« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
Gotta Run; Happy Holidays!
It's time again for us to hit the holiday road so updates here will be sporadic at best for the next ten days or so. Thanks so much to everyone who chipped in on my most recent job search post—I will be putting your advice into practice over the coming weeks. Best wishes and Happy Holidays to all of you!
Posted 06:41 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | life generally
Was Bush's Secret Spying Technically Legal? That's Not the Point.
Anthony at Three Years of Hell points out that law profs like Ann Althouse and Orin Kerr have suggested that Bush's secret spying program might actually be legal. Perhaps it won't surprise readers of this blog to hear that this future (fingers crossed) public defender doesn't need much detailed legal analysis to say that this program of warrantless searches of American citizens inside the U.S. is an abuse of power that Americans simply ought not tolerate. I can't think of a single thing that would justify this circumvention of existing law, espeically when you consider that existing law would have allowed the administration to do exactly the same thing w/the mere formality that they'd have to justify their actions before a captive court w/in 72 hours. FISA doesn't provide meaningful oversight, but it's more than zero and the zero oversight here is the problem. Sure, as Professor Kerr suggests, these warrantless searches might technically be legal as part of a “border exception” to the warrant clause or via other cracks in the layers of relevant law, but that possible technical legality is far outweighed by the inarguably negative policy implications of allowing the executive to do whatever the hell it wants under the cover of “war.” What comes immediately to mind is the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II. Was it legal? The Supreme Court said yes. Was it right? Hell no. The law cannot always anticipate the evil that men will do, but just because a law hasn't anticipated an action and explicitly named it illegal does not mean that action is ok or ought to be tolerated in our democracy.
That intelligent people are so eager to give the administration the benefit of the doubt here is yet another sign of how badly the Fourth Amendment has been eviscerated, both in law and in the hearts and minds of American people. I wonder if people like Ann Althouse— who says “that at the very least fair-minded observers should see that the problem is complex”— really think the dangers this sort of secret spying might prevent are greater than the dangers posed by an executive that does whatever it wants, consequences be damned? This problem is only “complex” if you are willing to grant that Yubbldew is free to violate the law (in principle, if not in technical fact) and the Constitution under the banner of this so-called “war” of his, and that's a possibility I categorically reject. Besides, none of us is a “fair-minded observer” here—we're citizens of a democracy and we should all demand that our elected representatives—the President included—adhere to their oaths of office and uphold the Constitution rather than finding ways to circumvent its protections.
So when do the impeachment proceedings begin?
Posted 10:28 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | general politics
Should I Have Started Looking Sooner?
I've just searched for public defender jobs in Michigan, Illinois, Montana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio and the Dakotas on PSLawNet, Law Crossing, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, GW's job bank, the University of Michigan Law School Job Net and a few other places, and guess what? There is a total of one advertised opening—in Rockford, Illinois. Damn. This job thing is going to be harder than I thought.
Ok, maybe it's not that bad. I just applied for an opening in Montana, although I fear they're going to want someone before this time next year, which is when I will have (fingers crossed) passed the bar. Also, big places like Chicago and Milwaukee (and maybe Detroit?) have rolling applications for public defenders, so I can do those. Still, is now the time for this? Have I missed the window or has it not even opened?
I've complained about this before (sorry!), but I just don't know how to do a public defender job search. I understand that most public defender offices probably don't pay much attention to national job listing websites and only advertise openings locally, but I've checked state bar employment pages as well—still nada. Should I just start sending resumes and cover letters to offices where I'd like to work? Or is there some other strategy I should consider? Maybe I should talk to a career counselor at GW.... Nah, that would be silly!
Posted 08:34 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack | 3L
What Yubbledew Must Say Before He's Impeached
The President's speech last night repeated the same song and dance we've been hearing for week—we not only can “win” in Iraq, but we already are winning!—but it was a bit different in that the President at least made an attempt to sound like he actually cared about and understood what is happening in Iraq. He didn't convince me, though, and he won't until he does the right thing: He must admit that he made a horrible mistake, that the only reason Iraq has become the front line in the “war on terror” is because of that mistake, and that if he had it to do over again, he never would have invaded Iraq. If Yubbledew said those things, I'd fall over dead in shock, but I would also give him three cheers for finally coming to grips with reality and for beginning to do what's necessary to win back the trust and confidence of the American people and the world.* I might even consider supporting a sort of “stay the course” policy because, well, as Colin Powell put it (I believe), we broke Iraq, so we have a responsibility to at least do what we can to make sure it doesn't continue in total chaos indefinitely.
