floodlit

Invented memories

2009-03-09T18:16:00.000-07:00

I watched "60 Minutes" on Sunday night. The show covered a truly sad story about a lady who'd been raped as a college student at 22. She'd memorialized various features of her attacker and helped investigators create a composite sketch. A local restaurant worker mostly fit the description and his photo was placed in a line-up along with several others who generally matched some demographic characteristics. As it turns out, a photograph of the actual rapist (later determined with some greater specificity by DNA analysis) was not among those shown to the unhappy victim. She picked out the fellow who appeared the most similar upon the various physical points of reference she had, quite painstakingly, committed to memory; who the police had picked because of her composite sketch and his proximity to the site of the crime. Suffice it to say, in an in-person line up, the same fellow was picked, the victim was congratulated on her consistency, and a conviction and long imprisonment duly followed. Watch the story here.

There's something frightfully interesting about how malleable memory is. Later in the broadcast, an individual characterized the memory of a crime victim as worthy of being guarded with the same care as one would the actual crime scene. Be careful not to leave things lying about, don't scuff the carpet, don't bush your shoulders off - your dandruff might incriminate you.

I find this an interesting jumping off point for what I hope will be observations of some import. A few months ago, I read Francis Yates' book, The Art of Memory. It's a historical study of the various means of manipulating memory used by the comprehensively bright folks who pulled off the Renaissance. (No small feat, when one considers that it used to be The Man could set you on fire for writing down the wrong thing or committing a victimless crime like blasphemy) Now, when I say "manipulating memory," I really mean placing artificial information in such a way that it seems real to the part of the mind responsible for recall. Let's say, for instance, that I need to recall the legal elements of some crime so as to be able to answer a question on the dread Bar Exam. I could write out the elements in a standard outline format, re-read them, copy them to flash cards, perhaps remember how they are placed on a given page, and hope to be able to reproduce them on demand. Another means would be to associate the concepts and words with objects in a three-dimensional space that one would move through in "rehearsing" the elements of the crime. For some reason it's more natural to remember a walk around a room than a decidedly abstracted paragraph - why else do people pace when deep in thought? This idea of creating a physical script of sorts, apparently allowed our predecessors to engage in prodigious feats of memory. Like, say, reciting the Iliad, with only the variations in adjective and adverb that made siting around a fire and listening to the same story for the umpteenth time pass as quality entertainment in the good old days.

This procedure of building memory is more than fascinating. Causing parts of the mind to associate artificial facts with reality, through verification and the placing of detail in a physical context... it's, Jesus H. Christ, pretty damn sweet!

It's also dangerous. Those of you who know me are aware of my dabbling in the cognitive sciences - I hope the story I lead with brings into sharp relief to point I've raised a thousand times about just how easy it is to place conceptual and conclusory artifacts into one's experiential memory. You don't even have to consciously want this sort of thing to happen. The knowledge of this distinctly human potential is powerful (woooooo!); the effects are occasionally tragic. Take care, young Padawan.

Penny Arcade

2009-03-09T00:07:00.001-07:00

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Too much time

2009-03-08T19:56:00.000-07:00

A lot of time has passed since I've paid attention to this blog. That's unfortunate, but I do need to write more. The legend in the header of this blog will remain the same, as something of a testament to the period of heady insouciance that persisted throughout the period preceding the economic collapse under which we now suffer.

"Dancing on the deck of the Titanic," we'd say. With a few drinks in us, my friend [R] would, fast upon my utterance of this phrase, mime the playing of a violin and tilt to one side. I would break into a rather Irish gig, also tilting in accord. In the desperate cold, with a bloody-edged anger at bosses who used to be friends, we'd chuckle at the impending catastrophe. And so it has come. Neither age, sex, nobility of birth, nor prestige of education has spared the lawyering ilk of this town. Follow the continuing catastrophe on Above the Law.

But rather than wallow in just how bad this whole business might get, we're looking for a new project. Your gentle narrator remains ready to give legal advice (you miscreants who use my services know who you are :)), but whether he will return to the dank bowels of a posh firm remains an open question. There are a great many occupations to which a person of learning may apply his or herself. Sadly, such occupations are not much in demand. Some seek to flee the country (the dollar isn't very strong in Iraq and Afghanistan), others to return to their roots of undergraduate study (it's always nice to know another language). I've decided to do my best to ride out the storm without making annoying or overwrought complaints. A great part of that will be more regular commentary on this blog. It appears that I have the time well in hand. Hopefully not too much of it and not for too long. Tomorrow, we'll discuss some Sunday talkshows, and a few other media items. The story of the past several months will doubtless emerge in passing over the next posts.

...ceterum, Bush no longer needs to be impeached, but the torturers, warmongers, and attempted tyrants who shamed the United States for the past 8 years should be hunted to the ends of the earth. And prosecuted.

tags technorati : update unemployment law

Dunkin' Xenophobia

2008-03-03T20:58:00.000-08:00

According to the new Dunkin' Donuts ad, not only should Americans not bother to actually speak or comprehend foreign languages, they shouldn't tax their minds or tongues with the mere pronunciation of coffee-related words that have long since entered the urban lexicon. Apparently, everything beyond "latte" comes from a strange and perplexing tongue Dunkin' would have us call "Fritalian".

Update: Dunkin' Donuts might not be pathologically mono-lingual, but they're betting that you are. Alas, they're probably correct.

...ceterum, I believe that Bush should be, like, impeached.

tags technorati : xenophobia dunkin' donuts language

Patriarchs and Hooligans

2008-02-25T21:46:00.000-08:00

...or should we say "mullahs and jihadis?"

When I heard that Albanians in Kosovo had declared their independence from Belgrade last week, the corner of my mind not preoccupied with sex, drugs, rock and roll, and litigation strategy expected some enthusiastic rioting, a round of face-saving but generally responsible saber-rattling and loud recriminations by the US and Russia at the Security Council over the latest Balkan shenanigans. What I didn't expect (but should have) were church services. Anyone who turned on MSNBC (our network of choice to avoid Wolf Blitzer's sanctimonious um-hum-ah-what-about-patriotism) to watch the US Embassy to Belgrade go up in flames should have been struck by what the cameras seemed to capture just up the street or 'round the corner, as the case may have been: a most solemn Mass, lit with golden light completed by festooned patriarchs declaiming in serious, and to me, incomprehensible Serbo-Croatian.

It might be too much to speculate that the Mass started before the congregation-cum-mob turned on buildings housing the international community, but I would venture that one must travel at least to Pakistan to find more fervent parishioners rushing out of church to make trouble. It brings to mind Hitchen's comment about whether one should be fearful of a group of men leaving a prayer meeting. (The answer being "yes" in many, if not most, parts of the world.)

Having apparently missed out on a vanguard role in everything from the most juicy bits of the Crusades to the the latest round of rather articulate, if decidedly myopic, Muslim-bashing from the likes of Geert Wilders, et al., Eastern Orthodoxy is probably overdue to set about a clash of neighborhoods. ("Civilizations" being too dramatic nomenclature to describe a field of conflict not much larger than the tri-state area.) MSNBC sadly, but predictably, didn't seem to draw the connection between the Mass on one corner and the flaming embassy a few blocks away. But then again, since when do ostensibly Christian leaders in the Balkans order their countrymen forth to imprison, torture, rape and murder their Muslim neighbors? I find it facile that we blame Milošević for all this while turning a deaf ear to the toxic, faith-based hatred from the patriarchs who supported him, eulogize him and likely continue to castigate the West for interrupting what they must imagine to have been sacred and admirable work. ("Likely" because I'm still somewhat unclear on what was said during the official-looking services that accompanied the embassy burning.) That said, I am the first to admit that this ilk will prove more difficult to face down now that Russia is off the democracy sauce and uninhibited by godless communism. We remain pessimistic.

...ceterum, I believe that Bush should be, like, impeached

tags technorati : serbia kosovo eastern orthodox church christianity islam religion

too important for snark

2008-02-04T19:13:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, and in November, vote like our lives depend on it...because our lives depend on our spirits' ability to rally and not succumb to small thought. Just a little patriotism for those who genuinely want to make the best of their country.

F (minus!)

2008-01-21T21:03:00.003-08:00

If there are any readers at all left, I'm sure you're all under the impression that I failed the bar or something. Of course not. After passing the bar (typically hung-over, on an empty stomach and sans much sleep), we went on a whirlwind tour of these great United States, rekindled passion for the most spectacular of persons, attended the nuptials of delightfully snarky friends, and generally had a whale of a time. That is to say, I couldn't be bothered with the banality of staring at a screen when I had a life to live.

