Reality TV: Why Is it good to watch people being bad?

In my ongoing quest to do anything but the work I'm supposed to do, I've been keeping up with both “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race” and just wanted to note that “Survivor” is getting better each week, and “TAR” is just the best show ever ever ever on tv. “Survivor” is great because finally, for once, for the first time ever, a women's alliance against the men has held strong. Ok, in the latest episode it was shaken, and it was shaken earlier when Amy orchestrated the ouster of a woman who had said something that made her mad, but otherwise, it's been solid. What's funny about this is that nearly every season I've watched potential women's alliances fall apart, and this season when it first started looking like the women were going to run the board, I resented their ruthlessness. At first I thought Amy was far too mean and uncompromising in the way she manipulated her “team” of women. But then, each week, she earned my respect for both her brilliant psychological play and her excellent performance in challenges. She's simply been nothing but loyal to her original alliance and dedicated to her goal to be in the final two with another woman. If Amy doesn't win this season, it won't be because she hasn't been an incredible player. I'd say easily in the top five ever, maybe top two or three. The trick for power players, though, is always to manage the god complex tightly enough that you don't generate enough fear and resentment to fuel a viable alliance against you. Now, it may be too late for Amy; the last episode set the stage for her ouster, but she's strong enough that she could win some key immunities, and she's certainly proven herself smart enough and persuasive enough to outmaneuver her remaining rivals. This, my friends, is good tv. Prof. Yin has some additional interesting thoughts on what last night's episode might reveal about CBS. Nothing too surprising, really. Ridiculous, if CBS is editing out gay affection the way Prof. Yin suggests they might be, but not surprising. Oh, and the latest episode of survivor was a big ad for Powerbooks, Mac OS X, and iSight cameras from Apple, so of course you know the show has to be about the best thing on tv. I say “almost” because, as mentioned, “TAR” wins that prize. It combines great settings and exciting “challenges” with the most excruciating inside look at how mean people can be to those they supposedly love. For better or worse (pardon the pun), the most continuous theme I see is that men constantly underestimate and disrespect the women they claim to love, and this often comes with verbal abuse and public humiliation. The ideology of patriarchy exposed? To their credit, often the women involved display all sorts of retaliatory, defensive, and even offensive tactics, but still it's very sad. And sadly, it's great tv, too. While being on “Survivor” doesn't really appeal to me anymore b/c of its individualist qualities and the way it rewards ruthlessness, “TAR” is an entirely different story. I would love to try it, and I would hope I and my teammate, whoever it was, could find ways to cope with the stress and the inevitable setbacks and frustrations, w/out taking them out on each other. Of course, I'm sure many of the people who actually get on the show hope so, too.

Posted 10:54 AM | Comments (3) | tv land

Just *Don't* Do It

You're supposed to shop today. Can you resist the urge? And why are some people calling this “Black Friday” while actually promoting consumerism? I don't get it.

Posted 11:31 AM | Comments (3) | life generally

For the Record

This is the first time this month that my NaNo meter (not to be confused with a nanometer) has registered above the goal mark, and so, for the sake of posterity, I give you a sign of the 43,139 words I've written in the past 25 days.

Only 6,861 words to go, with five whole days remaining. I won't jinx it by saying anything about my chances of finishing at this point, but I will say that it feels much better to be at 43k than the 33k I was on just two days ago. Sure it's all crap crap crap, but hey, every word is a good word! Um, maybe I should now spend a few words on that paper I have due on Monday. You think?

Posted 07:01 PM | Comments (2) | NaNoWriMo

Novel Turkey

It has been rumored that the ambivalent novel will not be completed by the deadline of Nov. 30 at midnight; however, after a burst of 5,000 words last night, the novel is almost back on track, and is at least within a plausible striking range. The fat lady has still not sung a note. To the editors of the journal for whom I supposed to be writing a “note,”: Um, sorry. I'd rather write a novel. To the professors who will grade my finals and shake their heads in dismay as they plant my GPA irrevocably in the bottom left of the bell curve: Run run run, fast as you can, you can't catch me I'm the stinky cheese man! To everyone else: Happy Turkey Lurkey!

Posted 08:31 AM | Comments (3) | NaNoWriMo life generally

Gifts that Keep On Giving

Without meaning to, it seems I've been posting about contentious or controversial things recently, but it's getting to be holiday time around this here imbroglio, so let's talk about stuff that's really important ... like Secret Santas!

To use Secret Santa, all you need is a wishlist* at Amazon. First you tell Santa about yourself. Then on December 10th you will be told who you're buying a gift for. And by Christmas Day, everyone has a sparkly present to open!