But instead of really taking responsibility and admitting what a mistake the whole Iraq debacle has been, Yubbledew continues to bob and weave, hiding behind his charade of firm resolve to “stay the course” in order to avoid the abominable truth that more than 2000 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died because he made the most egregious and horrible mistake that a President can make. So long as Yubbledew remains so unable to accept reality, the “stay the course” policy seems ludicrous and the “pull out now” policy remains a legitimate option simply because doing so might in fact help stabilize Iraq by removing one of the main incentives for terrorism there.
But whatever the case about staying or going in Iraq, we all know that Yubbledew will never admit his mistake. Maybe he can't admit his mistake because, well, it wasn't a mistake. Mountains of evidence suggest that he knew all along that Iraq had no WMD and that he was unabashedly lying to the world in order to take over Iraq. I hate to have to admit that because even I, who have always loathed this worm of a man and his politics, would prefer to believe he's not that affirmatively evil, that he really did just make a horrible, horrible unintentional error. The man in the White House is definitely an evil-doer, but could he really possibly be that evil? My mind recoils in defense of my sanity, yet the evidence remains.
Yet, bad as the Iraq debacle is, for some reason it hasn't been enough to get him impeached. Now we have a new debacle which absolutely justifies impeachment—his administration has been spying on its own citizens! Will Americans demand accountability for this egregious breach of the law and the demands of the United States Constitution? How far will we let the madness go?
* Speaking of world trust, the speech contained more doublespeak as Bush said we must stay the course in order to show the world that America keeps its word. What about America keeping its word not to torture? What about America keeping its word to respect sovereign nations and diplomacy instead of unilaterally invading places for utterly inexplicable reasons? Do those things show the world that America keeps its word?
Posted 10:31 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics
Are Torture-Supporters Moral Relativists?
This is the hot topic from last week and before, but I'm just now getting around to it so: After months spent defending his administration's right and obligation to torture (often by proxy via Dick Cheney), Bush has agreed to support a ban on torture. Terrific! Still, it seems some people think this is just a wink/nod sort of thing, and that it's still ok to torture under certain circumstances. What do you think?
Please respond in the poll in the right column. Is it ok to torture, or isn't it? And if you claim that it's ok sometimes, but not usually, aren't you engaging in the dreaded “moral relativism” for which conservatives have long condemned liberals?
Oh, and just for the record, two weeks ago George Bush supposedly called the United States Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper!” Even if he didn't say it, he's provided ample evidence that that's how he really feels.
Posted 08:49 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | general politics
That Damned “Liberal” Media
L. pointed this out to me: One of the things that makes the news of the illegal Bush Administration domestic spying even more disturbing is the fact that the NY Times sat on the story for at least a year. The Times has explained that:
A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security.
Yeah, right. And did the Administration also argue, sometime before, oh, let's say, November 2, 2004—election day—that revealing that it had absolutely no respect for the Fourth Amendment might, um, not be good for its chances in that little political contest? Nah, that never would have happened. I mean, the Times wouldn't have sat on a story that could have totally changed election results, right? It would never do something like that.
Posted 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | general politics
Asian Provocations
Asian Provacateur has been stirring up some very interesting trouble recently. For example, have you heard about the Chappelle Theory? Asian Provocateur has. This makes a certain sense, but.... What is Chappelle saying/doing now?
Asian Provacateur also notes that the Bush Administration has been working on a Nike commercial. That's what this piece by Jack Cafferty on CNN suggests. The video there is worth watching. Let me just add one thing: Who cares about his so-called “mandate” (that never existed). Want to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney? Just do it!
Posted 09:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics tv land
In Praise of the Palm z22
Are you looking for the perfect little gift for that lawyer, law student, or just about anyone else in your life? Have I got a suggestion for you!