Things have since taken a turn for the boring. But we're still rolling mighty deep in it. In the money, the booze, the friendships, the occasional kink, the law. There's mischief afoot in foreign lands, wrongs to be righted, scores to be settled and fortunes to be saved. In an uncharacteristic moment of hubris, we assign the "F-" to anyone foolish enough to oppose our onrushing greatness.

...ceterum, I believe that Bush should be, like, impeached.

tags technorati : the bar exam hubris law life

Law Graduate vs. the bar exam

2007-06-20T17:05:00.000-07:00

A conflict solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and [hopefully, thankfully, mercifully] short.

it will all be over soon
it will all be over soon
it will all be over soon
it will all be over soon
it will all be over soon...

...ceterum, I believe that Bush should be, like, impeached.

tags technorati : the bar exam

Fiasco: The Stanford Law School Graduation Adventure

2007-05-07T18:22:00.000-07:00

A few interesting things happened on graduation day (yesterday). Overall, it was quite the pleasant ceremony accompanied by minor SNAFUs. As I approach the requisite sobriety to type, I recall the scenes of interest and invite the gentle reader to judge just how "minor" said SNAFUs may be:

1. Massive feedback in the audio system at Memorial Auditorium gave friends and family a terrible start. Fortunately, the graduating class was occupied elsewhere. Otherwise, we might have shit ourselves thinking that the scary guy may have actually gone and done something unfortunate.

2. In the GSB courtyard, a graduating 3L was forced to submit to a raucous singing of "Happy Birthday" which delayed the processional.

3. The system of insuring that an appropriate number graduates were apportioned to each row of seats while keeping the class in alphabetical order failed so miserably as to leave many empty seats in some rows, while in others there were too few. The result was something that resembled a game of musical chairs each time the graduates sought to move to the stage.

4. A shortage of diploma covers (and accompanying letters instructing students to await their real diplomas) brought the ceremony to an uncomfortable halt that left us alternately amused, perturbed, and finally incredulous as faculty members left their seats and wandered about the stage in search of a box containing extras.

5. Despite the replenished supply of diploma covers, a short time later these too were exhausted. This time there were no extras to be found. Covers were then collected from graduates who had already received them and after some to-and-fro, a stack found its way into the hands of Dean Kramer. He quipped that the recycled covers were "warm."

Oh well, some days earlier a Dean was heard to remark, "It's a sham, of course it's a sham...So there's no reason not to participate." I guess it can't be too big of a deal. As the afternoon wore on, and more and more alcohol was consumed, the following email appeared in student inboxes.

Dear Class of 2007 and Larry,

I want to apolgize to you all for the fiasco today with the diploma covers.
While we can now explain what happened, there is no excuse for it having
happened once, much less twice. I take full responsibility and apologize
to you and your families. I hope that it did not mar too badly a day that
should have been full of celebration. Rest assured that it will never
happen to another class.
...

This warmed the cockles of many a heart. As did a follow up email from another graduate who declared that

Everyone...thought the diploma mix-up added levity to the
event, and was a wonderful opportunity for the generosity of our
class to shine. It was such a warm SLS moment; it certainly did not
"mar" anything!

Apart from the mea culpa and the following kumbaya moment, it should be noted that everyone has been deathly silent on the Dean's "Charge to the Class," which was quite the ramble and included a long-ass quote from Federalist I. Good to know our parents had the privilege of the boredom and confusion that typically accompanies the application of rather ancient political theory to current events. In contrast, my parents loved Professor Fisher's comments, as did I. I will remember those comments with better clarity when I watch the DVD of the ceremony; the above descriptions have taxed my somewhat impaired short-term memory.

...ceterum, I believe that Bush should be, like, impeached.

tags technorati : alcohol fiasco graduation law school

A Monica who doesn't suck

2007-03-30T22:01:00.000-07:00

I've never been happier to not be somebody else. True, I have a bunch of shit that will have to get done by the end of the semester, but at least I'm not Monica Goodling.

Telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that you won't testify about your work for the Justice Department because doing so could incriminate you is hardly a good way to make the news.

Which really shouldn't worry her as her career has been inexplicably blessed, at least up to this point.

It all started with having to go to Bible College Law School (also known as Regent Law School, founded by a proud member of my ignominia list). If there was ever a law school with its priorities ass-backwards, it's Regent. In Regent's metric of the critical roles for the attorneys it produces, "counselor," "conciliator," and "defenders of the faith" all come well before what really matters: "effective client advocates." All of those other things are well and good but somebody's priorities are a bit off. Let's just say, if you aren't "of the faith," you might want to take your chances with a differently-schooled lawyer.

Given this unfortunate starting block, I can imagine Monica's wonderment at her seemingly miraculous elevation from graduate of Regent Law School to liaison between the Department of Justice and the White House.

Where are our trusty affirmative action critics when we need them? When this incredibly under-qualified (not to be confused with unqualified) lot starts deciding which US Attorneys to fire, things must be pretty bad. But these folks didn’t get a leg-up, or whatever pejorative the over-entitled-yet-still-bitter types are using, they got appointed. Now, from what I know at this point, I can't deduce that Ms. Goodling and her classmates from Regent are bad lawyers or otherwise particularly stupid. What I will say is that Regent, compared to the vast majority of American law schools which are mostly on the same page as the Constitution with respect to the establishment clause, is a strange little outfit of dubious quality and people who choose to go there are also strange, especially if they have other options. Those members of the Federalist Society at real law schools who are so suspicious of any minority who happens to get ahead of them would do well to offer their services to the administration so that it doesn't have to hire from the Bible College Law School barrel.

Not that I realistically expect them to willingly board a sinking ship or anything.

Notwithstanding the foregoing vicious elitism, it's a shame what is being done to this ill-placed woman. Seriously, does anyone doubt for second that a few phone calls went 'round between the important people with the frat connections, the Texas crew that knew each other from that small, small world of fancy graduate programs where nobody is separated by more than 2 degrees, and decided that the outsider who went to the Bible College Law School would be the one to hang? Apparently there is a corollary to "VP-in-charge-of-going-to-jail," a position where you get to carry the messages that will get everyone in trouble if they make it into the public record. We'll call it "sacrificial lamb." I'm sure Monica won't find the whole mutton thing too terrible if she believes she's being sacrificed for the greater glory of the Lord’s Anointed…by whom I mean Bush.

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot
...ceterum, I believe that Bush should be, like, impeached.

tags technorati : affirmative action monica goodling gonzales law school

Condilicious

2007-03-28T12:06:00.000-07:00

The girls playing Condoleezza and Mary Cheney are way hotter than their real-life counterparts but don't let that rain on your parade. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that it would qualify as "girl-on-girl" ...

That said, absurdity is the best antidote to stupidity; there's really no need to dignify these people or their crimes by debating them as if they actually know what they're talking about.

tags technorati : girls politics rice snark war

spring break, last thursday night

2007-03-28T10:54:00.000-07:00

San Francisco Bay Area

it started with a declined invitation to smack some balls at the driving range...

it continued with pre-game to the sounds of the Littl'ans album; too many drinks at the Clift; a random girl heartlessly, but without malice and quite inadvertently, told that her resume didn't measure up; the acquaintance-making of several interesting and vaguely twisted people; a surprisingly small bar tab at an inexplicably picky club

it ended with an angry bouncer banging on a bathroom stall door, a 90 MPH party in the back of an SUV on HWY 101,
and, thankfully, no arrests.

tags technorati : Partying Society

American Mahdi, continued

2007-03-28T00:54:00.000-07:00

Herein we continue our somewhat discursive fulmination...

Simply because both law and religion have failed to rid us of such anti-social behaviors, it does not follow that they are both similarly useless. Indeed, if so many religious dictates weren’t so easily interpreted as “don’t gather firewood on Shabbat,” “women are dirty for a few days every month,” “beat your disobedient children,” “fly plane into building,” “exterminate the unbeliever(s),” and so on, I’d say that religion was just fine at keeping some of those anti-social types in check. Unfortunately, the threats of fire and brimstone and bolts from the blue are neither swift nor sure and serve less of a deterrent than the modern death penalty. Which brings us to the utility of secular law for dealing with conscienceless malcontents: we can lock these people up.

