« August 04, 2002 - August 10, 2002 | Main | August 18, 2002 - August 24, 2002 »
Fear of "Signs"
To those of you who have seen and liked "Signs," please explain.
****** Potential Spoilers Below *******
My girlfriend and I saw "Signs" last night and we both thought it was about the most offensive, racist and xenophobic piece of sentimental propaganda to come out of Hollywood since... well, maybe since "Birth of A Nation." That might be an exaggeration, but I'm serious here— this movie was downright scary, and quadruply so when you think that it was a box-office winner this past weekend and yet there's no national outcry over the film's repulsive message. What is that message? Well, you tell me, because as my girlfriend and I cringed and guffawed at a show that everyone around us seemed gripped by, we gradually began to think we'd lost our minds.
The movie we saw looked like it was going to be a sort of campy parody of those who are terrified by "outsiders" (i.e., people of national and ethnic origin other than the U.S.) and the prospect of some force (i.e., terrorism, Al Qaeda) invading and destroying our peaceful and wholesome U.S. lives. The whole thing with the Doctor/wife-killer being the only non-white person in the show was such an obvious and racist decision on the part of the film's makers, that we just assumed that they were going to do something with the second half of the show to mock American racism and xenophobia. But no, it only got worse because the Doctor/wife-killer turns out to be a nice guy -- it's just that he couldn't help being bad because "it was meant to be." Translation: U.S. minorities aren't bad people, but they'll fuck up your life anyway because they just can't help it -- it's meant to be.
(I've since learned that the writer/director himself, M. Night Shyamalan, plays the Doctor/wife-killer, but that only adds to the bizarre horror at such a plot/characterization choice. The pseudo-"bad guy" in the film is a person of color, while all other major characters are white. This was an intentional choice. Why was this choice made?)
Then there's the whole "believe" thing. At first, judging from the whole scene on the couch where the Joaquin Pheonix character is begging Mel Gibson's character to give him some hope, this "spiritual" thread also looked like it was going to parody people who are saying we should do nothing about the problems in the world except pray and believe in a higher power so that if the shit hits the fan we'll see it as a "sign" of hope instead of becoming hopeless. That's what we thought, but no -- in the end, the movie reinforces this hokey "don't worry, be happy (and pray and believe)" message w/Pheonix lecturing Gibson in what is perhaps, save the bad aliens, the most unconvincing turn of bad acting in the whole film.
Finally, the "aliens" turn out to be terrorists (of course!), and since they're "aliens" we should feel free to just "swing away" at them if we don't like them or if we feel threatened by them. Translation in context of current events: It's ok for us to declare people "hostile combatants" and take away all their rights because they're not people, they're hostile combatants (didn't you get the memo?). It's also ok for the U.S. to bomb the shit out of (swing away at) anyone who seems even remotely threatening to anything we even remotely want or have an interest in.
Oh yeah, and when Gibson puts on the clerical collar at the end, I just burst out laughing -- it was so, so, so awful and predictable and unconvincing and... ugh! Needless to say, we got some disturbed looks moments later when the lights went up; apparently everyone else bought it.
Ok, so we left the theater thinking we were crazy, baffled that we hadn't heard anything about this awfulness before we saw the film. (Salon and Ebert both liked it, and neither said anything about it being racist/xenophobic, or campy.) So in order to maintain some sanity and find an explanation for this, here's what I'm hoping: Shyamalan originally wrote the parody that this movie flirts with being. Note that the aliens turn out to look like and do exactly what everyone in the movie fears the most, making it seem like the aliens are a product of the characters' imaginations -- thus, the movie attempts to mock xenophobia (at least in parts). Note also the campy, cartoony aliens who can be overcome just by splashing some water on them -- we can't be meant to take this at all seriously, right? So the movie was originally a super-parody of American xenophobia and racism, but then 9-11 happened and the studio (Disney, isn't it?) told Shyamalan he couldn't do a movie like that. So Shyamalan revised the script, built up the "believe, it was meant to be" thing, and the studio bought it. So now Shyamalan laughs bitterly all the way to the bank as U.S. audiences flock to this movie that only confirms their racism and xenophobia.