My wonderful girlfriend recently gave me a Palm Z22 and I have just fallen in love with this thing. I don't know how I ever lived without one! As the cheapest and smallest PDA Palm has ever made, the poor thing has taken some hits from critics as being too small, having a poor quality screen, etc. I think the critics are missing the point of a device like this. The Z22 is small and cheap; that's it. If you don't want small and cheap, you don't want this. But small and cheap are exactly what I wanted for one reason: I can drop this tiny thing in my pocket and have it with me all the time, anywhere, and since it was relatively inexpensive I'm not constantly worried that it's getting scratched or damaged—I can just use it and not think about it.
And use it I have! The absolute best thing about it is reading ebooks on the metro or any other time I find myself sitting or standing around waiting for something. The other day I got stuck waiting in court for about three hours. What to do? I pulled my Z22 out of my pocket and read several chapters of The Burden of Proof by Scott Turow. The time just flew by!
But, of course, it's also great to have all my contacts' names and numbers at my fingertips, and this little thing makes it worthwhile to keep my calendar up-to-date so I'm less likely to forget an appointment or to-do item. Plus, there's always a quick game of solitaire or Word Wiggle if I just have a few minutes to fill. Finally, I need never be caught w/out pen and paper again—the Z22 is always in my pocket to capture a note or bit of info I would otherwise forget.
For you lawgeeks, here's something very cool you could do with the Z22: Carry around your state's civil or criminal code and/or reference materials in your pocket! For example, here's Illinois Criminal Procedure, Virginia Crimes and Offenses 2005, and the Michigan Code of Criminal Procedure 2004. Not every jurisdiction is available, but if yours is, this could be an incredibly handy reference tool.
And did I mention how small this thing is!? It's about the size of a full-size iPod but weighs less than a deck of cards. It's so small and light that sometimes I even forget it's in my pocket.
Of course, as much as I love this thing, it's not perfect. I find myself wishing a little that it accepted flash memory cards to expand its 20MB of usable memory (I've already used over 17MB of that). And if it had the expandable memory, it would need a headphone jack so it could be your portable mp3 device along with everything else. It might be nice if it had bluetooth and/or wifi capabilities, but I haven't found a time when that would really be super-usefulyet. And, of course, I also dream of the day that something this small and light can do everything this device does, plus be a phone. You can already buy Palm devices that do some or all of these things (the Treo does them all, I think), but they are all either bigger or heavier, and all of them are definitely more expensive. For my needs right now, the Z22 is the perfect compromise of size, weight, and functionality, and I bet it would be perfect for someone on your wishlist, too.
(Note 1: Palm is going to give me $5 for every one of you who buys one of these things in the next ten days, so get shopping please.)
(Note 2: Note 1 is a lie.)
Posted 08:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | life generally
Things You Should Know About
- GotVoice: Get your voicemail messages emailed to you as MP3s or listen to them online.
- TrioBike: A mountain bike, stroller, and people-mover all in one.
- WikiLaw: A wiki for legal reference. It's pretty empty right now, but there are a bunch of law students on break right now who I'm sure could do something about that!
- Your government is spying on you. But you probably knew that already.
Posted 08:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | lists
Get Mine Firsters Are Losers
My final thoughts on this season of Survivor and particularly Cindy's decision about the cars. Unless you're a Survivor fan I promise your time will be better spent moving to some other location on the internets.
First, Professor Yin has posted some thoughts on the subject in terms of both game theory and morality/ethics. In terms of the game, he notes that Cindy could have taken home $15,000 more if she'd stayed through just one more vote.* In terms of morals/ethics, he suggests that the cost of those four cars has to be paid by someone, which means eventually to all car buyers (I guess); therefore, maybe Cindy did us a favor by taking just one car rather than taking four. I find that a rather implausible argument; I doubt GM just gave the cars to CBS in the first place and even if it did, such an expense is the least of GM's burdens future car buyers will be paying.
That said, I understand that we live in a “get mine first” world and that Survivor especially is a “get mine first” game. Without reviewing past seasons too closely, it seems that the “get mine first” players almost never win. The players who tend to win are those who are either:
1) Nice, mostly under-the-radar, and in good enough shape/smart enough to win crucial challenges to stay in the game. I'd put Tina Wesson (Season 2), Ethan Zohn (S3), Jenna Morasca (S6), Amber Brkich (S8), and Danni (S11) in this category.
