slain the beast

Finally handed in the comment. It's final, done, out of my hands. It's not perfect and it may not even be good (chances are it's not). At this point though, I pretty much don't care. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the intellectual exercise. But I've spent the vast chunk of my last five months working on it and experiencing a fair bit of frustration with it (mostly my own fault). It's good to finally get it out of the way.

And now? Now I can:
1. Make up for missing a lot of Fed Income Tax and Biz Ass.
2. Clean the house.
3. Get my car washed and fix it up.
4. Go snowboarding.
5. Daydream.

:)

say what you mean

Google Desktop picked up this headline: Slippery Rock Cuts Eight Varsity Sports.

My first reaction was, "Gee, that must have been a sharp rock to manage to cut eight varsity sports teams."

Then I realized that that wouldn't really make much sense, and I had once again become a victim of the Misleading Headline. The MH takes many forms and can pop up in almost any medium. One of my favorites is the Katrina news report on Sky News that read: "Bush: Worst Disaster to Hit U.S." You can see it here. I don't care if you're red or blue, c'mon, that's funny.

Also, the Dean of the UCLA School of Law sent out an e-mail today about First Amendment rights entitled "Free Expression and Civility," in reference to two events: first, the by now infamous UCLAProfs.com website; second, The Scrivener. As "[D]ean of the Law School," he defended the right of the authors responsible for both pieces of expression to criticize faculty and satirize them, respectively. I personally didn't know that the Dean (presumably as a public employee) had a duty to defend the free speech rights of individuals, but that makes sense. (I do think it's ironic that after he initially emphasized that we are no longer the UCLA Law School but the UCLA School of Law, his sole reference to the school is as "the [UCLA] Law School.")

I agree with the spirit of Dean Schill's comments about UCLAProfs and therefore will not comment on them much. The Scrivener (oops, "Teh Scrivener," sorry) on the other hand.... I quote: "[M]y overriding reaction was that the articles were not terribly funny and, even worse, that some references could personally offend some members of our community. I also felt that if the author were trying to make a statement--satirical or otherwise--he or she should have had the courage of his or her convictions and signed the piece.... But my personal reactions are not the point of this e-mail. My reason for writing is to emphasize both the importance of free expression, but also the importance of tolerance and respect."

1. As a personal matter, I found almost all the articles to be humorous to some degree. I know some people thought there were some misses, but hey, you're entitled to your personal valuation of humor. The latest issue was definitely worth at least ONE laugh though. "Satan Added to Spring OCIP" and "Salary Forecast: Sunny with highs in the mid $130s through 2006" don't deserve at least a chuckle?
   
2. "Some references could personally offend some members of our community." True, they could. But name me one television comedy or stand-up routine, or any kind of humor out there, that no one would possibly be offended by. If the distinction is not whether someone is offended but if they are personally offended, then I admit that the issue is slightly different. However, I think everyone needs to be able to laugh at themselves a little. One of the professors mentioned in the latest edition of The Scrivener found the article funny and liked it. I think the ability to take a little bit of teasing is an important social skill; no one likes someone who's an uptight such-and-such.
3. Courage of convictions and signing the piece. I'm not sure there are any convictions at issue here apart from a desire and intent to poke fun at the law school, its community, and lively up the place a little. I don't think the good people behind The Scrivener really believe that Prof. S is a professional slot player or gambler, nor do they really think Prof. P is in any way affiliated with the industry native to the SFV. Plus, they did leave an e-mail address behind at which they could be contacted. If someone was really offended by being mentioned in the piece, I'm sure they could write a polite e-mail to The Scrivener explaining why they were offended, requesting an apology, and asking that their name never grace its pages again. I'm sure Mykelti could do the same. Plus, I think there is value in anonymity. Being outed greatly reduces your ability to write articles poking fun at your professors and friends. Furthermore, I think satire has historically often been done either anonymously or under a pseudonym. I think The Scrivener can cite to literary precedent as support for its position.
   
4. "[M]y personal reactions are not the point of this e-mail." One thing that has constantly been drilled into me via Lawyering Skillz and writing my comment, as well as doing all those citechecks, is that if what you're saying isn't necessary, don't say it. Skip unnecessary verbiage. Ergo, if the Dean's personal reactions are not the point of the e-mail, why include them? That sentence, coming right after a paragraph expressing his personal reactions, would be inadmissible as hearsay but admissible as a state of mind exception.
   

