean, in theory you could get a bunch of people together to study the laws that regulate our society and expect to get some lively discussion of pressing issues, some critical thinking, some new ideas, some passion. But that's not law school. That might be something professors do in their own research and writing, but not in their teaching. Not when they're teaching 100 students or more per class, and not when they teach in an educational system designed by and for business/corporate interests. But I really don't want to go into it all here. For more thoughts on how law school could be improved, check out an upcoming edition of the [non]billable hour's five by five series (sometime in the next couple of weeks; I'll link to it when it comes up). So it's time to do the study thing. And all the other law school stuff. And then I see the decision by Evan of Going to Cooley to drop out of law school for now (for family reasons, I gather), and I admire it, and it makes me jealous. Being a law school drop out sounds so blissful! What a joy it would be to walk away now! But I fear the joy would be short-lived as I faced the prospect of getting a job and living a life wondering what I might have done had I finished this damned degree. And then I see Jeremy decide to turn down an offer from a big firm because the law just doesn't really grab him like writing does. I think, yeah, me too! Or, me neither! Maybe I should just do what Jeremy's doing—get the J.D. and then do something else. Obviously, that's an option. But that means I still have to take these damnable finals in the next few weeks, doesn't it? *sigh*

Posted 09:10 AM | Comments (3) | 2L

bogging Down

Apologies to any readers who don't give a rolling doughnut about madcap novel-writing, but that's sort of what I'm doing and thinking about these days so maybe you can just skip these posts and not hold them against me? I'll become a law student again soon enough, I'm sure. In fact, that's one possible reason I've never made it past about 36k words in any previous year. Starting a novel is easy, and putting the rest of your life on hold for a few days, or even a week, maybe two—that's not so hard either. But at some point, the backlog of work begins to catch up with you, and the focus required to keep a narrative moving becomes more and more difficult to maintain. Thinking back on my past NaNoWriMo experiences, it seems that it was always around week two or three that I really began to sputter, and I wonder if the reason for that was simply that the rest of my life began reasserting itself, demanding attention, and making each word that more difficult to come up with. As I try to juggle the different demands on my time this month, I find my mind pulled in so many directions that when I do sit down to write, it's hard to concentrate, or even remember the story I'm supposed to be telling. Could it be that a month is, in fact, too much time to give yourself for hacking out a really really bad 50k-word novel? Maybe Sui Generis is onto something doing nearly the whole thing in two weeks... Elsewhere: The WaPo featured NaNo yesterday!

Posted 09:10 AM | Comments (5) | NaNoWriMo

Oh, and....

I forgot to say yesterday: I want to be Chris Baty! What could be better than traveling around the country basically giving pep talks to writers, meeting writers, and writing? Why am I in law school, again? I mean, am I in law school? Is there really only one more full week of class this semester? Do I really have a 25-page paper due at the end of this month? Do I really have four finals to study for and take? Do I really need to apply for jobs for next summer? I mean, really? Is all this necessary? It all seems like such a useless bother.... Does this mean anything, or am I just being silly? Nevermind. I'm behind on my words...

Posted 08:05 AM | Comments (13) | 2L NaNoWriMo

Every Word is A good word

That's the great thing about NaNoWriMo—every word is a good word. When else can you say that? What other time do you get to write anything you want w/out worrying what anyone else will think? Freedom! I went to Barnes & Noble last night to listen to Chris Baty, founder of NaNoWriMo, talk about the “event,” why he does it, etc. It was great hearing him read his really bad dialogue—it was really bad, but that was the point. Mine is also really bad, but hey, it doesn't matter. He also gave some advice that I wish I'd heard may years ago because it makes terrific sense. He recommended that even if you don't write in a straight line from the beginning to the end of your book, it's a good idea to try to get a beginning scene, a middle, and an end. That way, you have a complete frame, and it's a lot easier to fill in the empty spaces later (like after NaNo if you get to 50k words and still want to work on it) than it is to make up that frame. I also have a tendency to reach a point in my novel where I start digging plot holes that go nowhere, but I feel stuck in them, like the only way out is to write my way out, which turns out to be mostly impossible, and therefore I get stuck in the hole and never finish the frame or anything else. This advice may prevent that kind of digging. At any rate, it will help give me some easy words, since I sort of have vague ideas of a middle and end and I'm sort of eager to write them. Maybe the next 10-20k words won't be so bad, after all. The evening w/Baty was kind of funny b/c when everyone got there we all sat around sort of quiet, maybe making half-hearted nervous conversation like “so how's your novel going?” I actually met some great people and we traded writing stories a bit, but as we waited for Baty to start talking, only a couple of people were using the time to add to their word counts. I know I could have easily put down an extra 500 words or so during the wait, but I felt self-conscious about pulling out my computer and tapping away. Then, after Baty had spoken for half an hour or whatever about what great craziness NaNo-ing is, the barriers and self-consciousness just melted away and everyone seemed eager to pull out the writing tools and start racking up the words. Like I said, that's a great thing about NaNo: it gives you license to be just a little crazy, less self-conscious, more free. Don't you wishi you were writing a novel this month? Hey, there's still time!

