Lawless is In!

Congrats to S/R at So Sue Me -- she's in! Congratulations!

Getting in means S/R has now moved on to the next phase: How the heck do I decide where to go? What variables are the most important to consider? Cost? Location? Workload? Reputation? The quality of the stationary and promotional materials the school sends? The tone of voice you hear when you talk to the school's representatives? The clinical programs available? The faculty? The curriculum? What your friends think? The way your stomach feels when you think of living there for three years? Hmm...

Funny, but in some ways every decision on the road toward law school seems harder than the last. The decision to take the LSAT? Not so hard. Actually studying for it and doing well is harder, but deciding whether to do it is pretty simple. Then deciding where to apply is a little harder, and, of course, deciding where to actually go is harder still. Perhaps I should take this as a message of sorts: If I find decisions like these so difficult, and if the stakes only get higher and the decisions along with them... I've always thought I'd make a great barrista at the local Borders.

Posted 10:06 AM | Comments (1) | law school

Meta-blogging

FYI: After recently adding an email link to ai (at left), the volume of spam email I receive is increasing every day. If you don't want this to happen to you, you might want to try the Enkoder Form:

The Enkoder will encrypt your Email address and wrap the result in JavaScript, hiding it from Email-harvesting robots which crawl the web looking for exposed addresses. Just paste the resulting JavaScript into your website's HTML. Your address will be displayed correctly by web-browsers, but will be virtually indecipherable to Email harvesting robots.

Enkoder should now be in effect, so now I'm bracing myself to cope with the large void that will open in my life when I no longer find my email box packed with bogus job offers and poorly written pitches for generic viagra ("100% identical formula!!!"). It's going to be tough, but I think I'll pull through.

And speaking of blog modifications, I recently stumbled upon this readme for bloggers. It's a disclaimer to remind readers of the limits and etiquette of reading and writing weblogs. I won't go into the details here, except to say that it seems a fascinating look into the kinds of issues other bloggers have found it necessary to shield themselves against. [link via the beautifully-designed Bealog]

Posted 09:30 AM | Comments (1) | meta-blogging

DoubleSpeak

Speaking of Orwell, what would you say if asked: "How many of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?" Apparently, ignorance is strength:

At the end of the first week of January, the Princeton Survey Research Associates polled more than 1,200 Americans on behalf of the Knight Ridder newspaper chain. They asked a very simple question: "To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?" … Of those surveyed, only 17 percent knew the correct answer: that none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Forty-four percent of Americans believe that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi; another 6 percent believe that one of the hijackers was a citizen of that most notorious node in the axis of evil. That leaves 33 percent who did not know enough to offer an answer.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Posted 08:40 PM | general politics

Bits and Pieces

Minitrue: In George Orwell's 1984, the Ministry of Truth is responsible for news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. It's affectionately known as "Minitrue," a highly appropriate name considering that what it really does is churn out fabrication after fabrication in order to make the government look as good as possible.

Although it's almost a week old and has thankfully faded into obscurity, this story is worth remembering. It suggests that "Iraqi spies" have been circulating in the U.S., to encourage anti-war sentiment. Will this be the last we hear of such misinformation, or is it only the beginning? [cue theme from "The Twilight Zone"]

Compartmentalization: Another old story that I'm just getting to is the one about the cancelled poetry reading at the White House. After hearing that some poets were planning to read anti-war/pro-peace and justice poetry at the White House event to which they were recently invited, Laura Bush cancelled the event.

``While Mrs. Bush respects the right of all Americans to express their opinions, she, too, has opinions and believes it would be inappropriate to turn a literary event into a political forum.'' Noelia Rodriguez, spokeswoman for first lady Laura Bush, said Wednesday.

Remember, Laura Bush was a teacher, and she taught us that "there's nothing political about literature." Good thing there's nothing political about that position. It's great that our First Lady is there to clarify those impermeable borders that divide the world into neat little boxes, don't you think? Without someone like her enforcing those rigid boundaries, people could get really confused…

Online OD: What would you do if you watched someone take a deadly drug overdose via webcam? What a horrifying story.