But let’s not stop with the impact of good religious values on one’s propensity to kill people. Surely, without a solid grounding in scriptural morality, courtesy of public school, all our young people will move to San Francisco and have lots of gay sex. Once again, this probably won’t happen. Not that I think gay sex is yucky (actually it’s pretty damn hot if you’re reading about it over at Jefferson's blog) [shameless plug], I just generally prefer vagina. And believe you me, the book of Leviticus (which I’ve (NOT!) just finished reading for the 3rd time…) does not go very far in enhancing one’s appreciation for vagina. If people are upset by such “immoral” behaviour, perhaps a bit of perspective might ease their angry hearts: if you think being gay is deviant or against nature, just think about all those folks who don’t feel anything is wrong with killing people who disagree about what constitutes the “law of God.” Believe me, you have scarier things to worry about – namely your more faithful neighbors who are certainly worth more in His eyes.

An aside: to the extent that the twits at Exodus International manage to turn gay people straight, it is in the same way that fundamentalist Islam allows otherwise intelligent, level-headed folks to strap explosives to themselves: by inculcating a sense of loathing of the state of the self and the world around them, by telling them that their deficiency lies in a deviation from God’s straw-man of perfection. And before you try to sue me in the UK, just remember that truth is an absolute defense to libel.

A rather bright professor recently described to me his thinking on how to mediate particularly intractable disputes (i.e. South Africa, Northern Ireland, Israel and the Palestinian territories). He said that what links individuals who have made substantial progress is that they are the sort of people who can evince in their adversaries a measure of trust that the future they envision would be tolerable to all concerned. Conflict is driven by a refusal to recognize a future environment that does not pose an existential threat to “the other.” The teleology of human freedom, if such a thing exists, points to systems that embrace dissimilar viewpoints and goals to the extent that we can all live with it. I would speculate, upon very little reflection, that there is more room in a community governed by Bill’O’s much-maligned “Secular Progressives” then in one run according the precepts of the Bible or the Koran – which might explain why nobody bothers to write such books in the age of globalization. By all rights, there should be less tolerance of apocalyptic religions than there is for SUVs: global warming will only drown us slowly, but the faithful doomsayers among us will doubtlessly cheer nuclear war as a sign of the rapture.

tags technorati : Culture Ethics Law Religion Society

2007-03-28T00:03:00.000-07:00

American Mahdi, or, The Dangerous Glorification of the Simple, God-centered Life

2007-03-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

I have no good excuse for neglecting this blog.

You know the Bible 100%!

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

At the outset, the preceding should adequately demonstrate my credentials to those who would argue that I don't know or understand the biblical worldview.

Parts of America have a long-term affair with anti-intellectualism, following the gut, olde tyme religion ("It was good for my dear mother...It's good enough for me"), and similar platitudes that tell people they're doing OK when they're really just losers who for a host of reasons have little to look forward to besides the end of the world.

The moral certitude of this ilk is particularly troubling. Owing, as it does, more to the homogeneity of environment than to the exhausting of alternatives through ethical investigation, be it consequentialist, utilitarian, contractarian, or whatever. As one's high-school math teacher would intone, you really must show your work. The effect of this sort of ethical non-reasoning is that there is no individual moral calculus to go with the certitude. Religious moral indoctrination does not consist of a realistic discussion of what makes something right or wrong. Unless you count the definition of sin as a deviation from the perfection that is the essential form of reality. Which is to say, sin is "a privation of conformity to right reason and to the law of God."
Translation: sin is not what you or your friends feel to be wrong; it is what God (and His legion messengers, interim representatives, and assorted acolytes) tells you is wrong.

Admittedly, there is some merit to the argument that secular law, being a mere aggregation of society's moral attitudes tempered by the thoughts of several wealthy men (plus, Ginsberg), is somewhat suspect. But no more so than the package of mores derived from ancient texts and regurgitated by those saucy controllers of our private steps, Messers Robertson and Falwell, and written into the platform of a major American political party. The difference I find most edifying is that secular law, and ethics, requires an explicative process, an articulation of rationale, a weighing of the likely impact, an accounting of the expressed feelings of interested parties. In short, it requires an exercise that forces us consider the effects of our actions on people who are dissimilar in interests, opinions, and values. Because of its explicit reliance upon one's subjective theory of what constitutes the law of God, basing one's morality on a doctrine of sin rather than a religiously neutral and personal sense of right and wrong necessarily discounts dissimilar perspectives. Christians don't get to write Sharia. More’s the pity; it would be fun to watch.

Perhaps religion’s biggest selling point is that without it people will do as they please, giving themselves over to an inherently sinful nature and wreaking untold havoc upon foe and family alike. People have certainly fallen for more transparent frauds, but this one is pretty big. Most people within a given social milieu don’t like killing, or rape or theft for that matter. The properly socialized among us view such actions as abhorrent (except for theft, which inexplicably remains a favorite diversion of the well-heeled). Quite predictably, we’ve made laws against. The question I pose is whether in the absence of religious faith, and its accompanying moral sense of right and wrong, everyone would suddenly want to rape, murder and steal. Unless you don’t have a conscience, the answer probably goes something like “probably not;” perhaps in more tortured cases one might say “well, it depends on the circumstances…but, probably not.” Surely there are plenty of people running about sans conscience, but I highly doubt that any of them are deterred from engaging in the shit that scares the hell out of the rest of us by a sermon or faith in one or more good books. Such people, usually by definition, don’t like books (good or otherwise) and don’t have the requisite attention span for sermons. They’d just ignore them anyway.

tags technorati : Culture Ethics Law Religion Society

the end-of-summer review

2006-08-22T10:45:00.000-07:00

[Hiring Partner]: Nice to see you kid; how was the summer?

[Summer Associate]: Really great, you folks are running a stand-out operation and I'd love to be part of it.

[HP]: Funny you should mention that. Your reviews remained largely consistent since we last spoke [a few weeks ago].

[SA]: That's good to hear...

[HP]: Yeah...not really. We like to see a good deal of progress over the course of the summer program. You must understand; we don't hire lawyers into the summer program, we hire potential lawyers. You needed to show us a solid trajectory of progress towards your potential.

[SA]: I don't understand what I did wrong...

[desperation sets in as Summer Associate begins to see fearful visions of a 3L recruiting season; explaining to potential employers why she doesn't have an offer from her 2L summer; in the best case, returning to this firm on a cold offer with everyone generally disliking her.]

[HP]: As much as it disappoints us, we're going to have to go ahead and make you an offer to return as a full-time associate. Don't take it too hard, we're generally disappointed with most of you kids who wander out here.

[Hiring Partner looks out the window of his well-appointed office at the palatial plaza below and thinks: Every year you summer associates get younger, dumber and wealthier; we only get older and wealthier. Don't you see that your wealth is at our expense? For christ's sake, we had to match that obscene salary increase this spring. One hundred and forty-fucking-five thousand dollars a year just to keep you suckers coming back for more. Not to mention that if we don't invite you back, you'll talk a tremendous amount of shit about us to your friends back at Ivory-Tower-Up-Your-Ass School of Law.]

[HP]: You'll make a lot more progress when you get back and have to take a more serious view of things. Don't worry, we'll dangle a bonus in front of you and the rest will take care of itself. Do you have any questions for me?

[SA - too relieved to pose a useful query]: Not at this point. Thank you very much. I'll let you know my decision shortly. It's been a real pleasure working with everyone.

[Summer Associate flees the room, returns to her office and makes several celebratory phone calls]

tags technorati : Law Firm Summer Work

wherein we spent weeks in NYC and then returned...

2006-08-17T14:08:00.000-07:00

[S] was in an undisclosed super top secret location over the summer somewhere in fly-over country. I missed her terribly and despite the huge paychecks, I was bored to tears. To state the obvious, relationships are difficult and complicating [ironic sic].

[S]’s arrival in the city happily bifurcated the summer. The roommate came home early from visiting family and created an awkward moment. I can't help but think there are few contextual positives for us. The perpetual background drone is that I'm leaving California in a year.

I went to work most days; the commute from the lower east side involves a 40-minute trip to law-firm row along 6th Ave. Needless to say, I wander past some rather hipster-infested bars on the way home.

I was happy to be informed over the summer of what must be the most classy line uttered by a summer to a senior associate the night before having his office cleaned out in a decidedly ceremonious firing: You don't fucking know me; I'll fucking stab you!

By all accounts, the poor chap had spent the evening getting drunk and carrying on loudly about all the nasty things he wanted to do to the associate's attractive fiancée.