If you've seen this movie: Am I crazy, or what? How is this film not awful, offensive, and scary in a much more real way than little green men and UFOs will ever be?
Posted 11:48 AM | Comments (4) | ai movies
Librarians Wanted
One of the other options I've been considering in my career search is to go to library school and become a librarian. However, this has always been a sort of "safety" plan, and I've never felt very drawn to it. It's just one of those things that fits my interests and which I think I could do pretty well at, plus it has the bonus of being low-stress, stable and secure, with a fairly clear career path. These things are appealing, yet I've pretty much decided I'm ok with taking some more risks in life and heading into less clearly-charted waters. Of course, just when I was about to declare myself sure that library school would not be in my (immediate) future, the Chronicle runs another story saying librarians wanted. So again I'm thinking: Am I crazy to contemplate a law and/or non-profit job when all I hear about both is that jobs are scarce? Shouldn't I be heading for a field where there's real demand? *sigh*
Posted 10:00 AM | librarianship
The Awful NP Cycle
A very discouraging thread on idealist.com: Entry-level position impossible? Highly qualified people can't find NP jobs. The most obvious reason for this is that NPs have no money. And NPs have no money because the gov't cuts taxes and shifts billions to the "defense" budget. This means NPs can't hire anyone to do the work of lobbying the government and society more generally to value (and fund) NP work. So NPs have no money. And NPs have no money because the gov't cuts taxes...
What a brutal cycle. And this is what I'm talking about when I second-guess my desire to go into NP work: this kind of BS would just piss me off daily and make me perpetually frustrated. The appeal of law is that I'd be higher on the "food chain," so to speak, and would be more likely to be in a better position to address these kinds of structural, public policy issues. That's what I'm thinking, anyway, but am I just deluded to think that having a JD will put me in a better position to effect real change on a macro level?
Posted 12:18 PM | law school
Nonprofit Job Market
The Washington Post's "Live Online" forum today was about nonprofit career trends. For anyone looking for NP work, especially in the D.C. area, the transcript might be helpful. My question and response was:
Illinois: Can you say anything about non-profit jobs for people with law degrees? Specifically, if I wanted a career w/a government-reform NP like Public Citizen, would I be better off to start at the bottom and work my way up (w/out a law degree), or to get the law degree before beginning my NP career? Thanks.
Jacqui Salmon: I guess the important part of your query is, what do YOU want to do? Do you really want to go to law school now? Or are you just not that interested right now and would prefer to start a career and THEN go back to school?
It's best to sort out your priorities rather than trying to fit them into what you think various nonprofits-or companies, for that matter-want.
She's probably right, of course. Again the question: Do I really want to go to law school now? Yes. And no. Ambivalent imbroglio.
Another highlight was this helpful post:
That list is encouraging because I've not only done a lot of what's on the list, I'm also very proficient at many of those things, and they're things I enjoy.
And finally this advice:
Still more evidence that I'd be great at NP work and that I could probably find a great job if I'd just commit to it. Ambivalent. Imbroglio.
Posted 11:28 AM | law school
A "Better" BigLaw Job
Another tip from the non-profit law discussion thread at idealist.com:
This online booklet: A guide to researching law firms prepared by the National Lawyers Guild chapter of Columbia University. It describes ways to evaluate BigLaw firms to improve the chances that you won't have to work on cases that you find immoral/offensive. Definitely something to consider if you're thinking of going into law or looking for firm jobs. Unfortunately, if message boards are any indication, recent law grads don't generally have much choice when it comes to getting jobs these days—they just have to take whatever they can find. (Here's yet another reason going to a "top-tier" school is important, but I don't see that happening for me and I have no desire to go into that kind of debt....)