It's no secret that the Dean wants to take UCLA Law into the Top 10 (no, we're not talking about the Billboard charts here). I can respect that, and as someone who is increasingly interested in working on the East Coast, I definitely value that. But excellence should not come at the expense of culture: UCLA Law is NOT another stuffy East Coast law school. For crying out loud, why do you think so many of us came out here? If I wanted to be miserable at Columbia, NYU, Yale or Harvard, I would have chosen to go there, not here (not that I was admitted to all of those schools)! We use our gorgeous weather and pleasant community as recruiting points for a reason. The existence of that community and its demeanor is directly tied to the culture we enjoy as a school that is amiably competitive yet laidback, spending time between classes chilling in the courtyard and weekends on the beach, yet putting in our time in the library when we need to. And heck, law school is a stressful place (even with the courtyard and the beach)! I think we should applaud the attempt to inject some mirth and humor into it. I don't see the Administration doing very much to lighten the mood around our halls (please, no bad jokes about our flourescent lights).

So in short: Chill, Schill.

a good CL contract for a break-up

Was referred to this via abbylovesdancing2's Xanga. I find it humorous that someone actually went to the trouble of writing this, but then again, love (or the loss thereof) does make us do some strange things. Of course, I reproduce this post because CL has a tendency to get rid of everything over 14 days old, and not because I endorse the terms therein etc. etc. Although they do sorta make sense as a set of default rules. But as any good law student knows, there are always exceptions to the default rules. My favorite default rule? The rule of hearsay in Evidence: It's only inadmissible hearsay if you're too stupid to think of an exception.