I spent a good deal of time on self-guided walking tours of real estate hot spots. Turns out, there’s not much I can afford even with a proper pay check. It must be hell to be poor in this city. I guess I’ll be back in a year in a part-time vaguely bohemian bourgeois incarnation.

tags technorati : Law New York Relationship Work

"Hey sucka, your firm is our bitch!"

2006-06-17T13:57:00.000-07:00

...spoken like a true "summer" or first year, pre-bar admission, know-nothing. As soon as someone offers you a nicer chair, you're going to be working for that "bitch" firm, you just castigated. Of course, the only firms that could possibly be in a situation to steal business from one another, or hire another to do work, enjoy the elite status that creates the insufferable ego in this little world. You have to be pretty good to be a bitch. That said, many would say that it's all the same job. You all make over $165k before taxes, you all have decent offices. But some of you have perspective, scope, depth, and all the other things that set a solid, local firm apart from those of us who rule the global roost.

If anyone's going to be classified as a "bitch," they are the contract att'ys that we hire to do the shit work that first years are too smart for and is to too boring, even for summer associates (who, one must remember, still have the option to get bored and go elsewhere). These poor folks might have passed the bar (more than I can say for myself), but they don't have offices, they don't socialize with the associates or partners...or summers; they just take assignments. From what I hear, it's a narrow job description.

I go to lunch everyday. For two hours. I never pay. It usually costs about $100/att'y. I wake up about an hour after returning to the office and then go back to work. It's really important stuff. Let's just say that dollar-wise, the collective is bringing in 10 digits...easily.

tags technorati : Law Firm Summer Work

LES sans snark

2006-05-28T09:41:00.000-07:00

I moved to the lower east side. Heavens knows I can afforded to live in a luxury apartment anywhere excepting Fifth Avenue or somewhere truly posh, but it turns out I'd rather buy a few new suits, a decent umbrella, Dior Homme sunglasses and still have money left over after the summer. As such, I parked myself in a cheap apartment in a trendy area where I hope to indulge in insufferably trendy dive bars, trendy coffee and tea and meet trendy people. The roommate goes to journalism school at decidedly elite institution (to which I was accepted but somehow never found the time to attend); we get along quite well. Choosing roommates is a wee bit of drama these days. I had anticipated living with some law students also doing "internships" in the city but I should have realized that any second year law student who speaks of "having" an "internship" as opposed to "being" a "summer (associate) at [some big firm]" would not really be, shall we say, of my ilk. Yeah, that didn't work out so well.

What I'm really looking forward to is a long walk about town during which I'll take a bunch of photos and then do a few shots with one of the local alcoholic beverage licensees.

Work starts in a week.

tags technorati : Fashion Neighborhood Roommate Summer

Wheels Up!

2006-05-18T07:19:00.000-07:00

I had to leave this morning. It was an excellent flight: I took two sleeping pills upon take-off with some effervescent "Airborne" brand anti-sickness stuff and asked for bourbon and soda at the first drink service. I've never traveled with so much junk in my life while leaving so much behind. Literally, figuratively; there was far too much left behind.

After touch-down, I needed a good deal of retail therapy, a phone call from [N] or [S], whatever. Instead, I got a mile-long taxi line (in which persons were strictly admonished not to smoke), and a rather uneventful trip to Queens where I was to be the guest of my famously alcoholic college roommate. Little did I know the extent to which cigarette smoke will permeate one’s belongings when there are three smokers (two occasional, one constant) in the same apartment.

I write a portion of this in retrospect of the weekend of my arrival:
After a few rather eventful days, I trekked to the Upper West Side in preparation of a great deal of writing interposed with a subway-move to the Lower East Side. I really do live in two entirely different worlds: one pleasantly rarified and conducive to work, the other boisterous to an extent thoroughly in keeping with the marked absence of money. Admittedly, it was much fun in undergrad but now it doesn’t make very much sense. In truth, I now only visit The Land of Undergrad in fleeting episodes, such as last weekend. I fear I’ve changed too much to actually enjoy living there. Alas, college mirth; we knew thee for but a moment.

tags technorati : Friends New York Relationship Summer

Of Musicals and Drunken Hiss-n-Boos

2006-04-16T16:03:00.000-07:00

The Law School Musical was a smashing success this year...gender, ethnic and school-based stereotypes abounded in such quantity that the participation of Justice Kennedy and former-Justice O'Connor may give rise to a Bivens action if someone could show that the Justices were acting "under color of law" when they shot video which was displayed at the opening of Act I. It was that self-indulgent. But at the time, we were all duly fascinated. At length, the variously admired and occasionally ignored dean of the law school took the state to annouce the law prom-coronation of two characters in the narrative. There was hissing and booing from the drunken quarters and applause from those of us sober enough to know that institution would not appreciate audible discord on the DVD version of the production. There are certainly uncomfortable moments in law school but the "unfortunate event" at the musical revealed much of the illustrious assembly as drunken bores. Perhaps there's something to be said for staid, stuffy lawyers with a bit too much decorum.

tags technorati : Alcohol Law School

Admitted Student Weekend

2006-04-11T19:05:00.000-07:00

There were a lot of "admits" hanging around campus this past weekend. I wasn't on campus. I did some reading at a cafe, went to San Francisco and bought some clothes, had dinner with a disarmingly cool character and mostly minded my own business. Unfortunately, I also slept through a classmate's birthday party. But who starts a wine and cheese party at 6:00 PM on a Saturday? (That's another problem with this whole "small town" scene: people do stuff really early. If I say I'm doing something social at 3:00, I typically mean "3:00 in the morning." But that's a Continental and East Coast thing...I digress...) I did pop into the law library Saturday afternoon and witnessed a bunch of folks wandering around the courtyards. Obviously admits. I didn't talk to any of them.

My advice for those students recently admitted to some of the best law schools in the country and currently trying to decide where to attend:

Are you familiar with the strategy of anti-smoking campaigns in the late 1980s? The pictures of a healthy, pink lung juxtaposed with the brown corroded-looking smoker's lung? Well, think of that lung as your immortal soul. A fellow over at CLS has a blog titled Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil; you should read it. Also, you should have already read a good deal of Milton, Yates and The Bible. We already have enough cultureless bores wandering around here in shitty "California" outfits and visors. (They're all very smart but their tastes and mores reflect poorly on what should, at this level, be a learned profession with members worthy of emulation.)

But quite apart from the cultural issues, I strongly urge you to consider whether there are people in your life whose moral compasses, shall we say, donÂ’t spin. You will have to spend a lot of time explaining things to these people. Likewise, do consider that those with "spinning compasses" will wonder what your problem is when you decide that profit optimizing schemes should typically meet with stern sanction when they predictably endanger life, limb or property. If you're a Bush supporter (I don't know whether you're blind, dumb, or just dishonest, yet here you are), you should be prepared to burst into tears at the abuses done to this country or else die suddenly from the cognitive dissonance.

But to directly address your current predicament as to where to matriculate, I suggest you avoid schools that use or plan to use the quarter system (persons with particularly strong work ethics and LSATs over 175 may ignore this), schools with more that 500 students in the entering class, and schools in rural or suburban areas. Beyond that, just attend the highest ranked of the legal dojo that will abide your presence. You'll get to do plenty of punching.

Good luck. I'm off to start the whole exam-prep thing. Right after I take this shot and...

tags technorati : Culture Law School

shop-person encounter #1 (presumptious and depressing)

2006-04-10T23:49:00.000-07:00

I really don't like buying from middle age shop-folks. They don't know how to relate to young, cash-laden intelli-brats. For example, I was in Nordstrom and this obnoxious lady, who shall remain nameless, followed me around the store as I did my best to ignore her. I recall saying something about shopping for my dad and I suspect I may have motioned for her to hold something while I snickered into my cell phone about an "upcoming purchase." The over-bleached 40-something blonde, who'd clearly saved up her pennies for a bad face lift, had the nerve to hand me her business card after ringing up my purchase and said she hoped I enjoyed the jeans and that they'd look good when I went out later. She didn't even offer me a gift receipt. Now, how many skinny, fashionable boys do you know who wear relaxed-fit Zegna jeans in size 34? Do I look like I try to impress women by playing Michael Bolton in my new Buick Lucerne? ("Beyond precision, not beyond your reach.") A week later, she sent me a "just because" note...with another business card. Desperate. I just don't think we'll be able to have a retail-based relationship. Just because I overspent on a given day doesn't mean that I'm going to seek out your services, especially when it's so obvious that you'd put me in jeans that would suit my dad but are big enough to make me look like a vastly over-subsidized hog farmer. Well, I guess I should forgive her for assuming that grad students don't shop for their parents every once in a while. Hey, my dad lets me drive his land yatch when he visits and bought me a suit that reads "The Future of the American Legal System" at fifty paces; the least I can do is pick him up a pair of quality jeans every so often.

addendum sequitur:
I think we'll make this #1 of a series. It will probably see updates with somewhat greater frequency than our Physiognomy series...if only because the law school is closer to the shopping center than the county courthouse. I suspect it won't be as entertaining; I've yet to see someone dragged kicking and screaming from Polo or a lawyer stuffing a Ferragamo in his mouth at Neiman’s. Yea, harken unto my words: We'll be back in the courtroom soon enough.