Posted 09:54 AM | law school
Loan Repayment for Lawyers
Following up on what my friend (hereafter referred to as "Lawfriend") told me yesterday about programs that help lawyers pay off school loans if they go into non-profit work: Check out Equal Justice Works (formerly the National Association for Public Interest Law, or NAPIL). The site uses frames (bad bad), but if you click on "Loan Repayment Information" in the navbar on the left you'll see what I'm talking about. Or go directly to the page here.
The site also has great info about choosing a law school and finding work in the non-profit/public interest sector. [via the recent Lawyers for Non-Profit thread at Idealist.com]
Posted 08:39 AM | law school
Law Exams Look Awful
Supposedly this is a real law school exam. [via Outside the Law]
Sounds awful, doesn't it? Now why would a person (like me) want to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege of taking such a test as this? I'm serious. If you're a lawyer, why did you do it?
Posted 09:38 PM | Comments (1) | law school
Law: First Person
Today I had lunch with a current law student. She started the English program with me, but left for law school last year after she got her M.A. We were never close, but we were always friendly with each other. She was going into English renaissance stuff, so we were never on very similar paths. She did, however, use an old powerbook, and as Martha Stewart was wont to say, "That's a good thing."
All that helps put some perspective on what she told me, which was basically: Law school is like the Borg: If you go to law school, you will be assimilated.
She said the first year is about learning a new language, steep learning curve, adjusting to being one of the oldest in your class, having to put up with the go-go-go aggressive attitudes of the early-20-somethings who think they know everything, etc. She likes the class time (as I think I would—the whole Socratic method thing), but reading case law is a drag (no surprise). In short, the first year sucks, but she's hoping and nearly certain it will get better.
The important thing is this: She said she entered law school with the idea that she wanted to do public interest law, but after just one year she's now headed toward corporate BigLaw. Why the switch? She said she's tired of never getting paid well (she taught H.S. before coming to grad school), and it's awful to see all your peers making five times more than you (which is what will happen if you go into public interest law while all your schoolmates go to big firms). She tried fighting the system when she started, becoming indignant at all the hoops they made her jump through, resisting the awful writing they make you do (run-on sentences and other poor writing styles are mandatory, apparently), being appalled by the basic greed that motivated her fellow students. But then she realized that she'd just fail and/or be miserable if she kept fighting these things, and she asked herself, "What's best for me?" and she came up with the fact that she doesn't want to be in debt her whole life and she'd like to be able to help out her poor parents and it's not so bad to do 3-5 years of BigLaw in order to make enough money to do something she might prefer more. Oh, and it's ok with her to have to work 60-80 hour weeks in order to do all this.
*sigh*
Another story: She's heard stories about people interviewing for internships and law jobs. The interviewer asks: "Why do you want this job?" If you respond with some high-minded, idealistic answer about how you'd like to help people and/or make the world a better place, they'll look at you funny and say, "What else?" On the other hand, they'll nod approvingly and move on if you respond simply and directly, "I wanted to make money and this was the best and fastest way I found to do that." In other words, law sounds like it rewards a culture of greed and self-interest, which really explains a lot about how our world works. (Lawyers affect just about every facet of society in some way, and if they're all trained that greed and self-interest are good, then that's inevitably going to play a role in society as a whole.) And, if you stop to think about it, of course law rewards those who are willing to put their own interests ahead of all others: this is basically what you have to do when you work for a client. If your client wins, that's good for you, so whatever your client's argument is, you need to be able to make it your own and not get caught up in your own value hangups. But it seems that law would work best when your client's interests coincide with yours. What if lawyers refused to work on cases they disagreed with? Would the world be a better or worse place? (In light of the above fact that lawyers have learned that greedy self-interest is good, I imagine the world might be a much worse place. Sobering thought.)
According to my friend, only about 2% of law graduates go into public interest law. This is not surprising, but it seems to suggest that it would be easier to get a job in that field. On that note, however, she said the law career services office is basically designed to get people big-firm jobs in Chicago and if you want a public interest job you're really on your own. Great. And this is at a school that supposedly has a great, "top-10" public interest program. (She didn't seem to be aware of her own school's high ranking in this regard.)