Bloodthirsty Much?: Attorney General John Ashcroft is wants to kill people:

Mr. Ashcroft has stirred a controversy in federal prosecutors' offices nationally in recent months by insisting that they seek executions in some cases in which they had recommended against it. Under Justice Department rules, local federal prosecutors can only recommend whether to seek the death penalty; the final decision is up to the attorney general.

Makes you proud to be an American, don't it?

Impeach Bush: Speaking of being proud to be an American, there appear to be two, count 'em, two! competing campaigns to impeach George W. Bush and trusted members of his gang. The Vote to Impeach campaign appears to have the support of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, not to mention the weight of the International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition (a major organizer of the large anti-war protests in Oct. and Jan.). Meanwhile, the Impeach-Bush-Now effort is headed up by U of IL College of Law Professor Francic A. Boyle, who also wrote the articles of impeachment against George Bush I. One of my favorite 80s bands, The Woodentops, sang a song in which they bouncily chanted "don't let history repeat itself, don't let history repeat itself." I've thought about that song a lot since December 2000.

Plagiarism: If you've taught a writing class since the dawn of the Internet, you'll enjoy this. And if you've taught any college class in recent years, you might be glad to have your suspicions confirmed that grades are up, while studying is down.

Posted 02:04 PM | general politics

Space, Peace, Granny D

I'm going to try to stop pointing to every single new edition of Mondo Washington, really I am, but I continue to be impressed with its incisive coverage of current events. It consistently delivers short, punchy perspectives you just won't get from the mainstream media. For example, check out this view on the Shuttle Columbia disaster:

"It's unfortunate that lives were lost in a mission that did not advance science in a meaningful way, and that is exactly what we have to avoid in the future," Francis Slakey, a Georgetown University physics professor who writes on space issues, told the Voice.

Ok, sure, the media are covering the building controversy over the value of the shuttle program, but Ridgeway gives it to you straight up, no chaser. Here's another: Is the U.S. a nation that's helping create a more just and peaceful world? Well, um...:

The U.S. now accounts for more than 50 percent of all the armaments sold on the planet. In 2001 we exported $12.2 billion in arms and signed up $13.1 billion in new business through the Foreign Military Sales program. What's more, our subsidies to the weapons industry are second only to those we give agribusiness.

"U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over," says a recent report from the Federation of American Scientists. "Of the active conflicts in 1999, the United States supplied arms or military technology to parties in more than 92 percent of them—39 out of 42." American troops have had to face armies we trained in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and Afghanistan. Because we trained and armed them with modern weaponry, we have had to spend yet more money to develop high-tech arms to, in effect, defeat ourselves. In addition, we soon will subsidize the sale of additional weapons to former Soviet republics and East Bloc nations, which are modernizing to meet NATO standards.

What do you think? Does the whole "peace via bullets" thing really seem to be working? It doesn't look like it's very effective to me; using violence to create peace has almost never been more than a temporary solution that tends to eventually make bad situations worse. But you don't have to take it from me; listen to Granny D., who has been working for peace and justice longer than most of us have been alive. Her message? A better world begins with you and me. In a recent speech Granny D put it this way:

How we live shapes the entire world. I am no angel. I buy clothing that is a bargain and I look at the tag with guilt if it is from some faraway place where the workers may be abused. My part of New England used to be a great textile center, so I also care about the fact that my purchasing may take jobs from my neighbors.

What we drive, what we buy, the entertainment we choose, the way we use electricity and water – all of these things matter. Our little decisions work for or against our dream of a fair world that spins along with nature in balance and with people living well in their local economies. Poverty happens, war happens, imperialism happens, when all the little bad decisions of a nation's people accumulate and find political expression.
…
We cannot have world peace without peace in our own lives. We cannot attack our planet by the way we live, and then go off to a peace rally and hope to set right all the imbalance we have caused. Peace is first a private matter. It cannot grow except from there.

You tell us, Granny.

Posted 01:56 PM | general politics

Thanks (and In Again!)