Posted 08:53 AM | NaNoWriMo

Week Two Woopty Doo

Working on the novel, slowly inching my way, 100, 900, 2000 words a day. I sit down to write .... What the heck should I say? But you know the saying, about no work and all play. These comments at Stay of Execution (from commenter “Matt” of Second Person Singular) perfectly capture one of the best things about creative writing:

...i've never written a page on which something unexpected didn't happen, i've never had any creative work merely assume the form i expected before beginning, there is always serendipity, the unexpected, something ....more than i was aware of when i set out...be it painting, or cartooning, or designing buildings, or writing... and those moments, come to think of it, are usually the most wonderful occasions in the piece, they are the strong points.

It's true. I'm sure if I ever sat down to edit and rewrite these drafts I've tapped out in the course of past NaNoWriMos I would find that the only parts worth saving are the parts I had never even thought about until they appeared on the page. The serendipity of the unexpected is not always welcome, though. I often have this problem where I'm writing along and a character develops some habit or tic or does something that requires explanation, and that sends me on some tangent, and that often creates new scenes and characters that I don't know what to do with. And I think this is where some theories of writing say you should just go with it, follow your characters where they lead you. And that's fine, but I don't see how I'll ever get a story out of it. At some point you have to impose some discipline on that rampant serendipity, give it some shape, put up some fences and force it to roam around in a more limited area. If you don't, you'll end up writing endlessly and creating creating creating something that no one, including yourself, will ever be able to read. The great thing about NaNoWriMo, though, is that you don't have to worry too much about those fences, that discipline. Not this month. I mean, you can if you want, but there's no pressure to do so. It's all about quantity, not quality. Unlike the phenomenal Sui Generis who already has nearly 40k words, I'm falling way behind in quantity, so, um . . . bye.

Posted 07:05 AM | Comments (2) | NaNoWriMo

Fear Breeds Repression

Still a little down after the election last week? Well, let's get over it, shall we? We've got some work to do, people! In that spirit, please read the following rationale for the First Amendment from Justice Brandeis writing in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (emphasis added):

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Brandeis was concurring here w/a majority opinion that has since been overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). However, Brandenburg implicitly endorsed Brandeis' opinion, so it's still more or less “good dicta,” and hey, we'll work for that, right? So here's to speaking up, and speaking out! Here's to Sonnets for Democracy! And here's hope “those who won our independence” were right, that “the power of reason as applied through public discussion” will be enough to overcome the tyranny of a certain majority that reared its ugly head one fateful day in November, 2004. The Counter Inaugural might be a good place to begin.

Posted 03:48 PM | Comments (2) | election 2004

With all due respect

Dear Justice Antonin Scalia, You are a punk. The condescending and caustic hyperbole of your opinions—especially your dissents—is an insult to your fellow Justices, not to mention the Congress and legislatures whose laws you so frequently and snidely mock, nor the citizens of the United States, for whose intelligence you so frequently show so little respect. This letter was occasioned specifically by your dissent in U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, in which you superciliously suggest once again that the majority has created an entirely new U.S. Constitution, simply because its interpretation of a part of that document differs from yours. Puulleeeez! You obviously like to think of yourself as a smart man, but you too often write like an overeducated grade school bully. Don't you realize that the condescending smirk etched between the lines of nearly everything you write only reduces the credibility of your opinions? Don't you understand that when you exaggerate your opponent's position, it only weakens your own position by giving your reader cause to doubt the sincerity and reliability of what you write? Even if I were to agree with your arguments at times, you force me to resist that impulse merely because those arguments come dressed in a costume of egomaniacal elitism of the most insulting variety. Get over yourself, will you? Sincerely disagreeing with you and your massive ego, -ambimb