One semi-bright spot: She said there are some law schools that will pay off your student loans if you go into public interest law. Apparently it works like this: If you take a public interest job that pays less than $30-35k/year, you'll get your loans reduced by 25% in your first year on that job, a little more in your second year, and so on until the loans are completely forgiven which could take 5-7 years. Sounds great. Sign me up! The problem: Those programs aren't exactly common.
What's funny about all of this (in a not funny at all way) is that none if it is the least bit surprising, and yet it makes me very depressed and sad. I mean, my friend only confirmed what I've read elsewhere and heard from others. So why did it bum me out so much? Why am I so determined to find some tiny flicker of good in law to hold onto? Is this some martyr thing where I want to go into a field where I will be constantly surrounded by people who disagree with me and who exert continuous pressure for me to become like them, to be assimilated? Why? I tried that with English—I heard all the bad stuff and I knew I wouldn't "fit in" with all that I'd heard, but I believed I could make a place for myself, I could hold my own and be the one who did it his way. That didn't work. I just became miserable. What would keep that from happening if I went into law? (Scary thought: The difference might be that in law I might actually be able to get a job and make a living. What would I think of English right now if I knew that I'd probably get a pretty good-paying job by "giving in" and becoming like everyone else and jumping through all the hoops? Would I want to do it? At bottom, is my frustration with English simply that there's no money in it? Ugh.)
Perhaps the question I need to answer is this: Is it possible to be an idealistic lawyer? Or is "idealistic" the wrong term? Why must it be "practical" to accept greed and self-interest above all other values? In fact, greed and self-interest are ideals in that it would be great if—in an ideal world—we could all be as greedy and self-interested as we want and not cause or suffer serious negative consequences. However, that's not the world we live in. Our greed and self-interest always comes at the expense of someone else, so we must, as a practical matter, consider others when making our choices in life. I know this is true. I know it. And if becoming a lawyer would force me to ignore this truth, then I would certainly be the most miserable lawyer ever.
So a question for you if you are a lawyer or law student: Is it possible for someone on the political left to become a lawyer without sacrificing his/her values? Can you be a lawyer with leftist principals (supporting the interests of workers over capitalists/managers, supporting environmental protections, civil liberties over "national security," in favor of universal health care, etc.)?
Posted 08:44 PM | Comments (1) | law general
What Law Is Like
Reading around the web, trying to get some idea of what kind of a law career might suit me, I came upon the Greedy Associates and their Greedy Law Students Board. Interesting stuff there, but especially this post asking about alternatives to practicing law (once you've already got the degree), and the response that points to the Alternative Careers column at New York Lawyer. The column is a Q & A style written by Doug Richardson, a career counselor and former lawyer. What follows are large chunks from two columns that seemed especially helpful.
First, there is the advice to someone who wonders what he/she can do other than practice law after spending three years slogging through law school, which offers some good insights into what law school and the practice of law are all about:
This much is true: law is more the province of the individual contributor (“I do it myself”) than the collaborative/affiliative type, law is fundamentally repetitive, law emphasizes spotting risk more than opportunity, and those who love to draw outside the lines frequently find law frustrating.
So in your case – what was not to like? Or, put more positively, what kinds of satisfactions or incentives entice your more than whatever rewards law might hold? Those who enter law because they wanted membership in a profession they think is secure, stable, collegial and respectable are getting a rude surprise these days. The practice of law is moving away from stability and headlong towards being competitive, specialized and adversarial – often even with one’s own colleagues. The risk/reward equation is shifting: big paydays also mean big risks. Those who somehow got the idea that law is either intellectually stimulating or creative are disappointed more often than not. Law does have opportunities for intellectuals – but not all that many. Ergo, you are not alone in questioning whether you should engineer an immediate change of venue.