Thanks to everyone for your kind words and congratulations, as well as your helpful advice about the whole "financing your legal education" thing. The most recent news on that front is that I just got a phone call from George Mason University School of Law to notify me that I've been accepted there, as well. Hooray! Of course, my first question was about financial aid and the answer was that federal loan programs allow anyone to borrow a maximum of $18k/year, which won't even cover tuition at any of the schools I've applied to. Mason apparently has very little money for scholarships, which means that even though its tuition is $10k/year less than that of Boston College, BC might end up being the less expensive choice. BC appears to have a good bit of cash for financial aid purposes—almost 23 percent of its students get "half to full tuition" in grants/scholarships, compared to 2.4 percent at GM.

I know, just be happy I'm in. I am, but as Liable has noted, somewhere between deciding to go to law school, studying for the LSAT, applying, getting LSAT results, and getting admitted, the initial euphoric enthusiasm for the whole massive endeavor almost inevitably morphs into the realization that, well, going to law school is difficult. And it may be that part of its appeal is in its difficulty, in the sheer insanity of taking on so much debt (not to mention the psycho-emotional trauma of making it through the first year of classes). Are all lawyers masochists?

Posted 01:36 PM | Comments (2) | law school

In!

Contained within a fat white envelope in today's mail was the following letter:

On behalf of the Admissions Committee, I am delighted to inform you of your acceptance to August 2003 entering class at Boston College Law School. You should be proud of this accomplishment; we expect to receive over 8,000 applications this year for an entering class of 260.

I'm glad I should be proud, because I am, but probably more than anything else I feel relieved. After being deferred at GULC, my confidence was a bit shaken and I was beginning to worry about getting in anywhere. Of course, I hope I'll be getting at least a couple more letters like this from other schools in the coming weeks, but at least I now know that I can get into law school.

Now the question is: How will I pay for it? The good news is that BC does have what appears to be a fairly good LRAP, which is reassuring. The hard part is getting to graduation and a job so that the LRAP can start doing its good work. Looks like it's time to get serious about all those financial aid details.

I know finances are considered taboo and personal in U.S. culture, but I do wonder: Why don't bloggers currently in law school talk more about the financial side of things? Now that I must seriously contemplate taking on something like $40k or more per year in debt for the next three years, my first instinct is to panic and become seriously dismayed. My second instinct is to ask: How the hell do you do that?

Posted 10:26 PM | Comments (8) | law school

Pinstripes and Pearls

A new book about life in the 60s for women at Harvard Law: Pinstripes and Pearls by Judith Richards Hope and Justice Stephen Breyer. They didn't even have women's restrooms at Harvard in the 1960s!?! [link via NPR's All Things Considered]

Has anyone read this?

Posted 06:57 PM | law school

Making Nonviolence Work

If we're going to value life, we have to find ways to solve problems without killing people, which means, usually, without violence. According to People Power: Applying Nonviolence Theory by David H. Albert, Gandhi relied on a list of eight things that make nonviolent conflict resolution possible:

1. Refraining from violence or hostility.
2. Making real attempts to gain the opponent's trust.
3. Refraining from humiliating the opponent, rather relying on the power of the truth which you hold.
4. Making visible sacrifices for one's cause—you may be asking your opponent to sacrifice what s/he sees as her/his own self-interest or self-esteem; to convince them, you should be prepared to do the same.
5. Carrying on constructive work—positive activity reduces the negative image that a society may have of those who noncooperate.
6. Maintaining personal contact with the opponent—insures maximum possible mutual understanding.
7. Demonstrating trust of the opponent—when you have high expectations of an opponent, these expectations may encourage her/him to live up to them.
8. Developing empathy, good will, and patience toward the opponent—why address yourself to an opponent at all unless you assume s/he can change? If you deeply understand the motives, expectations, attitudes and perceived interests of opponents as people, your actions are likely to become more powerful.