Superfluous approbation

2006-04-01T23:26:00.000-08:00

Yo Harvard, read and weep.

To Yale, all due respect; hope you're enjoying the winter in New Haven.

REVOLT!

2006-03-22T18:44:00.000-08:00

As I walked to class this morning, thinking deep thoughts about how a 23 year-old came to skip the "$1000 Wardrobe" spread at page 162 in April's Esquire in favor of the "$5000 Wardrobe" spread 6 pages later, I could not help but detect the drums of discord. Or, with somewhat more precision, the 'pings' of discord; as most of the angry racket has been flowing via Outlook inboxes. Basically, people don't much like the new dean, or his plan to turn this place into the only "holy trinity" law school on the quarter system, or the fucking (adj.) undergrads in our library; or the fact that said dean refuses to dispose of said undergrads. A few tidbits follow:

Right on, [L]. I'd be willing to trade my library use for the ability to use the actual grass at the driving range. those mats are awful, and the lines make alignment impossible.

I'm sure any administrative discussion will be just like the quarters
system: the students are against a situation, therefore it will continue unabated, much like the domestication of the dog
- A charmingly cynical soul

...Let the undergrads go work on the damn second floor, where there are no windows, or on the third floor, which is still stuck in the 1970s. The good chairs are on the first floor, as is the reserve desk, as is our lovely new chess board. When does my opinion count at this school? Didn't count during the quarter system debate, doesn't count now......why did we hire a Dean who cowtows [sic] to the administration when we pay his salary? Why is it that whenever there is an issue that affects students he is against us instead of working for us - which is his job (that and raising money on our behalf)?
- Anon.

Man, with 90-plus-percent of the law school pissed at the undergrads, the undergrads chatting up irritating us on their email lists, offers of what will surely be a terrible drinking event at the enchanted broccoli compound (as opposed to those other rocking undergrad events where grad students are always labeled "sketchy"), and serious discussion going forward about a petition drive to withhold 3L giving until this or the quarters system reflects students' wishes, we really have so much comity here. So much!

Sooner or later someone is going to stop asking questions about the undergrads and the pedagogical benefits of the quarters system and start asking the right questions: How much does Sullivan really want to take the California bar again, and how long is our current leader's contract?
- Anon.

...Thus, the attorneys found themselves preparing for engagement on no less than two fronts

Then the undergrads tossed a bomblet...

My personal retort:
Average SAT: 1400+
Number of "hot dates" in past year: 1
Time spent jacking off in law library in preparation for physics exam: 2 hrs.
Time spent screeching on cell phone in law library in preparation for physics exam: 3 hr.
Time spent showering, brushing teeth, applying deodorant, picking out clothes prior: null
Directions to "Go Fug Yourself" in link list at right: damn near priceless

The learned attorneys mused about a response...

It's very kind of the undergrads to take time off from studying to share fashion tips with us, but I think we might have the formula down already:

ill-covered beer gut (on both guys and girls- charming) + sloppy sweatpants and/or unfortunate miniskirt + distorted sense of one's own physical attractiveness = Stanford undergrad

I'm crushed I'll be missing the 8 pm fugly parade- should make for some decent observational humor...
- Genteel Bane of UGrads

A short time later, hostilities commenced...

Scene: Undergrad grossness gathers around the library tables.

Large Dustin Diamond look alike (very loudly): "Ok, we're going to sing happy birthday to..."

[E, Fearless Insurgent Captain](equally loudly): "No you're not. This is a library and people are trying to study. Shut the f**k up."

Classic stuff. And yes, actually sing happy birthday. The undergrads party that much.

The next day (this afternoon), the dean looked down from his perch and said:

...For the Law School to flourish it cannot conduct its business apart from the rest of the University as an independent operation. We need the support and cooperation of the University in a great many areas...immediately and in the long run, the Law School as a whole, but especially the students, have more to gain by being an integral part of the larger Stanford community than we do from remaining separate. .... It would do us significant harm within the University were we to be the lone department that precludes other members of the University community from using our facilities.

Never mind that the current acrimony has nothing to do with access to the book resources of the library; only access to a very expensive (paid for by law school alumni), and heretofore quiet, reading room on the first floor. Never mind that I use the other libraries to (gasp) check out books and depart. But, alas, my commentary skews officious. The gentle dean continued thusly:

...the law library will address issues of noice [sic] and inappropriate behavior by clearly posting our rules and asking everyone to comply. Incidents like what took place last night will not be tolerated. The library is a space to study, not to protest or socialize, and anyone who interferes or disrupts the proper use of the room will be asked to leave. .... I view restricting access to our current space as a last resort and want first to see if we can address the problems in less drastic ways.

Again, never mind that the "last resort" option of restricting access to the space has been working fine for years. I’d mention some other candidates for dean but I wouldn’t want them disappeared.

Colliton gets a bit less...Cravizzle

2006-03-20T01:22:00.000-08:00

So, last time I lived in New York, it was my habit to wander up Third Ave. on Sunday mornings as the hour approached for legal alcohol purchasing. Along the way I'd pass the St. Marks Hotel and wonder what sort of debauchery was afoot within. Seriously, what kind of hotel has a green door, a green sign and happens to be located between Cooper Union (geeky weirdos) and the rest of St. Marks Place (kinky weirdos)? Low and behold, I crawled out of my very hazy weekend to discover that a tax attorney, formerly of the venerable Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, had been captured within. See Google News Dump.

I should say something off colour here about tax attorneys, but I won't because some of my friends claim to have enjoyed tax law and I don't want them to feel like perverts.

Anyhow, Mr. James Colliton, a fellow, who, if guilty of the several misdeeds alleged against him, ought to be clapped in irons, looks like a complete wanker. See his picture here. To the credit of the financially endowed Cravizzle folks, one could paraphrase their response to media inquiries as "Colliton don't work here no mo'!"

Seriously dude, exercise a little restraint and at least move to Colorado City, Utah. There you can stay married to your original wife, keep hanging out with your kids and engage in committed, though un-sanctioned, liaisons with all the underage girls you want—blessed by God's graceful smile, if you ask the locals. Hell, you might even score a pair of sisters. Of course, you might have to part with that posh job at Cravizzle, which does not maintain offices in Utah. For very good reasons, I'm sure.

addendum sequitur :
I have never worked for Cravath; I didn't even interview with them. I did hear that one of their hiring partners had to the nerve to ask a classmate of mine if he was a practicing Muslim during the interview. So, I guess you could say they occasionally push the bounds of propriety—if only when faced with a robust non-discrimination policy.

Also, the polygamists in Colorado City aren't even Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints, for that matter.

Wherein we plumb the depths of law-student psychosis

2006-03-02T11:43:00.000-08:00

I went on a mid-week urban adventure. It was a bad idea; I had a meeting with a professor at 11:00 the next morning. Needless to say, nobody actually plans to go clubbing in San Francisco when they have perfectly good reasons to stay in Palo Alto and attend to very important, very erudite, conversations and tasks.

Anyhow, through an artifice, the details of which I omit to spare the innocent, I found myself in a bar/club in San Francisco accompanied by some very interesting girls with quite divergent personalities who I had never gone out with before. Throughout the evening the character in question remained quiet and subtle, usually signs of the socially competent and conscientious. However, after apparently failing to locate members of our cadre for not more than 15 minutes, she wandered outside in a huff. When we eventually found her, she proceeded to shriek and shove at her girlfriend in a manner very much in keeping with the child-like state in which she entered law school.

Draw whatever conclusions you will from the previous sentence.

As I fled up Castro Street with my friend of many years, desperate to escape the feminine sidewalk carnage in our wake, I wondered: how do people of such emotional fragility survive three years of the most severe mind-fucking devised by the legal academy? What skills could this person possibly have that would convince anyone to both put up with her attitude and pay her US $140,000 per year with virtually guaranteed yearly bonuses and raises? That amount is several times what the typically good-natured American can expect to earn at the apogee of his or her career. Perhaps the typically good-natured American is both pathetic and stupid but that's no excuse for rewarding borderline-psychotics who happen to stumble through a torts outline.