RANT: The Rules of Breaking Up

---

Reply to: anon-127111642@craigslist.org Date: Fri Jan 20 17:33:03 2006 There seems to have been some confusion regarding division of property and space since we have broken up. YOU, hereafter referred to as the Dumper, do not retain the same rights to such things as ME, hereafter referred to as the Dumpee. Clearly the Dumpee has been wronged (except in certain situations, see Section 1(b) below), and thus retains more rights than the Dumper. To clarify, I have assembled a crack legal team to outline this document, so that you will quit being a complete and total prick. Actually, not all of these things apply to us, but for the sake of friends, family, and members of the general public who have also been Dumped, I’ve included other situations. This document applies only to those relationships that involved terms such as “boyfriend” and “girlfriend,” not couples who have taken that long argumentative road-trip that ends in the State of Matrimony. Caveats have been made for engagement, as most rules still apply. Section 1: Terms of Separation (hereafter termed the Breakup) (a) The rights of the Dumpee shall be directly proportional to the severity and immaturity of the methods of Separation used by the Dumper. For example, a Dumper (hereafter termed a Good Dumper) who breaks up with Dumpee face-to-face, in person, in a private place, and outlines issues which the Dumpee was aware of, and in fact is not too surprised at, with said discussion ending in a tearful hug cherished by both parties, and perhaps an incident of Goodbye Sex, shall not be severely punished. However, a Dumper (hereafter termed a Bad Dumper) who breaks up with a Dumpee in an especially cowardly way, such as over the phone, through email, or by having a friend tell the Dumpee, shall experience extensive limitations on rights after the Breakup. Most severely punished shall be those Dumpers (hereafter termed Assholes) who repeatedly Breakup and then Beg Forgiveness, and Dumpers who have Cheated. (b) Exceptions to the Dumper/Dumpee division of rights are as follows: Dumpees who provoke the Breakup by avoiding the Dumper until such time as the Dumper feels forced to end the relationship. Dumpees who intentionally get caught Cheating and are shortly afterward, Dumped. These Dumpees shall be considered as Dumpers for the purposes of this document. Section 2: Division of Property and Space (a) Material Property (1) If the Dumper is a Good Dumper, all material property that Dumper brought to the relationship shall be returned to the Dumper. Likewise, all property the Dumpee possessed before the relationship shall be returned to the Dumpee. (2) If the Dumper is a Bad Dumper, or an Asshole, Dumpee has the right to destroy or sell any property left for any period of time in the Dumpee’s possession. This includes, but is not limited to, furniture, electronics, kitchen wares, clothing, CDs, and cars. Dumpee is aware that destruction of items holds a possibility of legal ramifications and continuous retaliation, and destroys Dumper’s property then at their discretion. (b) Gifts (1) Dumpee retains all rights to gifts he or she received during the relationship, especially expensive ones. In the case of a Good Dumper, Dumpee can determine whether return of these gifts is acceptable. If the Dumper was female, and the Dumpee was male, and said parties were engaged, and said engagement ended in a Good Breakup, the engagement ring should be returned to the Dumpee. If the Dumpee does not want the ring, the Dumper can sell it on Craigslist and split the profits with the Dumpee. Bad Dumpers and Assholes retain no rights to jewelry or cars. (2) Dumpee can, if feeling spiteful, box up all gifts received from the Dumper and return them to Dumper with a tear-stained letter. Dumper should feel sufficiently bad, and should not, under any circumstances, maintain possession of these gifts in order to give them to future Girlfriends/Boyfriends. Said gifts should be sold and Dumper is then welcome to use the money to take a vacation to Tahoe and hopefully, break their leg skiing. (c) Exchange of Property (1) If the couple was living together, and the Dumper has moved out, the Dumper should send a friend to pick up his or her belongings. The exception is a Good Dumper, who may be on sufficiently good terms with Dumpee to come back and retrieve their own things. If this is the case, it should still be done while the Dumpee is Not Home. Bad Dumpers and Assholes forfeit their belongings, as outlined in Section 2: (a)2. (2) If the couple was living together, and the Dumpee has moved out, the Dumpee will send a friend to pick up his or her belongings at an appointed date and time. Said friend will not be late and will not linger. Said friend may make a few rude remarks to the Dumper, but such remarks should be brief and to the point. Again, if the Dumper is a Good Dumper, the Dumpee can pick up their own belongings when the Dumper is Not Home. (3) If the couple did not live together, exchange of property should be done in public at an appointed date and time. Both parties shall be on time and shall not linger. Again, rude remarks shall be brief. (4) Items not claimed by the Dumper within one calendar month after the Breakup are the property of the Dumpee, unless exchange of property arrangements were made prior to the end of that month. Likewise is true for items not claimed by the Dumpee. (5) Items that “Cannot Be Found” by either party shall be considered a lost cause after one month. If it was really that important, you shouldn’t have let that idiot have it. (d) Big Ticket Items (1) If the relationship included the purchase of a car, a house, a prize-winning show dog, or other such item of which you now both have dual legal ownership, you are in Deep Shit. Maybe you should have thought about making that kind of investment together before you pissed your whole life away? Wait until you’re married, dumbass. (e) The Pet (1) See Section 2: Article (d)1 first. If you still want to deal with the Pet (hereafter termed the Dog), we’ll continue. Dogs that were owned by either party before the commencement of the relationship shall return to their original owners. Dogs acquired during the course of the relationship shall preferably go with the owner who gave them the most care. C’mon, you know there’s one of you who did all the feeding, the training, the walking, the pooper-scooping, the leash-buying and the ball-tossing. The Dog goes with that one. Except in the case where that person is a Bad Dumper or an Asshole, in which case, Dumpee retains possession of the Dog. There shall be no Split Custody, or Visitation Rights involving the Dog. It’s not good for the Dog, and it’s not good for you. If all things regarding the Dog were absolutely equal, then a Poll of Friends may be taken, or a Coin may be Flipped. Decisions made by PoF or CF about the Dog are final. If you did not get the Dog, and you are distraught, wait 2 weeks until your head clears, and then go to the Humane Society and get another one. You will be much happier that way. (f) The Kid (1) Sigh. Okay, first see Section 2: Article (d)1. You are an idiot. Haven’t you heard of birth control? Well now it’s not just you in this boat, so a lot of the earlier terms and conditions about Dumpers and Dumpees may not apply. Even if your Breakup involved a Bad Dumper or an Asshole, you will have to be nice, for the Sake of the Kid. This is really outside the range of this document, so go to court and try not to screw up your Kid’s life any more than you already have. Section 3: The Friends (a) The Dumpee gets the Friends. Sorry, dems da breaks. If you were smart about picking your relationship, you were dating somebody who was not from your immediate circle of friends, so when you Breakup, you each go cry to your respective group and everything is dandy. Unfortunately, many friends become Booty Calls, which can then become That Girl I’m Sorta Dating, which can then become Your Girlfriend. Relationships over one year also have a high incidence of Combined Friends. Regardless, the Dumpee still gets the Friends! But there are some details/exceptions/conditions associated with the possible future division of Friends, so here they are: Specifics of Division of Friends (1) In the case of a Good Dumper, Split Custody is acceptable. Within the first 6 months, a Good Dumper has the right to still hang out with the Friends, but only if the Dumpee is not present. After 6 months, it is acceptable for the Dumper to call the Dumpee and request mutual access to the Friends. If Dumpee is amenable, the two may attend a party or barbeque together with the Friends. The Good Dumper is at all times aware of the Dumpee’s feelings, and will be the first to leave if things get awkward. After one year, expect normal Friend-Dumper-Dumpee interactions to resume. If you got dumped by a Good Dumper and you are all hanging out again after a year and you’re totally cool and you’re not strongly reconsidering getting back together, then Damn. He’s probably gay. That’s cool that you guys are still friends though. Maybe you can shop and stuff. (2) In the case of a Bad Dumper, Visitation Rights are acceptable, under some circumstances. Bad Dumper only retains Friendship Rights with his or her Best Friend, and then, only at Best Friend’s discretion. Everyone else is fully justified in telling you to piss off. After one year, a Split Custody arrangement may be made, but Bad Dumper is never to be allowed at a party that the Dumpee is attending. This must be enforced strongly by Friends and the Dumpee. (3) In the case of an Asshole, no rights are retained regarding the Friends. Not even to the Best Friend. You fucked up but good, so now go find yourself a bunch of shallow, selfish people just like yourself, so you can all get drunk and stab each other in the back. This also applies to such Dumpers described in Section 1; Article (b), as those Dumpers who pose as Dumpees are especially despicable. (b) Relationships with Friends after the Breakup (1) Under NO circumstances is a Dumper allowed to sleep with any of the Friends after the Breakup. ESPECIALLY the Dumpee’s Best Friend, but truly, there are NO exceptions. Even if she says it’s okay. Even if you guys have a long talk about it and she says it’s fine and she wants you to be happy. You better take a good look at a girl’s Friends before you get Committed, because if you would ever like to possibly sleep with one of those girls, you should not enter into the Relationship. Good Dumpers who break this rule can then be qualified as Bad Dumpers. Sleeping with the Best Friend immediately qualifies you as an Asshole. (Best Friend can also then be Broken Up With, and most of the terms of this document apply.) Remember, Assholes are open to justifiable destruction of property, and are often deserving of a swift kick in the Balls. Section 4: The Neighborhood (a) The Dumpee retains all rights to the Neighborhood, including but not limited to, grocery stores, shopping malls, dog parks, coffee shops, bars, hang-outs, strip malls, carwashes, and restaurants. If the Dumper sees the Dumpee in one of these places, the Dumper must immediately leave. The only exception is a Good Dumper who is back on Good Terms with the Dumpee, especially one year or more after the Breakup. See Section 3; Article (a)1 for details. All terms of this document are not legally binding, but they make a hell of a lot of sense. Don't be an Asshole, and your life will be so much easier. (In case you didn’t get it, this means I get the stuff, the friends and the hangouts. Quit whining about your freaking sweatshirt and stay the fuck away from me.) this is in or around My Ex no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

