Math Class for Poets

T.P.H. has entered the blawg field with Math Class for Poets—a great name for a blog derived from the way one of his professors described law school. Heck, if I'd heard that before, I might have jumped on the law school bandwagon a long time ago. Who cares if it's accurate—it sounds great, and that's what counts.

TPH also points to a crack bit of global political strategizing that, as he describes it:

compares the problems challenging strategic decisionmaking in a world of diverse potential threats to the challenges that face Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the soon-to-be-seven-year television series of that name.

Ah yes. Could global politics get any better?

Posted 05:07 PM | law school

Forbidden Thoughts

Looking back a bit at the big anniversary: It looks like Salon stirred up some controversy by publishing Forbidden Thoughts about 9-11. Some say it was in poor taste, while others say it's a relief to finally read honest, human, and widely varied responses to the events of a year ago. You might guess I side with the latter group. As a teacher I try to promote critical thinking [1] and the high emotional rhetoric and romantic simplifications that have filled the media since 9-11 have often made critical thought difficult to conduct or maintain. So stuff like this Salon piece—which is way outside the media mainstream—provides something of a system-shocker that helps remind people to examine the dominant discourse for flaws, holes, omissions, representative accuracy.

For the dominant discourse, the AP is often a good source. For example, last week the AP reported that:

The president's speech [to the U.N.] completed the steady expansion of his war on terrorism, first launched after the Sept. 11 attacks against alleged mastermind Osama bin Laden, to a campaign to remove what he has called "tyrants" such as Saddam.

One of the "forbidden thoughts" covered in Salon's article said:

"I had a thought, when it first happened -- the kind of conspiracy thoughts that liberal college students have who studied poli sci and read too much about Nicaragua or Colombia -- that maybe the Americans let it happen so that they could use it as a tool to get serious in Iraq. Then the buildings fell and all the liberal poli sci hippie stuff drained out of my body and for the first time ever I felt, kill them all."

The prescience of such a reaction is eerie. Of course, there's no way of knowing whether this person actually thought the above on 9-11-01, or whether subsequent events have revised her memories of her first thoughts, Still, since I heard about the same sort of "first reaction" from many different sources long before anyone started talking seriously about a new or reinvigorated war against Iraq, I tend to think the above is probably a fairly genuine response. If so, this seems to be someone whose critical judgment proved to be uncannily—and disturbingly—accurate.

Anyway, for more in the vein of "forbidden thoughts," see also the stories from readers, and the discussion on Scott Rosenberg's blog. And while we're talking forbidden thoughts, check out this column from Ted Rall: "If You Have Dignity, the Terrorists have Won.".

All of the above links discuss 9-11 with irreverence, to say the least. For a bit of balance, check out The Dead and the Guilty, a thoughtful account of precisely why the best memorial we (you and me, Americans and citizens of the world) can offer to those who died on 9-11 has very little to do with the kind of thing that filled the media on that day [via Joe Conason]. Historian Simon Schama writes:

Apparently, the dead are owed another war. But they are not. What they are owed is a good, stand-up, bruising row over the fate of America; just who determines it and for what end?

Does the fact that we don't really seem to be having this "bruising row" mean that such arguments have become "forbidden thoughts," too?

Footnote:
[1] The "critical thought" I'm speaking of here does not necessarily take sides (i.e., is not necessarily oppositional), but instead asks of any text (news report, story, event, etc.): what is this text trying to accomplish? Why was it created? Who constructed it and what were his/her motives or biases? What does this text assume or take for granted? What do those assumptions imply? What are the logical conclusions of the argument made by this text? etc...

Posted 02:34 PM | general politics

2nd Practice LSAT

That sucked. Funny how studying for a test can cause you to perform more poorly on it. Is the solution to study more? Or less?

Posted 02:03 PM | law school

JD Jungle

Thanks again to Alice W. of A Mad Tea-Party fame for pointing to JD Jungle a magazine for the aspiring law practitioner. The first two articles I read offered terrific and candid advice—the first about alternatives to taking that BigLaw job, and the second about strategies for getting your first job in a tight economy.