2) Canny manipulators who are just good enough at getting people to do what they want that they earn respect for being so ruthless and capable and therefore end up winning. I'd put Richard Hatch (S1), Brian Heidek (S5), Sandra Diaz-Twine (S6), and Tom Westman (S10) in this category.
Group 1 wins because people underestimate them, they make it to the end, and then they have fewer enemies than their counterpart. Group 2 wins because they are able to see the big picture and give things up when necessary to get further in the game. My point is that neither of these types of players are “get mine firsters.” Hence, I continue to maintain that what Cindy did was just dumb in the context of the game.
Outside the game she's probably not too worried about it. Everyone who remained after her got enough money to buy 3-4 cars or more, so it's not like she totally shafted them. Still, I can't help thinking about the great sensation Cindy would have made if she had chosen differently. Her generosity would have made her a media darling, if only for a few minutes. It would have been shocking to the majority who thinks she did the right thing, and would have given tv-watchers a moment to consider giving rather than taking the next time they faced such a choice (by which I mean a choice between giving and taking generally, not a choice between taking one car or giving four away).
But whatever. That's not what happened. In the end, Cindy got more than she deserved (a new car plus $55,000) and a worthy contestant ended up winning. So goes Survivor.
I'm really not thinking 24/7 about Survivor, although from recent posts here it might seem that way. Still, since finals are over, what else do I have to think about? Getting a job? Oh, well, Survivor is clearly more fun.
* Wikipedia has a breakdown of how much money each contestant ends up with. Scroll down 5-6 screens to “prizes.”
Posted 11:06 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | tv land
Good news from the MPRE!
I'm pretty sure the highest scaled score any state requires is 85, so at least I won't have to worry about taking the MPRE again. The email telling me this came last night and was a great cherry on top of the fact that my semester is over. Sure, I still have clients for the clinic and I'm scheduled to testify for someone else tomorrow, but it's nice not to have to worry about classes or finals for a while.
Can it be that I really only have one semester left? Hard to believe. Now I just have to find a job....
Posted 09:53 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L
What's wrong with you people!?
Ok, so I was waiting to see the big Survivor finale until after my final final of the semester. That's over now. It was decidedly mediocre. I sense a potential C in my future. Do I care? Sure. Am I moving on? Duh.
So let me just get right to it: I'm appalled! How could so many of you think it was perfectly ok for Cindy to give up the chance to give four cars away!? I guess I'm just totally out of it, but my answer was Option 3 -- both 1 & 2. The choice was selfish, greedy, and stupid. And look here, people, Heather Havrilesky agrees with me, so I must be right. ;-)
That Havrilesky piece was almost funny to read because it so closely mimicked the conversation L. and I had as we watched last Thursday's episode of Survivor. I'd seen a preview for this show so I knew the choice that someone was going to face. I told L: “This is going to be good. Someone is going to win a car and then they're going to have to give it up.” Why? she asked. “Because if they give it up, they can give the other four players a car each so of course they have to give it up.” Havrilesky was obviously thinking the same thing:
And that's without factoring in the millions of people watching. When you consider all those people out there, millions of people, lots of them young and impressionable, watching as you decide between doing the right thing, or doing the selfish thing?
As we watched the show and saw that Cindy was not doing what we expected, we were appalled. We went through the same analysis as Havrilesky—it was both strategically and morally stupid to keep the car:
And then you throw in the long-term picture: You give up the car, and millions of people are watching. Here's what happens next: 1) Everyone at camp loves you, and feels a personal sense of obligation to make sure you make it into the final three at the very least, 2) everyone at home goes “Awww, that was so nice of her!” which means that 3) you'll be sitting down with Katie Couric and Matt Lauer and God knows who else to discuss your huge, generous heart, which means that 4) you'll demand a good sum as a public speaker for a few years and 5) you might just earn a hefty sum for appearing in a few print ads and, hey, even if you don't want any of that stuff 6) you can spend the rest of your life with your head held high, knowing that you did the right thing.
Now let's look at what happens when you keep the car: 1) Everyone at camp instantly dislikes you, and for a very good reason, 2) everyone at home goes “Ewww” and tries to pry your mean little face out of their minds forever, 3) you get voted off at the next tribal council, 4) not even the host of “The Early Show” on CBS really wants to speak to you, 5) your 15 minutes of fame are reduced to five minutes and 6) you spend the rest of your life known as the Selfish, Morally Bankrupt Idiot Who Sold Her Soul for a Pontiac.
