First Last Time?

It's hard to believe, but about eight hours from now I will never have another 2L class. I can't exactly say I'm sad about that. It's hard to believe, but there it is.

On Monday I was sitting in a line at the Financial Aid office talking w/some of the other people in the line about the whole process and one of them said, “well, at least this is the last time we have to apply for financial aid.” The 2Ls nodded and agreed that that was a good thing. Then, a few seconds later, the woman who had first made the comment seemed to realize what she'd just said. “This is my first last time!” she exclaimed.

And it's true, sort of. Technically, there are lots of “first last times” in law school: Your first last time to have a first class, your first last time to apply in the first place, etc. Still, it's nice to think I will never have to apply for law school financial aid again. I think. I mean, I might have to apply for a bar loan, but that's different. I will never have another 2L class. I will never have to wonder if I'm going to get a GW summer grant. What else? I'm sure there are more “last times” coming, and I look forward to them.

For now, it's that bittersweet time when it's thrilling to be done with classes, yet almost sad at the same time. I was especially sad to see Fed Courts and Crim Pro end yesterday. Both of them were great (if maddeningly difficult at times) classes taught by absolutely superb professors, and both of those professors offered parting words of advice at the end of the last class.

Prof Fed. Courts had two tips, which I paraphrase as follows:

• True power lies in the ability to achieve a purpose. When you graduate from law school, you have power and privilege. You can help people, give a voice to people who would otherwise not be heard, to effect social change. I encourage you to think about how you want to use this power. Don't just make money; think about how you can use this power.
• Don't ever stop being a student.

What Prof CrimPro had to say was also very memorable. He joked that one of the few ways he has to measure his success is in how confused he makes students about what they “really” think, so he judged the class successful b/c many students over the semester had come to him to say things like, “I thought I wanted to be a public defender but I don't know if I can defend these guilty people,” or “I thought I wanted to be a prosecutor but I don't know if I can prosecute these innocent people.”

But his overall message was that we, as lawyers (or future lawyers) are the guardians of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. “Be careful with our rights,” he said. And to paraphrase, he said: “What we have covered in this class are the rights that make us most free, those that define what it means to live in a free society. Some of them, and the debates about them, may be difficult to understand. Why should we protect the clearly guilty? But those of us who have faced power, and in its face felt lonely, or weak, or scared, perhaps we can understand. Imagine what it means to be suspected and prosecuted for a crime. Imagine United States v. You. W/out you the Bill of Rights is just a bunch of words on paper. With you, there's a chance that U.S. citizens can be both free and safe. Be careful, be brave, good luck.”

See, I told you these professors rocked.

Posted 09:03 AM | Comments (6) | 2L

Define “Rich”

Bruce Bawer, “a freelance writer living in Oslo,” wrote recently in the NY Times that, despite conventional wisdom, Norway is not the world's richest country. On the contrary, Norway and its Scandinavian siblings just perpetuation lies like this “to keep people believing that their social welfare system, financed by lofty income taxes, provides far more in the way of economic protections and amenities than the American system.”

Hmm. Could be. I really don't know. But I do know that the evidence Bawer uses to support his claims does not seem very convincing. That evidence? Norwegians don't get brand new cars every year or two like Americans, they commonly pack their lunches rather than popping out to the local deli at midday like workers in New York or Paris might, they do not order pizza every night for dinner, and gas costs (gasp!) $6/gallon. Does this mean Norway is not a “rich” country, or does it mean that it's not a wasteful and gluttonous country?

What I love most is Bawer's claim that Spaniards “live far better than Scandinavians” because Spaniards can buy alcohol much more cheaply. Yessir. There's no better measure of “wealth” and quality of life than how cheap the gin and tonics are.

Bawer does cite figures showing that the GDP (gross domestic product) of Norway and its citizens' “spending power” is lower than that in the U.S. That's not surprising, really. Norway doesn't sacrifice the health and welfare of its citizens and environment in order to squeeze out one more point of GDP like we do here in the U.S. You have to ask yourself: What good is that vaunted American spending power to the millions of Americans who can't afford health care?

Posted 07:25 AM | Comments (4) | general politics