Posted 05:10 AM | Comments (9) | 2L

Quickly Now

Heidi's maps of how the electoral vote went down do an awesome job of putting the supposed “mandate” in perspective. UPDATE: More map madness to make sense of the mayhem. Oh, and if you want a copy of the Daily Mirror's memorable post-election cover for posterity, you can get one here. After missing tons of class and reading this semester, I'm going to try to start being a law student again for a while. In the aftermath of this election, I'm less convinced than ever that some kind of legal career is even worthwhile, and still less sure of what direction I should take in such a career. But the question seems to be: Do we need good progressive legal activists, or do we need militant revolutionary leaders? Since I just don't think I'm cut out for the truly radical fight, maybe being a lawyer is my only option. Speaking of revolution, Happy Bolshevik Revolution anniversary, one day late. Do you know how hard it is to read U.S. labor law with the Bolshevik Revolution in your head? Is it just me, or is the world a really sad place right now?

Posted 10:40 AM | Comments (5) | election 2004

Golden Rule Politics

A proposal for the Democrats: Starting today, start preaching the gospel. Adopt a simple theme, and apply it to every possible issue. I'll make it easy for you: The Golden Rule. As I learned it, the rule is very simple: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, even simpler but less mantric: Treat everyone else like you would like to be treated. Therefore:

• If you'd like health insurance, you need to help others get health insurance.
• If you would like to know that your children are going to be able to grow up in a world with plenty of clean air and water, you're going to have to start taking better care of the environment.
• If you want social security benefits, you have to be willing to continue paying into the system, and you have to support measures that will keep that money safe for future recipients.
• If you want the right to marry the person you love, and to enjoy all the legal benefits that are attached to such a union, you have to be willing to grant the same to all other Americans.
• If you want a decent wage and some sense of job security, you have to support increased minimum wages, living wages, and other measures to make employers more responsible to their employees.
• If you don't want to have to work in a sweatshop, you're going to have to support trade policies that prohibit sweatshop labor—and you're going to have to stop shopping at Wal-Mart!
• If you would like to know that you'll be able to safely and legally get an abortion if you became pregnant and did not want or could not afford to have a child, you need to support and preserve a woman's right to choose.
• If you want your kids to go to good schools, with good teachers and rich, diverse opportunities, you have to support school funding measures to ensure these schools have the resources they need. (Voucher programs do not qualify here, since they allow people to be selfish in making sure their child gets a good education, while leaving other children and parents to cope with failing schools. Is that how you'd like to be treated?)
• If you want to be free from terrorism and the fear of outside forces trying to control the way your country governs itself, you have to support the autonomy and security of all other nations around the world. Admit that the so-called “American exception” is a cruel hypocrisy that you only tolerate because you're an American, and which you would not tolerate if you were an Iranian, an Iraqi, a Venezuelan, etc.

I could go on, but you get the idea. It's strong, visionary, yet simple. Sure, there is more nuance and complexity to each of these issues than the simple application of the “golden rule” can capture, but that can all be fleshed out as we go forward. The magic is the apparent simplicity of Golden Rule Politics. Most people will just “get it.” It will help the Democrats speak to the millions of Americans who see faith and values as their most important issues, and it will play equally well with more secular voters. Golden Rule Politics is nondenominational; every major world religion I know of has some form of the Golden Rule within its most basic teachings. (Are there any religious scholars out there who would provide textual support for that?) Golden Rule Politics has the added advantage of exposing the Republican view of morality and values for the hypocritical sham that it is. If anything, Bush-type religion may find support in the Old Testament's “eye for an eye” kind of thinking, but it displays little of the moderation and tolerance added by the New Testament. Golden Rule Politics could remind religious conservatives of the values many if not all of them were probably taught as children, and should create common ground between them and the rest of the planet. Disclaimer: I'm no religious scholar, but the beauty of Golden Rule Politics is that it doesn't require any particular religious knowledge or affiliation. If you have those things, you get the history of the ideas, but w/out that background, the rules are still simple and clear. Anyway, it's an idea....