---

Copyright © 2005 craigslist, inc.

two levels of sight

It's interesting how being in law school can really affect your work habits. I'm now very conscious of my time spent on "work," by which I mean classes, studying, L. Rev., anything related to school. It also spills over into other non-leisure commitments as well. If there's something to be said or done, I find myself expecting it to be done quickly with no more prevarication or other delay than absolutely necessary. E.g. when there's a meeting, and various people are going around explaining an item. The objective is to explain what it is, what it involves, what we need to do. Not to say the same thing ten times over in ten different ways and prolong the meeting by another ten minutes. I mean, that's ten minutes I could spend doing something else! I think this is what I'm going to call "the billable mentality." It's funny how it trickles down into law school even though I'm not even practicing yet. The benefit of this mindset, if nothing else, is efficiency.

But at the same time, I recognize that measuring events by their opportunity cost all the time (what else I could be doing, how much I could theoretically be "billing") isn't always the best way to run your life. Sometimes you just need to spend time with someone without looking at the clock. Sometimes to get quality time, you need to spend quantity time. You can't always make quality time happen. And sometimes, you just need to get away and chuck aside a utilitarian calculus of your time and your opportunity cost, forget about efficiency.

Also, I don't think the billable mentality is a very Christ-centered one. And since this blog is called "A Christian Goes to Law School" (see infra. or is it supra?), I think it's important that Christ-following law students and lawyers remember that. Jesus wasn't exactly the sort of person you expect to be wandering around with a dayplanner, purposefully planning every minute detail of his ministry ("John, run ahead and tell the lepers on the road to Jerusalem that I'll heal them at 10:44 a.m. exactly, by the two palm trees and the big rock. I only have four minutes, so they'd better be ready. Tick-tock, man, I'm on a tight schedule here." "I'm sorry disciples, but I can only spare twenty minutes to teach you eternal truth today. Gotta go do some miracles, you know.").