This speaks to my concern that I won't be a good fit for law because I do like to "draw outside the lines." Yet, I believe I'm generally more of an individual contributor than a "collaborative/affiliative" type, so in that regard law might suit me fine. I take what he's saying about the cutthroat nature of law with a bit of skepticism because I wonder if he's considering public interest law, or just speaking primarily of big-firm, big-money law.
The second helpful column talks about the different reasons people generally have for going to law school:
Another large group say the want to learn to do something with their legal education, whether to right wrongs, make a lot of money, or be recognized as the world's greatest expert on electromagnetic torts. This "instrumental" motivation sees law as a tool one uses for a particular purpose, not as a ticket for inclusion into an exclusive club.
A third, much smaller group, studies law because they want to know stuff. It is the intellectual substance and challenge of law that captivates them. They see law in terms of norms, values, systems and history. They see the big picture. They generally are miserably unhappy in the mundane practice of law, but they make great law professors or appellate judges.
The final category contains all the "default" reasons: "My dad is a lawyer." "The LSATs said I might be good at law" [note that they never promised that you would enjoy law]. "It seemed like the thing to do at the time." "My folks said they would pay for it." These reasons can be very powerful, but fundamentally they are insubstantial: they are reactive rather than proactive, and therefore carry a high risk of later career dissatisfaction.
If one has thought through all these practical and motivation questions and is prepared to be cross-examined on one's motives, directions and sanity, effective spin control is not all that difficult. But be prepared to address this point: the majority of people who self-select into law are temperamentally suited to be specialists -- to be known for their knowledge in a certain discipline. In this regard they are much like accountants, plumbers, IT experts and human resources professionals. Their underlying drive often is to be an "individual contributor:" someone who "does it him(her)self."
I see a little of all of the above reasons in my own desire to go to law school. I primarily think of it as a tool (reason #2) that would help me contribute more to the public interest causes that I find so important. But the security and stability of the "profession" (reason #1) also figure in, as does the desire for the intellectual challenge (reason #3). The default reasons that might be motivating me include:
- The security: maybe I'm just looking for something that seems kind of safe? And yet, how "safe" is law when there's an excess of lawyers and the economy's in recession and lawyers are being layed off? Also, how "safe" is it to want to go into public interest law, where I'll likely make only $30-40k/year? (Funny thing is that "safety" is relative: If I stuck w/academia I'd likely eventually make more like $20-30k/year.) Also, law doesn't seem all that safe and secure if you stop to think of the cost: It could easily cost $30-90k for three years of law school, which would take a lot of time to repay on $30-40k/year. But I've already decided that I won't go if I have to pay more than $30k for it, so that's a little easier. (The best option would obviously be that I wouldn't have to pay at all, which would make law school an easy decision, but...)
- Another "default" reason I might choose to go to law school is the promise of the career path of law (this is related to safety). Right now I could either enter some other graduate program (law or library school, probably), or strike out into the big wide world of work (as a writer/journalist or in some capacity with a non-profit like Vote Smart or Public Citizen). Compared to the unpredictability that immediate entry into the workforce would involve, there's a certain amount of safety and predictability about pursuing another degree -- especially one like law or library school, either of which would send me down a more definite and bounded career path.
- Finally, I'm not sure this qualifies as a "default" reason for going to law school, but it is one I'm suspicious of and which is closely related to the other two: Law school (or library school) could be kind of simple right now. "Simple?" you ask? "Is he on crack?" What I mean is that I'm pretty sure I have a good chance of getting into the law school at my current university which would make law school simple because I wouldn't have to move, I wouldn't have to pay out-of-state tuition, and it's also a top-ten public interest school. (Library school here would be the same -- I could probably get in, tuition's reasonable, and it's a top-five program). I'm not crazy about the idea of moving and rearranging my whole life at the moment, so in that regard transitioning to another grad program here would be very simple. Easy. Entering another degree program just because it's easy doesn't seem like the best idea.
Richardson concludes both columns with similar advice, one version of which is :
Self-awareness is the goal here; I'm a little tired of kissing frogs.
Posted 10:08 AM | law general