This is exactly what we were thinking. And then Havrilesky summed it all up:
But then, shock of all shocks, a majority of (the admittedly small number of) readers of this blog made the same choice Cindy made. What were you people thinking? I obviously couldn't hack it on Survivor so I guess it's a good thing I never applied. I'm thinking it's time I finish that damned application, though. Someone needs to be there to save humanity from the savages. Meanwhile, I'm loving the Survivors Strike Back blog written by previous contestants. It's a good thing I didn't learn about this sooner or my grades this semester would have been even lower.
So people, please: Explain to me how you justify your choice in the previous poll. Why was Cindy right? I just don't get it.
Posted 12:15 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L tv land
Survivor Dilemma
I sometimes feel like I'm the only one who still watches Survivor, but in case I'm not, here's a poll for you:
For those of you who don't watch, you can still vote. The situation was just as the question describes: Cindy won a car in a challenge, and then she got a choice—she could either keep the one car for herself, or give it up and give a car to each of the remaining four players. Cindy chose to keep the car. Should she have done that? Would you have? They didn't cover this sort of ethical conundrum in my professional responsibility class so all comments are welcome.
UPDATE: Geez, that poll sort of screwed up my page. Oh, and I just discovered there's a Survivor blog where past contestants take shots at the current players. So much for me studying for that final on Monday....
Posted 10:53 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | tv land
Why are baraccudas so naughty?
This seems to be a pressing question among spammers recently, and I've wondered about it from time to time myself. Why are barracudas so naughty? Will we ever solve this age-old riddle?
The same spammer that's full of deep questions is also full of sage advice, such as “Dont listen to rap music it's toxic to your soul.” I'm sure this spammer must have heard that guns don't kill people, rappers do—ask any politician and he'll tell you it's true.
Isn't spam just a wonerful thing?
Posted 07:27 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | life generally
Lucky Update
The other day (the day of my most recent final) seemed lucky enough. The final felt fine, so either it was one of those that I did horribly on but felt fine about because I knew too little to know what I didn't know (complicated, isn't it?), or I did fine. But as Dave! pointed out in the comments, it hardly seems to matter at this point. I'm sure it does matter, but I just can force myself to work excessively hard when past experience has proven it's just not necessary. There are bigger fish to fry.
For example, when I went to visit my client in jail the other day he took one look at me, frowned, and struck a defiant pose with his arms crossed over his chest. “What do you want?” he asked.
Me: “I just want to talk to you about what happened the other day in court and what we're going to do next.”
Him: “I ain't talkin' to you. I ain't even supposed to be in here!” He said.
Me: . . . ?
“You lied to me! I ain't supposed to be here!”
Me: “Now hold on. Do you understand what happened the other day?”
Him: “Guard!” He raised his hand to motion for the officer who incredibly was there in, like, two seconds. Any other time it would have taken her ten minutes, minimum.
Me: “Now wait a minute. We need to talk about this...” But he was already gone back to lockup.
Awesome. Talk about a thankless job....
Lucky Number 7?
Fall's first final for me is today in just a couple of hours. Will this be a lucky day? I'm definitely hoping so because the only way I'm going to perform decently on this exam is with lots of luck. Funny thing about 3L, at least for me: Instead of getting better at studying, I seem to have forgotten how.
One thing about finals time at GW I've always found a little funny is that they don't tell you where your final is going to be until an hour before the exam. The way they communicate this to you is via a chalkboard in one of the hallways at the school. That's right, a chalkboard. Whenever I look at this chalkboard I can't help thinking how easy it would be to screw things up by changing a number or two on the board. I would never do that, of course, but in a school that so obviously doesn't trust its students when it comes to finals (witness the requirement that we use the awful Extegrity exam4™ exam software write exams), this use of the chalkboard always strikes me as a laughable security lapse.
Perhaps I'm just easily entertained in the giddy moments before I sit down to a final. Ya think?
Whatever the case, to anyone reading this who is also facing finals in the next couple of weeks: Good luck and godspeed! And remember: No matter what happens, you get to start all over again in January!
Posted 06:38 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L