To address the afore-posed questions, perhaps this unfortunate soul, lacking social grace or ability to just suck it up and be an adult, is a victim of the law school. Perhaps the bankruptcy professor yells too much; or the Con-Law guy made too many mean-spirited quips; maybe her partner in negotiations was a hard-ass. Any of these things could explain such bizarre behaviour--and the fact that I find it necessary to write about this. But perhaps I've too much empathy re: the whole law school mind-fucking thing; it's more likely that there's just something fundamentally unreasonable (here I intend a strict legalese usage) about people who start fights with their friends in public and commit other social torts. I suppose that since I can't sue for my evening back, I'll just put it down to a lesson learned and (hopefully) karmic currency for better adventures to grace this space.

As for the ridiculous amount of money this person is going to make, I make no good-faith complaint and only mention it to arouse the gentle reader's outrage. Hell, I've probably got the same package.

Achtung! Der Himmel fällt!

2006-02-28T16:10:00.000-08:00

...auch, die Nazin kommen!...von South Dakota.
Three items of note today (ordered from least to most alarming), along with a general status update.

First: Vicky Lynn Marshall (aka Anna Nicole Smith) set foot in the Supreme Court this morning. I'm sorry but that's almost as bad as pouring pigs' blood on the Western Wall. Not quite as bad, but almost; certainly much worse than the former spokesperson of the Taliban taking classes at Yale. (A warm welcome to you, sir, from our gender-neutral society. Just for the record, I wanted to bomb your women-hating fundamentalist-desert-cult before 11/9. Good to hear you didn't mean all those awful things you said last time you came to this fine country. Now that the unpleasantness is over, I hope that you might come to visit Stanford some time.)

Second: Apparently, the following is true -- Picketing an abortion clinic | to dissuade citizens from peacefully obtaining, rendering or discussing lawful medical services | and conspiring to harass or embarrass those citizens with the overall goal of preventing people from practicing their chosen profession or obtaining medical treatment | does not constitute extortion or racketeering. Don't get me wrong, Justice Breyer is my favorite for reasons too many to enumerate here and I agree with him that the Hobbs Act was not passed to punish discrete acts or threats of violence unaccompanied by extortive demands. However, I strongly disagree with Justice Breyer's view of the facts in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. (For those of you fortunate, or indebted, enough to have an account, the Westlaw citation is 2006 WL 461512.) In reiterating the Court's position that protestors may be threatening or violent yet not extortive Justice Breyer says:

We pointed out that the claimed "property" consisted of "a woman's right to seek medical services from a clinic, the right of the doctors, nurses or other clinic staff to perform their jobs, and the right of the clinics to provide medical services free from wrongful threats, violence, coercion and fear.” (internal quotation marks omitted). We decided that "[w]hatever the outer boundaries may be, the effort to characterize petitioners' actions here as an 'obtaining of property from' respondents is well beyond them.” Accordingly, we held that "because they did not 'obtain' property from respondents," petitioners "did not commit extortion" as defined by the Hobbs Act. (citations omitted)

What part of the anti-abortion movement does the esteemed jurist fail to understand? It seems to me that the vociferous elements of this decidedly authoritarian ilk are set upon increasing the pain and publicity of what is by all accounts a highly personal and already painful decision. To accomplish this goal, the rabble presents medical care providers with the option of providing abortions or putting up with some of the loudest, most unattractive and ignorant guests for hours on end. If that weren't bad enough, some of them are even violent. I imagine that if these loud, ugly people fail to close down the clinic, the next move is to show up with a more muscular "redneck" or "meathead" - or, in the alternative, a bomb threat. Now, suppose I came to your place of business, announced myself to be a member of a "movement" known worldwide for blowing stuff up and started screaming for you to close up shop. You might reasonably conclude that you were being not-so-tacitly presented with a very unpalatable option which I leave the gentle reader to divine. Let's see how well you enjoy your right to make a living knowing you'll see me and my loud friends every time you go to work. Oh yeah, I'm not talking about women's rights here because I think OB/GYNs are some brave mofos and prosecutions under RICO or the Hobbs Act are so butter. Now, why would I suggest a pecuniary or commercial interest in the right to an abortion? Protesters who close down reproductive health clinics drive business to regular hospitals, delivery rooms and anesthesiologists. Also, I just spent an hour listening to pro-choice fellow explain how Planned Parenthood makes scads of money providing abortions because the pro-lifers chased away half the doctors and Papists bought up half the hospitals. I believe him...I just don't see anything wrong with it.
(Before I'm accused of being anti-Catholic, let me point out that Roman Catholicism is my third favorite religion - right behind the Cults of Minerva and Miuccia Prada which are also sorta "Roman" and have, to date, served me quite well.)

Third: South Dakota seems poised to ban abortion (except to save the life of the mother). There is no exception for rape or incest. Hmmm... If we ban abortion in South Dakota and every pregnancy produces a child, what result for the incest rate in South Dakota?

Addendum re status:
The other night [N] told me I did very little work for a law student, or that I was very laid-back for a law student...something to that effect. Anyhow, I was already scared that I wasn't paying enough attention this semester so did that observation ever put me into a panic! (Hey, even [N] is sorta lazy.) So, in celebration of several weeks of debauchery, I decided to actually get some things done and pull a couple of more traditional all-nighters. Once again, this boy comes through in the clutch. We will be posting with more regularity.

Commentary on "Physiognomy"

2006-02-12T16:44:00.000-08:00

An assortment of people have posted commentaries on my earlier post purporting to describe the physiognomy of the hard-ass judge. One particularly Honourable fellow over at "Have Opinion, Will Travel" found my omission of a passage on the dishonesty of the un-able prosecutor particularly amiss. While the dishonesty (legally speaking) was apparent and the rage from the bench "palpable," I would remind readers that the point of physiognomy is to allow for quick characterizations of ball-park accuracy, not immutable judgments of character. For the sake of many a well-coiffed colleague, I hope my description of the prosecutor as "fresh-faced...with a brit-pop haircut" does not encourage the judicial audience to assume the worst from anyone with more than a passing concern for appearances. See generally, Insouciant Highlights, infra (revealing the author's stance with regard to this issue).

Nevertheless, following is the rest of the story of The Un-able Prosecutor and the Hard-assed Judges: Our last observation saw the fresh-faced prosecutor in fearful colloquy with the panel, Prada loafer firmly planted in mouth. Mr. Prosecutor had just made a feeble showing of flipping through various appendices, apparently with an eye towards suggesting that he actually believed that the basis for his assertions (which were admittedly tangential to the issue under discussion: something about whether defendant had taken sufficiently obvious steps towards abandonment of some earlier infraction) lay somewhere within. The lead jurist told the feckless lad to cease and desist, that the panel was well aware of what he was trying to do and the collective mind of the bench didn't like it, not one little bit. There followed some brainstorming as to how to handle the situation with one panel member suggesting a complaint to the State Bar; "I wonder if that was a lie," mused one judge to his brethren. Did I really think they would have him clapped in irons? No, but I don't doubt that the thought crossed his mind. There was no bite, but the barking was loud and sustained. At length, the harshest sanction appeared to take the form of a promised phone call: "The folks upstairs will be hearing about this," said the head judge, clearly in reference to the DA's headquarters housed in the same building. The incident drew to a close when the prosecutor, finally removing the loafer from his mouth but still choking on the polish, stammered something about most sincere apologies...no intention to suggest the court base its ruling on matters not in the record...just describing the earlier case from memory and in passing...please don't tell my mother...et cetera, ad nauseam.

Were the panel members really “hard-asses” in the colloquial sense of exercising capricious severity? Probably not. But it might be useful to assess at a glance the attitude a judge might take towards shoddy lawyer-ing. For those anxiously awaiting the next installment of the Physiognomy series, please be patient. I’m sure we’ll have some great stories and more photos from the upcoming three-month field trip to New York.

Caché versus Crash

2006-02-08T16:14:00.000-08:00

I went to see Caché this afternoon.

Apparently, racism among the bohemian bourgeoisie has a necessarily strict historical context. Most people of quality probably aren't racist at age 6; just jealous, selfish children. That is to say, I can't help but think that director Haneke gives his decidedly bourgeois audience a break by making the stalker's retributive actions against the film's hero a product of unfortunate events over which the characters have no control. When [N] asked me after watching Crash whether I thought people were really "that racist" I could honestly say "no one that I know." That said, everyone of our ilk knows the society Caché observes so casually. Also, Haneke needs to try and forget Heidegger when when he writes a film; a character's geworfenheit doesn't really make him any more lovable. That said, it's a fuckin' great movie. Unless you're American, stupid, or non-BoBo. No really, Caché is a fuckin' great movie.