Posted 01:45 PM | Comments (8) | election 2004

A Partial Explanation

I've heard talking heads say, and I agree, that many Americans have long supported Bush because they simply can't bring themselves to believe that he could have done all the bad things his critics say he's done. And really what we're talking about is this: Many Americans are simply horrified by the thought that their president, the “leader of the free world,” could take them to war and send more than a thousand American soldiers (and counting) to their deaths—on a stack of lies, exaggerations, and intentionally misleading innuendo. For these people, voting Bush out would have been an admission that they were wrong, that their president was a liar, and worse, that he was such an abominable person that would put greater value on oil or global power than he put on the lives of their loved ones and the peace and stability of the world. In this view, voting for Bush was a defense mechanism, a way for people to protect their minds and preserve their basic hope and belief that human beings—Americans, especially, and American presidents even more so—are good, trustworthy, and would never, ever, send thousands of people to their deaths without damn good reasons. Oh, and on a more basic level, voting against Bush would also be potentially admitting that we are not safer since invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power. In fact, it might be an admission that we are less safe because by doing this we have created more terrorists, not fewer, more hatred for America, not less. If you're kind of worried about terrorism to begin with, afraid that there really are shadowy armies of militants around the world who would like to see you or your country suffer, well, wouldn't it just freak you right out to admit that a huge part of what your country had been doing to supposedly make you safer was actually making you more vulnerable to terrorism? The mind recoils, then hand pushes the button for Bush. So yes, this election was about values. People did vote based on their core beliefs of right, wrong, good, bad. But this is not to say that more Americans agree with the republicans or Bush on these things; only that their basic beliefs in the good and the true made them utterly incapable of facing the horrible truth they would have to acknowledge if they decided to vote against Bush. Yes, Bush and Co. are winning the culture war—by bludgeoning the hijacking the basic goodness of Americans and turning it against us. By the way, if you're baffled by the vehemence of the anti-Bush sentiment in the country, look no further than the simple fact that loathing and even hatred are almost unavoidable responses for those who see the Iraq war as a mistake. Many of these people, myself included, really do believe that Bush and Cheney and the whole gang lied, manipulated, and intentionally mislead in order to get the authorization and support they needed to go to war. Exactly why they did this is the subject of some disagreement, but that they actually did it is not in doubt for these people. Can Bush “reach out” to these people who voted for Kerry and “heal the division” in the country? Yeah, sure. But first he'd have to publicly admit he'd lied, apologize for taking us to war on false pretenses, renounce all future interests in Iraq and Iraqi oil beyond a basic desire to see an autonomous and more or less democratic Iraq, invite the U.N. to take over control of all peacekeeping and rebuilding in the country, and maybe revoke every contract given to Halliburton since Bush/Cheney took office and get his Justice Department to bring suit against that company for stealing millions of dollars from the American people. Is any of that going to happen? Ha.

Posted 01:30 PM | Comments (1) | election 2004

NaNoWriMoProMe

The NaNo novel is underway, and now I can share my progress with you via the National Novel Writing Month Progress Meter (NaNoWriMoProMe):

The graphic at right (you might have to scroll down) will update regularly as I update the word count—daily, I hope. That way, if I succeed in hitting the 50k mark this year, I do so publicly; if I fail, I do that publicly, too. I don't want to jinx anything, but I've already decided that if push comes to shove this month, the novel has to take backseat to studying, catching up, finishing my note for the journal, etc. That makes it unlikely I'll “win” NaNo this year, but it's still fun trying. Plus, I'm really loving what I've got started so far; I think it has more promise than anything I've tried in previous years. Maybe that will make the difference. I guess we'll see, won't we? SO how's your novel progressing? ;-)