So sign up, why dontcha? The Secret Santa also offers gift suggestions for those in need of such things. As far as I can tell it's not linked in any direct way to Amazon, although it sure would be a smart marketing move it were. Anyway, it's about that shopping time, so get crackin' and move this economy forward! If you're a true patriot, everything you buy this year will be imported so that our trade deficit can get even larger and we can continue proving to the world how “exceptional” America is. And speaking of exceptionalism, just look at our national debt—largest ever ever ever! No one can beat the U.S.A.! Oops! Did I say that? Sorry, lost the holiday spirit for a moment when reality intruded. But not to worry, there's more gifty goodness going on at tauntinghappyfunball, which is spearheading a blogger mix cd exchange:

Basically, you make a CD for a stranger and send it to them. Simple. All it takes is a bit of a time commitment and a few bucks to get a CD and mail it. But the best part is that you aren't trying to tailor it to anyone in particular. In fact, I think the best way to do it is just see who wants to do it, make the mixes, and then have one person randomly assign a recipient. Since it's my idea, I'll be happy to do that.

Definitely a cool idea! Scheherazade took it in a slightly different direction by offering a mix cd to the first 20 readers who responded to her offer. Also a cool idea! Don't you think the ambivalent imbroglio needs a soundtrack? I mean, America has a soundtrack (to which I've been listening a lot, recently); doesn't ai need one, too? Ah, but there are those finals coming up.... So until I get around to actually making an ai soundtrack, you might enjoy the Top 40 Band In America Today from the information leafblower. Sounds like a pretty great soundtrack to me.

Posted 10:14 AM | Comments (1) | life generally

Public Interest Law: It's Not About You

In a rough draft of an article about why he's not going to work at a firm, Jeremy Blachman recently wrote:

I have heard people defend their decision to work at a law firm by comparing it to public interest work. That you work the same hours doing the same kind of work but you get paid a lot less and don’t get free coffee. I might try and argue that there’s public interest work that’s more rewarding than firm work, because you might feel like you’re doing more good for the world. That might not be a very good argument. Even if it is, I’m not the right one to make it. Other people can make it better than I can. My argument is that even if that’s true, it misses the point. Even if law firms come out on top if you compare them to public interest jobs, it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t the only jobs out there. There’s a whole world of other things people do. I feel like it’s easy to forget that. And if practicing law is your passion, maybe it’s okay to forget that. Maybe that really is the entirety of the universe of jobs that interest you.

I actually haven't heard that argument before—that public and private interest law are really the same except that one pays better. Is that really an argument people make to justify working at a firm? While Jeremy is right that there are lots of other things to do besides public interest legal jobs or working in a firm, there are also many more (and more important) differences between public and private interest law besides the money. First, I know lots of public interest lawyers and most of them do not work anything like the same brutal hours that firms are notorious for. They get paid less, sure, but their “benefits package” often includes good health care, a casual dress code (so they don't have to waste money they don't have on clothes for work and can wear what they find comfortable rather than what the partners or clients expect or demand), more flexible vacation time, and shorter hours. And, of course, one big benefit of working in the public interest is that you're more likely to be able to go home at night feeling proud of how you spent your day because you did something good for society. And that's just it: The most important difference between public and private interest law has nothing to do with what it does for you, the attorney. No, the real difference between these two career paths is what they do for other people. Simply put, if you work in the private interest, your clients will be mostly people with money trying to keep that money or get more of it, and the purpose of their litigation will often be their own private gain. Another term for private interest law (not all of it, but too much) could be: Greedy Law. On the other hand, if you work in the public interest, your clients will mostly be people without money trying to get justice or protect themselves from people with money, and the purpose of their litigation will often be the maintenance and protection of their own basic civil and human rights. Another term of public interest law could be: Public Protection Law. (I would include the dread “trial lawyer” or “plaintiff's attorney” in this category, as well.) So when someone suggests that private and public interest law are really the same except that one pays more, that's just not true. One attempts to make the world a better place for whoever can pay the most, while the other attempts to make the world a better place for all of us. And a good way to see the difference is to stop asking what a particular job can do for you, and ask instead what a job could allow you to do for other people. That makes the differences more clear for me, anyway. Disclaimer: I know there are thousands of terrific people working in firms and other “private interest” legal jobs who are doing great work that both pays well and also makes things a little better for all of us. Not all private interest jobs are “bad,” nor are all public interest jobs “good.” The above differences are generalizations made for the sole purpose of helping to clarify what appears to be some confusion about the differences between the two career paths.

Posted 11:20 AM | Comments (12) | law general

Conference: Public Service and the Law

FYI for public interest law geeks: The U of VA School of Law is hosting a conference on Public Service and the Law on February 11-12, 2005, featuring a keynote by Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU.