Insouciant highlights

2006-02-03T12:41:00.000-08:00

Apart from the exchange recounted below, the highlight of the past 24 hours was the arrival of my bluefly shipment. There's a perpetual urge to dress like we make $2500-a-week, when we're actually living off student loans. That's why it's particularly good to get that $1500 pile of designer stuff (Miu Miu, Gucci and Zegna) for $600. It turns out that Gucci is a really, really bad brand for dress shirts. Don't get me wrong, I love the ties and the briefcases...not so much the shoes...but the dress shirts are just plain shitty. For christ's sake, I get paid to look like I know something. People who wear shitty shirts clearly don't make enough money to have a job that requires them to know anything (excepting, of course, jobs requiring the miraculous minutia known only to the medical professions). What's worse is that Bluefly prices Zegna shirts somewhat lower than their Gucci counterparts although the retail is higher. Verily, I cannot understand how folks can be so infatuated with this "brand" that doesn't have Tom Ford anymore.

addendum non sequitur
Hmm...I wonder if it's unethical to send a Photoshop-ed picture for the Firm's summer facebook; I wouldn't want people to contrast the picture with the results of the rhinoplasty I have scheduled for before I start full-time.

time goes by...

2006-02-03T12:23:00.000-08:00

[S]: It was cold in Russia. People were smearing goose fat on their bodies to stop frostbite, and near Moscow zookeepers fed an Indian elephant a bucket of vodka to keep it warm; the elephant then went on a rampage, tore radiators from a wall, and calmed down only after it was given a hot shower.
-from "Harper's Week in review"

[SH]: Given the behavior of this elephant you're describing, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Indian. It's African.

[S]:yo,
Last night I was talking with my roomate, [], about the web commic WIGU which is undergoeing a transformation from a three-pannel-a-day format to book form- my contention was that the comic isn't fucking funny enough to sustain that, my roomate disagreed. The whole thing sparked a debate about narrative structures in general, and serialisation in particular, which Pat seemed to think was a bad thing. He said that serialisation was why Dickens was a worse novelist than Terry Prachet contemporary Brit fantasy humor).

I was struck dumb by this for a couple of moments. Then I pointed out that Dickens was a genius who used brillient prose trun societie's own weapons against itself, whereas Prachet was an ammusing hack who had managed to turn maybe a dozen jokes into an absolutly ungodly number of slightly funny books. [] conceded that this might be true, but asserted that Prachet was deffinitavly more enjoyable to read, and, as a consequence, preferable- he sugested that maybe it was all a matter
of taste.

Again, I was silent, this time as I contemplated the unchartable depths of imbicility, and the absolute banckrupcy of both immagination and soul that could lead someone to hold such a depraved opinion. Finally, I said that it probably was just a matter of taste, and that he was certainly entitled to hold his own opinion, and seemed to let the matter drop.

As soon as the non-aggressive and conciliatory words were out of my mouth I vividly immagined that the four of you were watching the exchange and had let out a collective "Wha???" In that moment, I felt myself grow older, and I felt the icy tenticles of death tighten their grip perceptably around my spine.

Of course, then I wennt and defeated the whole purpose by trying to explain to him how lucky he was that I wasn't screeming at him: this made him very uncomfortable, although I suspect that he still was more comfotable than he would have been if I had handeled the situation the way I would have three years ago.
fight the power,

[SH]: Yeah, [S]. I think you're dying. Which is good. In the better days, you would have tried to shove "David Coperfield" up his ass...Would it help to say that a [S] who doesn't fight, on behalf of Dickens!, is already dead to me?

[BL]: holy shit. As one who felt the icy tendrils some time ago, I can say I don't think it signals death, though it may correlate with age. To the contrary and much worse, it signals the beginning of a moral declension after which one just doesn't care about truth anymore. Death comes to us all, but it won't reach me with a clear conscience. I'm truly sorry [S], but welcome to the club. When I get to the city, remind me that we need to go shopping at Polo for your new skull and cross bones necktie.

[SH]: [BL], as usual, is completely wrong. WHEN THE FUCK DID ANY OF US EVER CARE ABOUT "TRUTH"? We only cared to prove that the other of us was dumb. The "moral declination" argument is interesting, but wrong. Think about it. Fill in the blank, if you will: "If one is DECLINING, that means that one once was..." Although, call me when you go to "Polo".

[ER]: well shit [BL] that's a bit extreme, [S] decides for once in his life not to pick a fight and now you've got him shopping at polo

your story kinda reminds me of the incredibly frustrating discussion I once had with my roommate trying to explain why scientology was crap (but whats the harm, if it works for you . . . ) I only felt a little bit better when I realized that her brief interest in scientology was because she thought that the volunteer handing out the free literature was really hot.

[BL]: well, as [S] is usually the sort to defend the truth to the death (even if it means that we're the ilk that finds its collective self up against the wall when the revolution comes), I maintain my position that this is a declension. Frankly, I'm already at the bottom of the slide so I won't be upset regardless of who comes along (even if it's [SH] - never a more honest man have I known, though with quite the unique relationship to "truth") when we get the skull and bones neckties. The great tragedy is that now our compass doesn't want to steer us off the cliff when that's exactly where we need to go.

[BL]: re: the drunken elephant in Moscow. It's the beer before liquor problem. Distilled libations are uncommon in the traditions of both continents.

[SH]: [BL] ended with: "The great tragedy is that now our compass doesn't want to steer us off the cliff when that's exactly where we need to go." Easily the most beautiful and true thing [BL] ever said.

A pathetic man, thrown under a bus

2006-01-26T18:12:00.000-08:00

Ah, the saga of Mr. Frey continues. I would have so much more fun with this but I'm just superstitious enough to maintain a healthy concern that schadenfreud might invoke one of those ironic penalties that one usually gets for hubris. So, Larry King just finished interrogating his guests as to whether they understood that "junkies lie." I really wish he could have asked Oprah that question, even in a purely rhetorical sense. I think Oprah realized the laughable obviousness of the situation. After the wonderfully snarky Smoking Gun report, the only plausible conclusion was that a junky pulled a fast one on us. The longer it takes to wrap one's head around that, the dumber one appears. Or maybe it's just that I have an unhealthy level of cynicism that even Oprah wouldn't forgive.

In praise of self-indulgent law professors

2006-01-17T14:26:00.000-08:00

I don't know how they do things at your law school but around here the professors take their time producing grades. If my rather hazy memory serves me, I sat for an exam over one month ago and I still haven't heard any results. Before anyone suggests that the poor overworked professor has 75 other exams to grade, let me point out that my law school is very prestigious and most classes are very small. The only large class saw its professor complete grading quite some time ago. (Prof. [X], you're the greatest. I apologize for my failure to inquire about your health but I hope that evidence of your recovery may soon grace court rooms throughout the Ninth Circuit.)

Heretofore, I fervently believed that "procrastibation" (thanks for the expression, [N]) was the cure for any particularly dull legal task. Nowadays, I'm ever-so-slightly resentful of folks taking their time. After slaving nonstop for 4 months in at least two of the classes which I actually took for a grade, I'd appreciate some feedback that doesn't require me to "explain" myself. There is a bright side to this Dantean limbo: the students get a nice cooling off period during which we reflect on our high-paying jobs, nice suits and pleasant friends before being reminded that we were supposed to have learned something.

Don't get me wrong; we wouldn't be here were we not intellectuals of the highest order with a deep and abiding interest in tackling abstract issues that both put normal people to sleep and form the elementary fibers of the nation's tapestry. I have greater concerns than 1700-pages of disorganization posing as a casebook. So, I'm not going to begrudge the profs taking their time and going on vacating before reading some very dull exams (by which I mean our responses, not the very stimulating questions presented). Frankly, I'm as self-indulgent as any of the professors and since some people are under the impression that knowledge is power, I will simply point out that modern law is open source warfare. That is to say, obsessive instant messaging and web surfing during class makes one a better lawyer. Don't laugh at us; while you're "paying attention," we're practicing.