Posted 10:41 AM | Comments (2) | NaNoWriMo

Another Post-Election Collection

People will be talking about this election for four more years, and maybe long after that, and while I won't be one of those people every day, it's still far too early to move completely on to other things. So first, this awesome map of the vote by county makes the country appear more divided than ever. Perhaps that's why some people are starting to talk less in terms of Red and Blue states and more in terms of a Purple Nation. Still, even though Kerry's support was concentrated in a few small geographic locations, that doesn't make it less significant. This is especially true when you consider that Kerry may actually have won—in a sort of hypothetical sense. Of course, he didn't win, but Greg Palast explains why the discarded and uncounted votes would very likely have put Kerry in the White House. Is this just the talk of sore losers? Perhaps, but we do know that at least one voting machine gave Bush nearly 4,000 votes that didn't exist, and if that happened, oh, about 40 times across Ohio (whether by accident or some other means), the margin of victory is suddenly gone. (A bit more on the evoting problems here and here.) Some Democratic congresspeeps are calling for an inquiry into evoting “irregularities.” With both the executive and legislative (and arguably the judicial) branches of gov't locked up by the Repubs, don't hold your breath on that investigation. The truth may want to be free, but for stuff like this, it's probably going to have to just keep wanting for at least four more years. And it's going to be a long four years; Republican gloating is so not pretty. Meanwhile, lots of people will be talking about how the vote broke down—who really voted for Bush? Sadly, it appears the working class has decided that trickle down economics and other economic policies destined to destroy the middle class are actually good for them. Maybe they appreciate the morbid spectacle, like some kind of sadistic circus act: Come one, come all! Watch as the gap between rich and poor gets wider! step right up folks, to see the gross inequality become even more appalling! I thought we'd all figured out that trickle down economics was just a nice way of describing how the rich piss on the poor, but I guess not. Is this What's the Matter with Kansas? Optimists are speculating that Bush might be more centrist in his first term as elected president/second term serving. Michael Hirsh makes a good point: It would seem difficult for Bush's second term to be more radical than the first, so moving more to the center may be his only option. But no, I don't think so. Bush and Rove etc. are good at what they do; every time you think they've gone as far as they can go, they go farther. I'd like to be optimistic, but we tried that in 2000 and it failed. I'd rather prepare for the worst. Bush's arrogance was on full display in his rare press conference as he admitted that he didn't have the support of the nation before this election, but said that now that he has “the will of the people behind him” he's going to start enforcing rules on the press. That's just the beginning, we can be sure. If you live in a blue state, get your Don't Blame Me t-shirts today. “Responsible clothing for the politically frustrated.” Yeah, but what about D.C.? You can also get a Blame Ohio t-shirt there, and elsewhere you're invited to say Sorry Everybody. All of that is great, but maybe we should start a site called “The Next Campaign Starts Today” because while it's nice to be sorry, it's better to work for positive change. This Ohio mother captures that pretty well:

So what am I going to tell my kids? I'm going to tell them that Bush won. I'm going to tell them that the electoral process worked. I'm also going to remind them that voting is only part of the process. The next part is to do everything we can as citizens and activists to reign in the havoc that Bush and his cronies are prepared to wreak, to find strong progressive candidates who will win the next elections, and to remind the world that here in Ohio, as in the rest of the country, there are lots of people -- half of us for sure, and probably more -- who want our country and our world to be different. We're here, we voted, and we're not going away.

In that vein, Kos says here's to hope, and don't mourn, organize. Cass Sunstein agrees, arguing that “healing” means surrender:

Critics of the Bush presidency do not need to heal our divisions but to insist on them. President Bush has presided over an extraordinarily divisive and polarizing administration. The suggestion that we should now “heal our divisions” is really a suggestion not for unity but for capitulation.