I think knowing God should lead you to perceive reality at two levels. On a more temporal level, it's hard to deny that the billable mentality does cut out on non-essential and inefficient stuff and improve efficiency. By translating time into dollars or other opportunity cost, it helps you to get a handle on what your own or someone else's inefficiency is costing you, and motivates you to try and cut down on inefficient processes. But when you start trying to see things from an eternal perspective (what Christian jargon calls "through God's eyes"), you realize that God doesn't do billables. That what God really cares about is being (sorry to bring in Heidegger), people in their essence. Jesus would leave ninety-nine sheep to go look for one, even if that wasn't efficient. That contains some kind of lesson for us as well. When we have an eternal perspective, we see that sometimes you need to forget the billables, and just focus on the person in front of you, what he or she needs, where they are at, how they can be blessed by you.

pet peeve of the week

(Although, if it's a pet peeve of the week, is it really a pet peeve or just a momentary, transient peeve?)

The peeve for the week is the mis-spelling of Justice Ginsburg's last name. It occurs in citechecking assignments (a managing editor even corrected me for spelling it with a "u" and not an "e." The editor later graciously and humorously acknowledged that I was right), and this week, I spotted it again in an article written for UCLA Law's alumni magazine. The article was written by no less a person than someone who had helped prepare a Supreme Court brief. It's really quite mind-boggling. I can accept a 1L or a non-lawyer getting it wrong. But if you've sat through a semester of Constitutional Law and an entire year of law school, I really fail to see how you have any mitigating excuse for not being able to spell the name of a currently sitting Supreme Court Justice (okay, I could accept dyslexia). And if you've actually written a brief for the Court as a practicing (and well-paid) attorney...

Even in the case of a learning (and spelling) disability, there is something known as proofreading. Proofreading is best done by someone else who can take "fresh eyes" to your article. I know that when I proofread my work, I sometimes tend to skim quickly and pay less attention than I should, because of (a) an implicit trust in my abilities (often proved wrong); (b) a belief that I know what I've written. So when I'm citechecking an article, or reading an already published article, it's a little mortifying to note the mis-spelling of J. Ginsburg's name.

And just for your edification, here are the names of the currently sitting Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, arranged alphabetically by last name, save for C.J. Roberts.

C.J. Roberts
J. Breyer
J. Ginsburg
J. Kennedy
J. O'Connor
J. Scalia
J. Souter
J. Stevens
J. Thomas

(yes, I do know that I'm really supposed to arrange the list in accordance with their seniority on the Court, exception being made for the Chief. But at least I'm being wilful in my ignorance of Supreme Court protocol. Which may or may not be preferable to being negligent in the mis-spelling of J. Ginsburg's name. Hmm...)

a holiday contracts case

So in first year Contracts, our casebook covered several cases covering holidays, where the vacationers sued their tour agencies because their holidays weren't as expected. There was a German case where a disgruntled tourist sued because he had been expecting a queen bed but instead got two twins, and that interfered with his uh, recreational diversions. But this post is not about those cases.

Instead, it's about the QE2, taken from CNN.Com. Problems with one of its rotors caused it to have to abandon almost all its ports-of-call on its voyage. So instead it's sailing all the way to Rio, cutting out all the stops along the way. Some passengers are in an uproar, upset that they are not getting the vacation they paid for, and that they were not given the option to cancel the vacation before the ship departed Florida, even though the captain knew the problems might affect the itinerary for the voyage. Cunard, the operator of the QE2, is offering passengers a 50% refund as compensation for their frustrated expectations.

Although I don't know all the facts, I think the passengers have a good case should they decide to sue Cunard. You hear things like "once-in-a-lifetime holiday ruined," and "passengers in tears," and you can't help but think that a jury's sympathies will lie with Mr. and Mrs. Doe, 75 year old retirees who planned to celebrate their diamond anniversary with a romantic voyage onboard the QE2, and sank a considerable bit of change to do so. (Okay, so the CNN story didn't say there were 75 year old retirees celebrating a diamond anniversary onboard, but there's a couple like that on every cruise out there. Well, except maybe Carnival.)

Of course, this assumes that they get a chance to litigate their claim to begin with. More likely than not, Cunard has inserted an arbitration clause into each passenger's contract, requiring them to arbitrate any and all claims against Cunard. Chances are decent that Cunard also inserted a class action waiver into the arbitration clause. Debatable whether a court or arbitrator will find that waiver enforceable. But if there's an arbitration clause, it's practically bulletproof, thanks to the Federal Arbitration Act. I'm sure you wanted to know that, right?

great law firm names

Something a friend and I started musing about...