Munich

2006-01-15T17:24:00.000-08:00

Munich is way, way too much like Shogun Assassin. Anyone who remembers the opening monologue from the latter probably knows what I'm getting at. Cultural illiterates may recall some choice lines from an unseen video in the final act of Kill Bill Vol. 2. Frankly, I'd like to see Shogun Assassin right now, but there are no decent foreign/indie video stores in this wasteland. We're in small town mode right now and do I ever feel like Johnny-come-lately for not seeing Munich sooner. Despite over-wraught tropes of the Assassin's reluctance, I don't see anyreason to disabuse folks of the notion that this is Spielberg's best film. It should also be required viewing for those who think that psychological damage doesn't follow from too much existential rambling and perceived moral failings. ("No, Sally, drugs won't do that to you; that's what happens when you sell your soul to the nearest Hegelian Nation-State.")

My real attraction to this film is the starkness of the Munich attacks which Spielberg uses to maximum effect by spreading it throughout the film and thus rehabilitating dull scenes and creating some sense of climax in the final act. I was a mere child when I first learned of the attacks in one of those History Channel specials which I thoroughly misunderstood while camped out on the bed of my parents' hotel room in 1988. I distinctly remember seeing the hollow eye-sockets of one of the terrorists as he leaned out the window of the Olympic complex and wondering if he was not a grotesque corpse being manipulated by an even more sinister character that the TV cameras wouldn't let us see.

This creates a comforting parallel to the various shootings and bombings throughout Western Europe and we're treated to some astoundingly profound dialogue suggesting the audience confront the following propositions:

1. Explosions and shootings are particularly disturbing if they happen in rich neighborhoods as opposed to deserts.
2. The Middle East is mostly composed of deserts.
3. The only violence one should be disturbed by will result in a dead prostitute in an open housecoat.

addendum non sequitur
Okay, time to listen to some Libertines. Also, James Frey is a very pathetic man. My memoirs are gonna be published as "fiction." No legitimate claims of breached confidence and the guilty parties will never wash the stench of suspicion from their sticky fingers.

The Physiognomy of the Hard-ass Judge

2006-01-13T16:40:00.000-08:00

Several months ago I was attending oral arguments at the Appellate Division in San Mateo County's Superior Court. The panel was peopled with three fellows who looked sort of like this.

At one point in the docket they caught a fresh-faced prosecutor with a brit-pop haircut implying certain things about the trial record which were not, strictly speaking, actually there. The rage was so palpable, I feared they would have him clapped in irons.

As a reference for assorted lawyers and anyone who must deal with the legal system, someone should catalogue the features characteristic of the hard-ass judge so that those putting in an appearance can tell at a glance how much they can get away with. I have no knowledge of the above jurist's attitudes, but we should note first the beard. This is the sign of a man familiar with authority and directing others to apply physical force if necessary. Note also the prominent forehead which suggests you should assume him to be at least two-thirds as smart as you. We'll return to this issue periodically.

Charlie and Rose

2006-01-13T01:03:00.000-08:00

Wednesday and Thursday consisted of a pleasant evening of dinner, clubbing, some conversation, and huge quantities of alcohol followed closely by fearful flashes of a Hieronymus Bosch future alternating with unconsciousness and vaguely sexual sounds from my compatriots. So it wasn't surprising that sometime after a bracing drive back down the Peninsula, I suddenly found myself watching David Brooks and Charlie Rose try to finish one another's sentences.

David Brooks is probably not my favorite of the NYT columnists but I can't verify that because I'm too cheap to subscribe. At any rate, I was pleasantly surprised by his observations which only occasionally increased my annoyance with conservatives.

Of greatest interest were Brook's comments on the true intellectual attitudes of the Bush administration on foreign policy and specifically the Iraq situation. Since I can hardly suffer a fool who doesn't watch Charlie Rose, we'll briefly dispense with the details; suffice it to say, Bush & Co. are smart, serious and very engaged while Cheney & Co. are a bit "hard to read."

While this frustrates my party line spiel about how we're ruled by anti-intellectual lay-abouts, it also forces me to make a more cultural criticism, even less likely to carry water with those who appreciate that folksy charm. Bush's sense of relevant history roughly extends to about the year 2008, concerns only him and has no place for the past. He's not a conservative, neither is he stupid. If Brooks is correct, the GOP wasn't joking about Bush doing serious on-the-job training back in 2001. The result is that these gentlemen have taught themselves a great deal about the current political calculus in the relevant region. They know things are going badly, appreciate that fact and are willing to spare no expense to solve the problem while disabusing us of any notions about just going home. This obsession with "facts on the ground" is great for short term tactics in a cultural vacuum but terrible when everyone else uses the specter of a cultural assault as the primary motivator.

A professional, volunteer military whose members actually follow orders will never compete numerically with irregulars convinced that their way of life is under assault; the former will, at best, fight for their buddies. The point is that we're going to lose this war after winning every single battle (with the exception of a very unfortunate incident in lower Manhattan which caught me totally unawares). These people clearly are only interested in what other cultures have to offer us by way of exploitable markets and credible threats. There was never any abstract curiosity and as a result no useful information which might have yielded the perspective necessary to forming a strategy of apparent coherence lasting more than one year. Far be it from me to suggest government by academics, but we should have them around as they often make charming dinner companions, love wine and late night conversations and tend to understand the big picture. They also don't like people who pretend to be stupid; Clinton understood this. I'm sure Bush works very hard during the day, but he really should stay up later and learn to drink responsibly.

The other likeable moment from Brooks was where he praised Sam Alito as a modest fellow with great self-respect but no need for accolade, similar to Bush, but without a need to act dumb. (Even working stiffs from Jersey want their lawya*s sma*t.) While my parents were being counter-culture Jesus Freaks and not joining the army, these guys were quietly supporting The Man, learning his game and not joining the army. Now my parents make me borrow money for school while these guys work at odd jobs here and there. Those folks from the '60s protest culture who did make it to government (Biden and Kennedy, etc.) are intellectual show-offs, always hated by the folks from Sam Alito's old Jersey neighborhood and smart rich kids who appreciate their place in the world. Never mind that Democrats run all the good schools and want to give the neighborhood folks healthcare; I regretfully concede that this whole thing is about personality.

The very very best news from Brooks: demographics for evangelical Christians are flat while secularists are multiplying as if they actually enjoyed heterosexual intercourse. The secularist movement is rockin', vibrant and freshly organized. University v. Church, Whole Foods v. Wal-Mart, etc. We might out-earn and out-live them but we've got 20 years tops before they start setting off bombs and shooting our doctors. Oh, wait those were the '90s.

Wow, Charlie Rose sure has some great guests on his show; afterwards I watched an episode of Entourage and decided that a nose job is really quite reasonable.

In other news, someone determined that it's difficult to tell what something is/was after you blow it up.

(Scalito) In a few hours...

2006-01-09T02:45:00.000-08:00

this chap Alito will start a meteoric arc towards the coveted jumpseat on the Supreme Court. I guess he's going to replace someone only slightly more qualified than himself. Despite my liberal tendencies, I just can't muster any real optimism about defeating this fellow. The best I can do is recall accusing Judge Alito of being a cheap imitation of J. Antonin Scalia in the course of delivering a very drunken tirade to someone's video camera following an after-school party. J. Scalia is very smart and very scary. For those who value privacy and personal autonomy (the only things that really separate the yoke of our government from that of say, Saudi Arabia), Scalia's words pour like molten lead into one's ear. Alito's arguments, on the other hand, will sound in the register of a honeyed potion laced with hemlock. I can't doubt that every Democrat on the judiciary would be taken in were it not for Alito's long record of outrageous dissenting opinions. What's worse is that Mr. Alito's naturally affable demeanor and knack for diplomacy will win him lots of friends on the Court and he will almost certainly surpass Scalia in shaping some very ugly precedents.

Right after that, I demurred from a bong hit...And shyly asked if anyone in the house had "psychostimulants."

This place (that is, the intellectual landscape of the US legal system) has been going to the dogs at an alarming rate ever since I started paying attention back in '96ish. The best historical parallel we might draw is from Ronald Smye's description of the situation in Rome prior to Caesar's rise to prominence: "For revenge and as an example to deter posterity from raising dissension at Rome, Sulla outlawed his adversaries, confiscated their property and deprived their descendants of all political rights." For purposes of clarification, I'm not suggesting that any one Republican is tough enough to bear comparison to Sulla but I'm sure that between Cheney and whoever happens to be in charge of the whole redistricting fiasco (plus any complicit federal judges who ruled the exercise "constitutional"), they've got their bases covered.

inauguration

2006-01-09T02:29:00.000-08:00

good morning.