My sister agrees. Story: Someone came into her office and started moaning about how she hoped we could all put down our swords and come together as one nation. My sister called BS on that and said, “Americans don't need to put down their swords they need to pick them up so they don't get slaughtered by the Bush administration!” Yeah, my sister rocks. So as long as we're picking up the swords, Salon collected some “what to we do now?” thoughts from prominent pundit types, and I obviously agree w/what Arianna Huffington had a to say:

Already there are those in the party convinced that, in the interest of expediency, Democrats need to put forth more “centrist” candidate -- i.e., Republican-lite candidates -- who can make inroads in the all-red middle of the country. I'm sorry to pour salt on raw wounds, but isn't that what Tom Daschle did? He even ran ads showing himself hugging the president! But South Dakotans refused to embrace this lily-livered tactic. Because, ultimately, copycat candidates fail in the way “me-too” brands do. Unless the Democratic Party wants to become a permanent minority party, there is no alternative but to return to the idealism, boldness and generosity of spirit that marked the presidencies of FDR and JFK and the short-lived presidential campaign of Bobby Kennedy. Otherwise, the Republicans will continue their winning ways, convincing tens of millions of hardworking Americans to vote for them even as they cut their services and send their children off to die in an unjust war.

Camille Paglia offers some good advice, as well:

Progressives must do some serious soul-searching. Too often they are guilty of arrogance, insularity and sanctimony. They claim to speak for the common man but make few forays beyond their own affluent, upper-middle-class circles. There needs to be less preaching and more direct observation of social reality. America is evolving, and populism may be shifting to the Republican side.

Paul Waldman, editor of The Gadflyer, joins the chorus of those calling for energy and activism in the face of defeat:

So where do progressives go from here? First, they should spend the next four years fighting. If Kerry had won, there would be Republicans drafting articles of impeachment at this very moment, ready to fill in the blank of an imagined crime in January. As I did in the article I wrote for the launch of this magazine, I offer the movie quote that best describes today's Republican Party, from The Terminator: “It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. And it absolutely will not stop – ever – until you are dead.” There are a lot of very bad things George W. Bush is going to try to do over the next four years, but they can be stopped.

Of course, organizing and continuing the fight doesn't have to mean increasing division in the country. As Maureen Dowd suggests, “ W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.” Somewhere there must be a balance between fighting for what we believe is right, and completely alienating those who don't agree or don't understand. I don't think the balance needs to be that difficult to strike, but obviously we haven't reached it yet. Here's to trying.

---

Miscellaneous other post-election hoo-haw: Why Americans Hate Democrats, a collection of opinions from prominent Democrats that I haven't really had time to digest yet. Still thinking about moving to Canada? Get in line. The last word on Bush's bulge? The SS says it was a bulletproof vest. Ok, thanks. But um, how, exactly, would you have compromised the president's security by admitting that a month ago? One of Newsweek's election post-mortems summarizes the whole Kerry campaign, from the moment party leaders annointed him as their nominee (long before a single primary vote was cast), to getting his ass handed to him by Howard Dean, to being “electable,” to being ultimately defeated. Wow, what a great story. Not. But it is consistent with the idea that Kerry just was never a very good candidate. Do people in red states have a lower average IQ than those in blue states? Probably not (the data in that table appear to be unreliable), but... Alabama vote shows some Old South sympathies. Yay. Ha.

Posted 08:07 AM | election 2004

New Spam Technique

Apologies to anyone who has tried recently to comment using a “yahoo.com” email address. I've been deluged with spam on this blog and in response I've been using MT-Blacklist very aggressively, banning URLs left and right. It seems that in the latest batch of mass banning, I ended up blocking all comments from “yahoo.com” email addresses, making people using such addresses completely unable to post. Thanks to Scott for pointing out the error so I could fix it. Now all you yahoos (no offense intended) can comment away, and I hope you'll do so. The conversation in some of the posts below is terrific. On the subject of spam comments, I've also noticed a new technique: Spammers are starting to quote the post they're commenting on. So instead of getting spam comments full of illicit URLs or jibberish or inanities (i.e. “great site! buy diamonds for pennies!”), the comments sound legit at first glance because they're talking about substantive things. Look closer, though, and you'll see your own words being repeated back to you—without attribution, I might add. So would this be a double-offense: both spam and plagiarism?