Curious George LLP
Pinky & The Brain LLP
Justice League of America LLP

... you get the idea.

Also, a clarification about my second last post, A 2L Confessional. A friend of mine remarked that it sounded uncharacteristically bitter and sarcastic. Uhm, that's because it wasn't intended to be either sarcastic or bitter. I apologize if it sounded that way, in part, no doubt, due to the recent posts in which I've griped about still working on my comment.

But A 2L Confessional was meant to be a piece of humor, not a sarcastic swipe at law school. I'm sorry if anyone walked away feeling dark and depressed about law school, it's really not that bad. Especially once you realize that there isn't a straightforward linear relationship between the time you spend studying and the grades you get, and pick up snowboarding as a hobby. :)

Also, while I do gripe about my comment, I do only have myself to blame. I don't know why this is proving to be so hard to write, and why I have moments of great clarity about it followed by long periods of dark wandering trying to find a coherent argument. But recently I had a repiphany of sorts (that's a repeat epiphany, if you were wondering). In the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty small thing. Even if I get a lousy grade, so what? It's not the end of the world. It doesn't change who I am, and it's not going to cause the sky to fall (so the Gauls don't need to worry). I also realized that I might even be able to extract another paper from the research and writing that I've done. But that's a story for another day.

And if any of you were worried that I was in a funk... well, I was, for about a day. But the CLS Prayer Night did a lot to change that. :) And now, to bed! Or other great adventures...

Just Another Library Friday

When I became a 2L, I labored under the misapprehension that no one actually comes to the library on Friday, save for overstressed 1Ls. As a 1L, I definitely put in my time on Fridays (or at least it feels like I did). But now that I'm a second semester 2L and still in the library on Friday (considering that I have 4-day weekends all semester, that's saying a lot), I realize how naive I was.

A quick look around the library reveals 2Ls (and some 3Ls) who are:

1. Doing work for their various student organizations and extra-curricular interests, e.g. PILF, L. Rev., APILSA, etc.;
2. Still working on papers that were due last semester (moi);
3. Studying. Actual honest-to-goodness studying.

I don't understand people in category (3), but since the law presumes that everyone is sane absent a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary (at least I think that's the requisite evidentiary standard), I'm forced to assume that they have other plans for the weekend that require them to put in their studying time now. Otherwise they'd just be crazy to be here. Or just mad gunners (doubly-mad since they're no longer 1Ls).

Alright. I know I can, I know I can, I know I can...

A 2L Confessional

Dear stressed 1Ls...

After much careful soul-searching, I have decided to come clean with the truth. Law school only gets better after your first year. For long years, the administration has made 2Ls and 3Ls abide by an oath of secrecy intended to keep 1Ls in the dark and working hard. But, jaded and cynical after 3 semesters in law school, I'm telling all...

As a 2L, our semesters are only 10 weeks long; I start my summer vacation the beginning of April.

Finals. There actually aren't any finals as a 2L. They just make us sit in a room for 3 hours and surf the Internet and write emails, to keep up pretenses and make you think we're suffering along with you.

Law Review. Alright. The write-on is for real. You have to do the write-on to get on L. Rev. (and once you're on, everyone in L. Rev. just calls it L. Rev. Only poseurs call it "Law Review.") But once you get on L. Rev., it's easy street. We actually outsource all our citechecking and comment writing to India. That way when someone makes a mistake, you can actually fire someone. And they work for peanuts. Again, we only whine and complain about our work in order to keep up the whole law school facade. How else do you think we manage to convince law firms that having L. Rev. in your resume makes you a good candidate?

So dear 1Ls, just remember. All the pain and suffering you're going through right now will be worth it in the end. Because in seven or eight months, you too will be chillin' like a 2L.

when free speech leaves a bad taste in your mouth

While perusing the august pages (although perhaps page may be more appropriate, since it's all on one webpage) of the Volokh Conspiracy, I learned of the existence of a site, UCLAProfs.com, that wants to expose the liberal bias of UCLA faculty. I don't consider myself either a liberal or a conservative (but various friends of mine might disagree either way), and generally think partisan politics of the flavor so widespread in the United States is quite quite distasteful (because good constructive ideas and sound, open-minded debate always seem to take a backseat to alienating confrontational rhetoric). But I decided to check out UCLAProfs.com out of curiosity (alright, procrastination). I looked at it briefly, paying particular attention to the profiles of Law School professors. My opinion? I'm afraid I have nothing good to say about it.