Yeah, I know: I've got lots of work to do before this advice is really relevant, but, again, it seems like it's a good idea to know the terrain of your destination before you land there. That way, you know how to pack before your journey begins.

UPDATE: Lawyers agree. Law.com advises students to Make Law School Relevant by figuring out as soon as possible what, specifically, you want to do with your degree. Just FYI and stuff.

Posted 02:09 PM | law school

First Law Job Advice

Although I won't be exactly in this market any time soon: Howard Bashman offers what sounds like solid advice to consider when going after your first job out of law school. [via A Mad Tea-Party]

I'm thinking the whole appellate route is sounding more interesting, but I'm also curious about regular ol' public interest law or legislative practice. A resource that's been great in helping me figure out where within the vast playground of law I might fit has been The Guide to Legal Specialties. I hear it's rather common for people to push themselves through all the hoops involved with law school (LSAT, applications, 1L, summer internships, yadda yadda yadda) without really knowing what the heck they want to do with their JD. That sounds crazy to me, which is why I recommend The Guide to Legal Specialities—it's a good place to learn how the world of law is divided and what piece of the pie might be most tasty for you.

Question of the day for you lawyers: Does The Guide to Legal Specialties give an accurate picture of the different fields within the practice of law?

Posted 02:02 PM | law school

Academic Hell, Part 23

As a followup to my last post ending with whether law is a good path for me to follow, here's another reason why sticking with academia is a bad idea: relationships are hell. Robert MacDougall, a doctoral student of history at Harvard, could be talking about me and my peers in the English Ph.D. program when he writes in today's Chronicle of Higher Education that:

we have never been in academe when the job market for Ph.D.'s was not considered terrible. Our friends, our professors, even columns in The Chronicle have done their part to let us know just how brutally competitive it is out there, how dismal are the odds against landing the coveted full-time, tenure-track job. They've done so, I know, with the very best of intentions. But everyone has been so conscientious in protecting this generation of grad students from false hopes or disillusionment that many of us seem to hold out no hope at all.

MacDougall goes on to say that this complete lack of hope means that academic relationships (in which both parties are academics) can be difficult, if not impossible, since the chances of you and your partner finding jobs in the same area code (let alone at the same school) are next to nil.

<obsequious whine>
Oh please, please, may I dedicate 7-8 years of my life to earning a Ph.D. (to the exclusion of all other pursuits), only to have to sacrifice my relationship to a tenure-track job that will then force me to dedicate 5-7 more years kissing ass to earn tenure (again, to the exclusion of all other pursuits)? Please? Please? Oh, thank you, sir! Yes, sir! May I have another!?
</obsequious whine>

No thanks.

Posted 11:47 AM | Comments (3) | law school

Committees, No; and...

Thanks to TPB for snagging some of the flies I popped up the other day on interdependence, America's participation in international treaties and world courts, NAFTA, and "enemy combatants." Give me time and space, I'll work in a tangent about the kitchen sink next time, I promise. While I'm glad to hear that the legal basis of Chapter 11 of NAFTA sounds as weak to a lawyer as Bill Moyers suggested, the real focus of TBP's original post, was whether E.U.-style rule-by-committee would ever fly in the U.S. I agree that it doesn't seem like the best idea, for all the reasons TPB points out.

I knew someone would tag me on the "representative" part of our democracy; I'm not sure where to come down on that. On the one hand, I simply don't trust most candidates and elected officials, so I'd like them to be more responsive to their constituents. On the other hand, I don't trust a lot of the American People^TM, either (since they (we) are often largely pawns of soundbites and special-interest media campaigns which tell us what to think), so we might be better off if reps largely ignore us. (But then, in my most cynical mood, I think if the majority of Americans think it's a good idea to—for example— allow the global environment to be destroyed in the next 50 years while we continue living as if it weren't happening, then the American People^TM deserve what's coming to us.)

Another tangent was the "enemy combatant" status that is being applied to certain people accused of terrorism, or of helping terrorists, or whatever. In truth, these people don't have to be accused of anything at all—they can simply be labeled "enemy combatants" and all their rights magically disappear (as U.S. citizens or otherwise—see the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, for example[1]). TBP has the goods on what the Constitution says about this:

Once someone is designated a "clear and present danger" by both Congress and the Executive Branch, what limits what we can do with them? At present, there is an executive order which restricts our ability to assassinate them, but little else. In terms of the Constitution, nothing.