Posted 07:37 AM | Comments (1) | meta-blogging

Post Post

Ok. Let me get this out of the way. George W. Bush was elected President of the United States for the first time two days ago. There were, um, a few problems, but the outcome appears to be undisputed. Conservatives are ecstatic and some are plotting “revolution.” Many other people think this is bad news. I spent yesterday thinking all kinds of uncharitable thoughts and trying to avoid talking to people so that they would not be infected by my rage, despair, frustration, utter bewilderment, etc. What's there to say? Some people are saying “I'm moving to Canada,” so here's a reader's guide to leaving the country from Harper's Magazine, if you're among those who feel that's the only or best option. Here's why you might want to leave (link via Actus Reus). Mark Schmitt (via Cooped Up) says the Bush administration will now be held to the “break it you buy it” rule because they'll have no one to blame for the problems they create. Let's hope so, but voters didn't seem to care about holding their leaders accountable for their mistakes in this election—why will they do so in the future? William Saletan thinks he knows why the Dems keep losing to this idiot: he's simple, and voters like simplicity.

If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.

Saletan thinks that simple leader is John Edwards. Maybe, but if he's right about the simplicity message (which has a lot going for it), it seems less important to find that simple leader today than to figure out what the simple message is going to be. How about this: “Democrats: People who care about each other, our neighbors, and the future of the planet and human life on it.” Damn, is that too complicated? Hollywood Phil has a great postmortem roundup of what actually happened in the voting and possibl resons why. In contrast, Atrios isn't interested in thinking or talking about what went wrong with this election. “What matters isn't what was done wrong, but what needs to be done right for the '06 elections.” Well, maybe, but there are lessons to be learned from the Democrats' losing streak, and one way to figure out what needs to be done right for the future is to figure out what you did wrong in the past. In my opinion, the biggest lesson is that pandering to the “center” is a plan for failure. I'm sure there are many more lessons to be learned, but that covers a lot of them. Finally for now, Howard Dean says look on the bright side, and he's right.

Regardless of the outcome yesterday, we have begun to revive our democracy. While we did not get the result we wanted in the presidential race, we laid the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leaders. . . . That process does not end today. These are not short-term investments. We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” We will not be silent. Thank you for everything you did for our cause in this election. But we are not stopping here.

We have to remember that. If all of those who have opposed Bush for the last four years continue working, there's not telling what we can do. If we can start now with the level of passion and organization and activism that we've seen in the last six months, and build on that, the Republicans don't have a chance in 2006 or 2008. But if we fall apart, become demoralized, tune out, drop out, give up . . . if we do that, then we'll lose yet again, and we'll keep losing. Come on people, take the red pill! The rabbit hole is very, very, very deep.

Posted 09:36 AM | Comments (6) | election 2004

Fun and Games

At the right you'll find a new countdown to Inauguration Day 2009. See, on the bright side it's only 4 years, 11 weeks, 1 days, 2 hours, 42 minutes, 29 seconds until George Bush is no longer president! And here's a great game: Ponder all the possibilities!

1. What is the worst thing that's going to happen in the next four years because of Bush's election?
2. What is going to be the worst long-term consequence of nearly a decade under Bush?

Posted 08:19 AM | Comments (11) | election 2004

Center? No. No. No!

Ok, really, I'm going to think and write about something other than the election someday soon. But not yet. First: The results of this election do not show that the Democrats need to move further to the center. No no no! Bush-light has failed for the past three elections—it has failed miserably! Yet I keep hearing pundits claim that this is the message to the Democratic party—you've got to move to the middle. Are these people insane!? The Democratic party needs to provide a real alternative to the Republicans, not try to be more like them! How many people did you know or hear about who said prior to this election that they didn't really care for Bush but they didn't really know what Kerry was about or how he was different? I know of many, and many of those people apparently voted for Bush. And the reason they didn't understand what Kerry stood for or how he was different is because he was too afraid to take real stands on issues to set himself apart from Bush. He was playing for the center, and he lost the whole field. And that's exactly what Gore did, too. And that's what happened to most of the mid-term races in 2002. Lots of people felt it was time for a change this year, but they didn't see how Kerry would give that to them. So they decided to stick with the devil they know. Democrats! Wake up! Stand up for what you believe in and tell the mythical “center” (which is moving further right every freaking day!) you're not going to pander to it anymore! Show the world what a farce the Right's “moral values” are by standing up for your own values—peace, equality, justice, environmental conservation, sustainable economies, living wages. . . basically, humanity before profit. There's a winning ticket waiting at this station and it's just sitting there. If the Democrats claim it, there will be no stopping them. But if they continue to play the Republican game and pretend to care about the “center,” they're going to lose lose lose lose lose. Leadership does not go to where it thinks the people are and try to convince the people it agrees with them. Leadership goes where it thinks the people ought to go, then it shows the people why it thinks they ought to go there, and asks them to join together to help move that direction. Democrats have to lead or lose, that's all there is to it.