There is nothing wrong with the basic premise of the website: its author wishes to call attention to what he perceives as the blatant political leanings of UCLA faculty, presumably for the purpose of addressing the perceived imbalance and ensuring that students are not subjected to political indoctrination in the classroom, but instead receive a sound and well-balanced education. That's certainly a respectable premise and one that I would support (granted I am presuming certain motivations there). But the language and tone of the website unfortunately besmirches any possible noble goal. I'm not going to quote anything the website says, because I think it's rude, uncivil, and not worth quoting. Suffice it to say that the words that came to my mind as I read the website include: "hateful," "invective," "mean," "rude," "have you no shame" (okay that was four words), "unhelpful."

I think the website is deplorable. Its voice and wording adds nothing to the debate, but is instead alienating and destructive, not constructive. It will only serve to push the left further away, and the only people it will appeal to are those on the far right. People in the middle, and I suspect even many of those on the right, will be repulsed by the animosity, biting sarcasm (which honestly isn't even all that good), and downright meanness of the website. In many ways, the website is a prime example of why I dislike American partisan politics.

Oh, and one last thing. I sincerely hope none of the professors profiled on the website ever read it, because honestly I think I would be quite offended and hurt to read such an unflattering and one-sided attack on myself. But if they do, I honestly think they should consider it a badge of pride.

L. Rev. Comment: the little law student that could

Anyone remember the little engine that could? Puffing up the hill, muttering, "I think I can, I think I can..." Yeah, well, sometimes when I'm faced with the comment, I feel like that. Now on revision #3 (meaning this is effectively the third almost brand-new comment I'm writing). Good news is, I think this will meet my advisor's previous concerns. Not so good news is, I don't know if this argument is a knock-down winner. Actually no, I know it's not. Then again, it's not as if anyone on the Supreme Court will ever read it.

But before I begin, I must fuel up for the task. Hence, lunch and Indian buffet. :)

Salome

For some strange reason, I felt the need to listen to U2's Salome (Zooromancer Remix Edit) at 7:30 a.m. this morning. After getting up at5:30 a.m., again, for no apparent reason. The song consists of: (a) a pretty decent club beat; (b) Bono relating the story of Herod's reputedly salacious stepdaughter, Salome, whose mad dancing skillz got John B beheaded; (c) Bono alternatively moaning/screeching "Salome" and "shake it shake it Salome"; (d) someone (Bono?) skatting along. It's not really a 7:30 a.m. song. But it was a sudden and irresistible impulse. That's my affirmative defense and I'm sticking with it.

best Alito confirmation coverage ever

It's so good, you'll just have to read it for yourself. From the Washington Post. :)

that midnight train to the Library of Congress

One of the recent twists in the Alito confirmation hearings was Sen. Kennedy demanding that the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena the records of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), which I believe were located in the Library of Congress. In this article from Reuters, Sen. Specter declares that "an overnight search of [those] records" did not turn up Alito's name.

I'm not that concerned about whether Alito was a member of CAP. But what struck me were the words "overnight search." Because that means that some poor staffer, or rather, some poor unpaid intern, had to burn an entire night sitting at a desk in the Library of Congress, going through stacks of boring records in a frantic (but tedious) attempt to determine if there was anything incriminating in there. Nothing wrong with due diligence, of course, but those records have been sitting there for years. If Sens. Kennedy or Specter really wanted to know what was in them, why didn't they request a search earlier, instead of waiting for the hearings to start? It's not like we just learned two weeks ago that Alito was being nominated for the Court.

So because the higher-ups couldn't (or wouldn't) get their act together in time, a poor underpaid grunt (probably some college kid who thought an internship in a Senator's office would be exciting and prestigious) had to catch the midnight train to the LOC. I have a suspicious feeling I'm going to feel similarly irate when a partner eventually does this to me as well.

[edit: Oops. Turns out Kennedy initially made the request about three weeks back, according to the Daily Princetonian. Open mouth, insert foot. I still feel bad for the poor intern who did the search though.]

oh, new S. Ct. Justice?

So today I was contacted by an editor for the Daily Bruin, UCLA's student newspaper. They were trying to find law school student organization leaders who would be willing to write a brief article on their view of Alito's nomination and confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, I have to confess: I'm not really following along this time. It's effectively a political non-event to me. Because:

1. Alito knows exactly what to say: everything that Chief Justice John Roberts said just a few months back. Alito doesn't have to be a parrot, but C.J. Roberts clearly set the benchmark for how to have a successful confirmation hearing.
   