Posted 02:46 PM | law general

Humble Pie: ABA Not Awful

As you can see from the comments in the post below, I wasn't being very accurate when I made a leap from passing the bar exam to a critique of the ABA. II apologize for the misfire. To a large extent, I don't know what I'm talking about, but let's see if I can clarify it a little. My understanding is that one of the functions of the ABA is to act as an accrediting body, just as Princeton Review says here:

In most states, a law school graduate cannot take the bar exam without having attended an ABA-approved school (or, in legal lingo, a school that has earned ABA accreditation.) And in most states, passing the dreaded bar exam is a requirement for the practice of law, so a degree from a non-ABA-accredited school is a ticket to nowhere.

So there's a connection between the ABA and the high cost of law school, which was really the complaint at the heart of yesterday's rant. Exactly what the connection is, I'm still not sure. What are those accreditation requirements? How much do they add to the cost of law school? Do they stipulate the three-year requirement, or is that just something all schools have decided to do on their own? Also, according to the Princeton Review again, “[m]ost states won't let you take the bar exam if you haven't attended an ABA-accredited school,” so while joining the ABA is purely voluntary, the organization can have a pretty sizable impact on anyone who wants to practice law, regardless of whether that person decides to become a member of the ABA. Beyond that, state bar associations are largely responsible for the vague UPL statutes in many states, as well as the selective enforcement of them. So it's not the ABA's fault if these statutes don't serve the public interest, but is the ABA blameless here? Doesn't it have some influence over the state bars, which in turn have a lot of influence over the state legislatures that make these laws? But whatever. I'm sure the ABA does many very good things, and for that I am thankful. Consider all this a bit of constructive criticism from someone who really doesn't know enough about the details involved. If you can fill in the gaps a little, please do. UPDATE: A bit more on accreditation, including a link to the ABA standards for approval of law schools. Also, it appears Barry University School of Law recently sued the ABA over its accreditation standards, calling them monopolistic and racist. Sounds fascinating, but I don't have time right now for deeper digging...

Posted 10:12 AM | Comments (7) | law general

Damn you, ABA!

Thinking about passing the bar (since Mr. Poon just did that and all) forces me to face the fact that I, too, am striving to become a member of one of the nation's most antisocial cartels. This is not a source of joy; the ABA is not a friend of the good and the just, as far as I can tell. For one thing, it forces its members to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of joining, then appears to exist for no other reason than to ensure the majority of those members can charge their clients enough money to pay back the debt required to get that coveted membership in the first place. Yeah, the ABA sure is a great thing. The ABA calls itself “the largest voluntary professional association in the world.” What a joke! Sure, it's “voluntary” in the sense that no one is forced to join . . . unless you want to practice law. IIn fact, every state has an “unlawful practice of law” (UPL) statute that makes it a crime for unaccredited individuals to do the things that lawyers do. These UPL statutes are notoriously vague and broad and allow the Bar in each state to harass and criminalize people such as paralegals who may be so audacious as to try to help people accomplish simple tasks like getting a divorce or writing a will. Why would Bar Associations do this? To protect their monopoly and the unconscionable fees it allows them to charge. Oh yeah, membership is voluntary, all right. What else does the ABA do? It claims to provide “law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public.” And there you have it. The ABA's law school accreditation helps police law schools to make sure they have nice buildings and overpaid faculty so that they can justify their extortionate tuition. It also requires that law school be three years, rather than the one or two that could easily be adequate. This forces many law students to start their career with so much debt they don't have time to think about anything other than making money, which is just fine w/the ABA because that's what it cares about too. I can't speak to the ABA's continuing legal education (CLE) requirements, but they sound incredibly hokey and rather than ensuring that lawyers remain qualified to practice it sounds like they ensure that hotels and conference planners will have plenty of customers. And I'm sure the ABA gets some nice fees every time someone wants to offer CLE credit for one its conference talks or whatever. Money, baby, that's the name of the ABA game. As for the ABA's other self-professed activities, I know that another word for most of the mail I get from the ABA and its affiliate is “junk,” not “information about the law.” And while I'm sure that the ABA offers some great programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, I'm also sure that we don't need the ABA for that; independent non-profits and local governments could probably take the best of those programs over and do a better job with them. Finally, the ABA's “initiatives to improve the legal system for the public” seem like a hypocritical joke. The ABA is responsible for legal services costing so much that huge swaths of the public can't afford them, and then it claims to be improving the legal system for the public? Yeah, right. Ok, so some sort of organization of law practitioners might be a good thing, but the ABA has gotten way, way, way out of control; if it ever served the public interest, I really can't see how it does now.

Posted 09:22 AM | Comments (4) | law general