Posted 08:15 AM | Comments (9) | election 2004

The Day After

!#?@*(^$!@*)$@%T#!!????????!!!!??????

Posted 07:57 AM | Comments (4) | election 2004

See you on the brighter side

So I'm off to help out Impact 2004 protect the election in Philly. I hope there's no election fraud and the trip turns out to be a total waste. The good thing is, at least it will distract me from surfing the web for news for the next 30 hours or so until we know that John Kerry won, for sure. So I hope everyone who reads this votes or has voted. Find your polling place and do your little democratic thang. And If you have any problems voting please report them to: 1-866-MY-VOTE1 or 1-866-OUR-VOTE. But yeah, so barring massive election fraud or some other catastrophe, the next time I post here John Kerry will be president-elect and everyone will be scratching their heads wondering how the hell George Bush ever got appointed president in the first place. ;-)

Posted 05:10 PM | Comments (4) | election 2004

Positives for Kerry and final pre-election craziness

We all hope that within 48 hours we'll know who the next president will be, and I can't imagine there are really that many people who have not decided how they plan to vote. (Although I've heard pundits saying that many “undecideds” claim they decide at the last minute, either on their way to the polls or even in the voting booth.). Still, if you're one of those who is still looking for reasons to vote for Kerry, don't miss Half-Cocked's megalist of reasons why he's voting for Kerry—and why you should, too. Here's another “Why for Kerry” from blogger Ed Cone. Also, if you haven't yet read the Kerry campaign's own description of Kerry's record, you really should. Sure, you can expect it to be biased, but after all of the Bush campaign's rhetoric about how Kerry's a flip-flopper who's got nothing to show for 20 years in the Senate (which is just flatly untrue), it's only fair you know Kerry's side of the story before you make up your voting mind. I heard Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning saying something like all the issues are breaking in Kerry's favor, but now there's a new category that voters are considering, the “other” category for issues like “leadership” and “security,” and that category is starting to break for Bush. Hype! Don't you believe it! Every time I hear Cokie Roberts it's like fingernails on a chalkboard; she's a Republican spinmeister in the guise of an NPR commentator (which is a lot like a wolf in sheep's clothing) and I long ago learned not to trust a thing she says. This spin has Rove written all over it. But that's nothing. It's down to turnout, and the Dems have the lead there. Polls of the huge numbers who have already voted give Kerry a big lead in Florida and Iowa. Of course, there's no way to predict how the widespread and growing voter suppression efforts will affect the outcome. It seems an Ohio judge is trying to limit some of those efforts by ruling that challengers won't be allowed at all in Ohio:

A federal judge issued an order early Monday barring political party challengers from polling places throughout Ohio during Tuesday's election. State Republicans planned to appeal. U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing challengers at polling places is unconstitutional. She said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting. . . . Dlott ruled on a lawsuit by a black Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block black voters. Republicans said they wanted to prevent voter fraud. Dlott said in her order that the evidence “does not indicate that the presence of additional challengers would serve Ohio's interest in preventing voter fraud better than would the system of election judges.”

It's hard to believe the ruling will exclude all challengers, but would it be a bad idea if it did? Why don't we leave it up to the poll workers to determine who's registered, who's not, and who should be put in the question (provisional) pile? But nevermind, no need to worry. The Redskins lost yesterday, which means Kerry will win tomorrow, game, set, match.

Posted 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | election 2004

Norway?

Randomly, I dreamt last night that I had just arrived in Norway, and that it was so breathtakingly beautiful that I made an immediate decision to never leave again. I have never been to Norway. I know it has many fjords, and that those glacial anomalies are, indeed, very beautiful. Still . . . Norway!? Maybe this election is getting to me in ways I don't even realize . . . .

Posted 07:14 AM | Comments (2) | life generally