2. There is nothing in Alito's past that is so damaging it'll sink the ship. Sure, he wrote some memos on abortion and the extent of presidential power. Sure, you can read them as being hallmarks of an extremely conservative judicial philosophy (or just extremely Republican). But they are clearly not on a level with the things that Bork wrote, and are insufficient (I think) to give rise to a Democratic filibuster.
3. Not having read his opinions, either while working as a lawyer or as a judge, I cannot really comment on the quality of his legal reasoning and the positions he took. However, everything I hear from reliable sources (both left and right) is that he's a great judge and would do the Court justice (get it, get it?). Unlike Bush's first attempt at replacing O'Connor.
   

I think we have a new S. Ct. justice, barring any unfortunate (and dramatic) last-minute revelations.

diversity

I've always been a little conflicted about an emphasis on diversity and affirmative action. On the one hand, a pure meritocracy, ceteris paribus, seems like the way to go. How far you go depends on how hard you work and use the natural gifts, talents, and other skills you have. On the other hand, I recognize that the effects of racial bias and past racial discrimination have handicapped many if not all minorities. A quick look at the leaders of the Fortune 500 should dispel any pretensions that we live in a pure meritocracy where race (or gender) doesn't matter; almost all the CEOs of the F500 are white and male, and their representation is disproportionate to their chunk of the population.

Even if racial bias and discrimination can be eradicated, however, does that mean that we should cease to emphasize diversity and make decisions about admissions, employment, and promotion, solely on the basis of merit? I used to think so, but am starting to think not.

The value of diversity isn't just about fighting discrimination. It is also about the value of protecting and preventing against future acts that unfairly affect or single out a specific group of people. It is to prevent imperialism of any kind - American, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, secular. Having a diverse school environment, workplace, government, will hopefully help to prevent any one people-group from advancing their own interests at the expense of another.

I realize I'm talking quite abstractly and perhaps far too idealistically. I also acknowledge that it can seem awfully unfair to have a factor beyond your control determine your destiny, instead of your merit. I sympathize with those who feel that they are the victims of reverse discrimination, and I do think that merit must remain one of the main considerations. But I no longer think it can be the only consideration. Diversity itself is valuable, just as important as merit, and should a day come when we feel that we can safely end all affirmative action, we should not end our efforts to promote diversity.

confessions of a 2nd semester 2L

I just spent the last twenty-five minutes flipping through the facebook trying to associate names with faces, after a day of seeing law students outside of the law school and being forced to resort to the "Hey, how's it going?" default greeting without the name, and the fervent inner prayer that they don't remember mine either.

Of course, this is a great time to bring up certain points about the facebook:

1. "You can't beat the real thing." Almost everyone's photo looks terrible. I would estimate the percentage of photos not doing justice to the subject at a high 95%.
2. "That's a major?" Really. Some people have amazingly interesting majors. Some even have three or four.
3. "Impeach my perception." So even after going through the whole facebook TWICE, I still can't find the person I was looking for. Let's just hope I'm never asked to pick someone out of a line-up or mugbook. Of course, this might just be a consequence of my first observation about the facebook.

it's only just begun...

Today is the second day of classes. Yesterday, the first day, was rough. Sometimes I felt I had to physically stop myself from running away. My motivation was not aided by the fact that it was a very pleasant 70 degrees outside, and sunny. Consequently, I was 10 minutes late to my first class of the new semester (Federal Income Tax).

But I think things are looking up. Fed Tax actually seems quite interesting, surprisingly. And my other two classes (Biz Ass. and Deals) are also similarly intriguing. Now I just need to get the books and do the reading.

it's only just begun...

First day of law school. Sigh. And of course, in LA, it has to be a perfect sunny day in the 70s. Which doesn't help with my current motivational issues at all. So much for hitting the ground running. Well, except maybe running the other way. Like, to the beach. Or the mountains. Oh wait, except that there's still a comment to be finished. Back to life, back to reality.

great gift idea for a law student

A Roomba. It's a robotic vacuum cleaner made by iRobot. Yes, another one of those iNames. Don't ask me why that's the latest thing (anyone even know what the 'i' stands for in all of them?). But a Roomba is truly one of the greatest inventions ever. A self-powered, intuitive vacuum cleaner. Your busy law student will thank you because she/he will never have to vacuum the floor again, and can instead spend more time surfing half.com for the cheapest price on a Gilbert's commercial outline.

Reminder to UCLA Law peeps: School starts in a week. If you need to get books, Amazon actually has pretty good prices on new books, and you can get used ones from Amazon's used section, or www.half.com. I'd also recommend www.abebooks.com for rare and hard to find books, but they're usually pricier. Also, if any 1Ls want any casebooks, let me know.