If we compare these strategies to the current U.S. efforts to reduce "terror" and bring peace to the world, it's not hard to see why we'll never "win" the "war on terror" or eliminate the possibility that small nations like North Korea will threaten world peace with nuclear (or other) arsenals. If Ghandi was right, then everything we've been doing only makes more people mad and escalates levels of violence, rather than reducing them. So, in light of Ghandi's advice, what kinds of things could the U.S. do to be a more effective peacemaker in the world?

Posted 04:22 PM | general politics

Columbia

I like how Dave Winer of Scripting News is handling the disintegration of Space Shuttle Columbia yesterday. He begins this DaveNet with, "Here are some points of view you won't get from TV coverage of the Columbia disaster." He goes on to repeat a few of the things I've been thinking since about noon yesterday when it was clear that just about every U.S. media outlet had shifted into "shuttle porn" mode. Winer doesn't make light of the Columbia crash, and I don't want to either. But his concluding point about the seven people killed is what I think we should remember as we move on:

Yes it's sad they died. Yes. But it's great that they lived.

And jumping off from that celebration of life, perhaps as we mourn the loss of the Columbia crew, U.S. citizens (and especially U.S. political leaders) should question more seriously than ever the value of dropping bombs on Iraq or anywhere else. Perhaps we should consider the contradictions between non-stop media coverage that makes it appear that the world is ending when the U.S. loses *seven* astronauts, even as the U.S. moves almost full steam ahead toward a war that will kill thousands. If the lives of those seven astronauts were worth so much (and they were), then are the lives of Iraqis or the American soldiers who will die in a war against Iraq worth any less?

Posted 04:17 PM | life generally

Law School Motives

Liable points to a great little piece at Law.com about why people go to law school. Does it seem a bit odd the way the people in the article seem to see the study of law as something that will give their lives definition and structure? It's almost as if these people are hoping law school will save them from something. Law school as salvation? What do we need to be saved from? Ourselves? Why would law appear to be salvation? Do other professions attract people for reasons like this? Hello Freud, am I just projecting here?

What's awful about a couple of these people is their cynicism; they haven't even started law school and they've already convinced themselves that whatever horrible shit they have to do (i.e., defend lead paint companies or tobacco companies or corporate polluters or whatever) won't matter, either to them or to the world. The opening sentence sums it up brilliantly:

For all the bites I have taken at the law, I always maintained the belief that most of that tar-mountain called What's Wrong goes back to the attitude some people take when first entering law school, attitudes whose implicit cynicism will shape the next three years instead of the growth-oriented converse.

Now doesn't that just make law school sound like fun? Yikes.

I guess I'm most like "Charles" who explains his decision to go to law school this way:

"The point of a J.D. is the sudden power it brings you. I have to work from the inside. … It doesn't matter whether I'll feel satisfaction or believe in what I'm doing. Don't you see? It's war. War. This hell has succumbed to the blasé; people will dismiss this article like any another hollow statistic. Well not me. I didn't dismiss a thing. Feeling bad accomplishes as much as feeling nothing. I'm not even going to waste my energy hoping someone reads my words and gets inspired. Everyone knows what I know, knows it goes on around the world, everyday, right ... now. I knew it, too. But I saw it, and that made all the difference."

Read that again: "Feeling bad accomplishes as much as feeling nothing." And yes, the point for me is the "sudden power" that comes with the J.D. When I look at the world and how power moves through it, it seems to me that, in my current position, my ability to act is fairly limited. However, as a lawyer, many new avenues should open. So instead of just feeling bad (or angry) about how screwed up the world is, I hope I'll be in a better position to do something about it. But right now I think I need to quick jump down off my high horse before I fall off and break something. Part of me is that crusader, but another part is the one looking for structure and salvation. And even as I admit that I know the joke's on me if I'm looking for the law to save me. Sheesh, you'd think I would have learned the foolishness of that lesson when I got my first speeding ticket at age 16!

Maybe that will be my new mantra: Feeling bad accomplishes as much as feeling nothing. Feeling bad accomplishes as much as feeling nothing. Feeling bad accomplishes…

Posted 09:38 AM | Comments (5) | law school