Which brings me hopping and skipping to TPB's final point about why I'm still debating going to law school. The answer is I'm not quite debating so much anymore—I'm tentatively planning on it. I'm studying for the LSAT and making application-type movements, so we'll see where that goes. But it's issues like the above that make me doubt my fitness for law school. The deal is this: While the Constitution may say nothing about what we can do with people designated as a "clear and present danger," that obviously doesn't answer the question. But even if legal precedent said we could do anything we wanted with these people (boil them in oil or whatever), that still wouldn't answer the question. The point is: I fear I don't have enough respect for the law. When the law seems wrong, it's easy for me to dismiss it. At the same time, I'm wary of using the law as a final limit—just because there's no law preventing us from doing various things, that doesn't mean we should think ourselves free to do those things. (Recent corporate finance scandals are cases in point. Perhaps, technically, no crimes were committed; however, what happened was not ok.) I'm guessing law school and a couple of years of legal practice would help me see how to deal with these cases where the law either seems inadequate or in error, but still I wonder if I'll always be running into the law as a wall, and if I'll always be frustrated by that. I've heard some advice that law isn't for people who like to color outside the lines, think outside the box, etc. If that's true, I may be very bad at it, and I may really hate it. Hence, the debate ... and the name of this blog, by the way—I'm ambivalent about law (I'm both very eager to get to law school and dig in, and I'm also very hesitant to do so), which leads to my current imbroglio (a perplexing state of affairs). Still, I'm probably going. And if law school enables me to have more good "conversations" like this one with TPB, I'll probably end up being as happy as I hope to be.

Footnote:
[1] On the Hamdi case, see also: Charles Krauthammer, a slightly more recent story, and the actual suit: Yaser Esam Hamdi v. John Ashcroft (pdf file).

Posted 11:13 AM | law school

Striking A Balance

Without really meaning to, I guess I started talking about the value of international law the other day in this post on interdependence. I'm looking forward to TPB's promised response, but meanwhile Garrett Moritz contributes a point I hadn't really considered: While I guess I was basically arguing that the U.S. ought to submit to and participate in the continued development of international law—in the form of treaties, world courts, etc—Moritz points out that international law could always be used to screen all manner of nefarious deeds if the international community is dominated by one power (i.e., the U.S.) that is not above manipulating that law to its own ends. My first thought on this is that it only argues for a stronger and more widely-respected body of international law—one that would be more difficult for any one member (or small group of members) to dominate.

But regardless of the relative merits of stronger international law, it's increasingly clear that, as Dave Winer wrote yesterday (and as many others have noted in different ways), something is out of balance "in how the US participates in the world, both from the US perspective, and the world's perspective." And as Jeff Cooper notes, calling September 11
"Patriot Day" is probably not going to help restore that balance.

Posted 09:34 PM | general politics

Not Getting It

As September 11 approaches, we're getting all kinds of perspectives from the media. Amid the din, this Ted Rall strip is certainly worth a critical and perhaps contemplative perusal.

Although their tone and approach is very different several other sources are attempting to keep the sentimentalism at bay via satire. For example, Joe Conason points to The Media Person who has penned a smart satire on this topic entitled, "It's Not Going to be a Week for the Weak So Wear Your Best Closure." And speaking of closure, Who Will Bring It?

The dark brand of humor that is satire is a risky and complex endeavor, especially related to this topic. But I think these kinds of articles are meant to give us a little critical distance from the tidal wave of emotion that's ready to break on our national shores, and with global affairs in their current state, someone needs to be far enough away from the tsunami to keep from drowning.

Note: On the subject of interdependence, the 9-11 attacks and their aftermath are perhaps the most stark and obvious demonstration of my point: we are interdependent people in an interdependent world. We'll continue to pretend otherwise only by living in a fantasy world, and only at our own peril.

Posted 11:45 AM | general politics