Unbearable.

It's so fucking unbearable to comprehend that individuals exist who would intentionally bomb a wedding party, face to face, in hopes of getting the other side so angry that they would precipitate sectarian civil war. Apparently attacking wedding parties has become common practice. And not just killing them...but finding the necessity to commit such an atrocity to be so compelling that they give up their own life to do it.

It's even more unbearable to realize that there are apparently, tens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions who would do the same.

This isn't a megalomaniacal dictator with dreams of world domination...or someone who wants power. There isn't a shred of the rationality or even the basic humanness of self-preservation or a sense of humanity in any of it. It's so otherworldly that I simply can't comprehend the act, the origins, or the solution.

Ah, the Naivete!

I remember when I first arrived in law school I was utterly confused about the concept of law firms. I mean, of course I knew that there existed an entity called a "law firm," most probably only because of the Tom Cruise movie, but I wasn't aware that lawyers practiced law in firms. More appropriately, I didn't understand the legal market at all. For example, I came into law school believing that big shot lawyers were the ones who had advertisements on television. That personal representation is what they meant by "practicing law." I believed that when people talked about obscenely rich lawyers, that they were referring to those who brought suits against the tobacco companies, or the people who chased ambulances, or who sued doctors. I mean, John Edwards was an extremely wealthy trial attorney who made his money practicing medical malpractice law. So, when the Career Services meetings discussed "getting the job at the big firm" I remember looking around the room to see if that registered for other people...if that was something they already knew in the first few weeks of law school.

I imagined law to be much like a glorified liberal arts degree. An extension of political science, public policy, and philosophy. Of course there were lawyers doing dry things like practicing law for businesses, and ambulance chasers without ethics. But I thought I would be going somewhere else. I imagined that international law really existed. That there were international lawyers practicing international law. That there were human rights lawyers standing in international court rooms decrying the human rights abuses of the world. That there were plenty of people like Mark Darcy (from Bridget Jones' Diary. Shut up) who were "human rights barristers" who were somehow wealthy and doing human rights law at the age of 30-something. I thought maybe I would go to the UN, or work for the World Bank, or be involved in something sexy, international, and humane. International Human Rights Law. It just sounds cool.

Unfortunately, no. Once. Twice. Three times! No.

The law is not sexy. Turns out it's fascinating, interesting, engaging, complex, and important. And I've also met some of the best people I will ever meet through the law. And I think the law is definitely a worthwhile place to be, and an admirable profession in the right circumstances. But definitely not sexy. International law is corporate transactions. International law is domestic law practiced over a long-distance phone line and fax machines (or PDFs if you're going to be nitpicky.) Human rights law is arguing cases about employment discrimination. Even at its sexiest, it's about the interpretation of the word "reasonable" or "necessity" in arguing that a government went too far. International trade law is, and believe me I now know, the most boorish and meticulous textual analysis you will ever see. The dispute resolution body of the WTO would make Scalia glow.

So here I am...having made the transfer to Harvard (that's a picture of the library) ... wondering just where on earth this road goes ... and hoping that I've chosen the right path to find a place where I know I belong. It seems so hard to get out of law now that I've gotten in. Not that I want out of the law, but you hear so often that lawyers leave the law. Where do they go? Anyone have an answer besides business or banking?

As a final note, the Me who wrote his Personal Statement when applying to Harvard would be proud. It appears that I got what I wanted. I wanted to be intellectually challenged? Got it. I wanted to feel like an idiot, like I was floundering and forced to improve and struggle to survive? Got it. I wanted to feel overwhelmed, naively believing it would make me stronger? Got it. I wanted to find myself in a difficult situation where it's not clear whether I would sink or swim? Got that too. I can't say whether whether I wanted to be lonely and alienated...but I'm sure somewhere deep down I was aware it would happen. So got THAT one too.

The question now is whether any of this was worth it.

Tiding myself over post.

I'm too tired to post for real, so this is just to tide the whole process over.

Anyone able to identify what's significant about this photo? Shouldn't be too difficult.

And...I'm a little anxious about two of my callback interviews, so I'm on edge waiting for a response....

That's all 'Til next time...or in 5 minutes. or whenever...

Excited!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is totally irrelevant to all of you, and you probably don't care...

But on Andrew Sullivan's blog for the past few months, there has been a series of photographs he receives from readers entitled "View From Your Window" which is composed of various vistas, from the most mundane backyard in Iowa, to a cityscape in NYC, to (rather infrequently) foreign countries where his readers live. I had taken a few pictures of my backyard in New Delhi, a Bangladeshi garbage processing slum, and had never sent them in to him over the last 3 months...figuring he wouldn't post them, as he often makes comments about the MASSIVE number of shots he gets, and how certain aspects of photos (like a windowframe demonstrating that it's really a window shot) make them more eligible etc.

So, I finally sent in a couple photos. And it was posted within a couple days!! (His actual blog link is here...just scroll down to Oct. 25, 12:15 p.m.) He gets over 50,000 hits a day, so I just find it exciting! Yay! Blogs Rule.


And...Boo-Yah! Progress on the Gay Front! Of course it's an "activist court" doing "Un-American" things, like upholding equality, progress, and individual freedom...but at least it's good to realize that not everyone is a dipshit.

For all you fellow folks who have some exposure to Con Law, is there anything more disrespectful to American constitutionalism than Constitutionalizing the anti-homosexuality issue? I mean...Jesus FUCKING CHRIST. Support state laws illegalizing homosexual marriages on federalist principles if you really want...but next to all of those principled Amendments and rights determining the superstructure of our society...they want to insert a Gay Marriage Ban? In the same Constitution where they interpret the phrase "In Commerce" to mean so much, with such complexity, and such nuance with the deepest philosophies of governance, government, and controlling humanity...they want to add an Amendment about the definition of marriage? Ironically, I'm going to have to exclaim: Jesus Christ!

Evil. Next?

I interviewed with two firms, back to back today. These firms were my "backup" firms, although I'm now under the impression that you don't really need "backup" callback firms, because 5-7 callbacks with firms is apparently plenty to guarantee a callback (Note: I took 3 callbacks from firms I never intended to accept an offer from. Fantastic.)

The first firm, abbreviated SA, was filled with people who genuinely seemed to like their lives as lawyers. Aside from a corporate partner, who had the most absurd, caricaturish glasses I have ever seen in my entire life and spoke extraordinarily fast and put me on edge, I just had great, free-flowing conversations with the rest of the group. The office was beautiful, located right in the bustling areas of Times Square, and I had some pleasant conversations.



Then came lunch, where I was taken to the highest rated restaurant in New York, Le Bernardin. The associate who took me to lunch, however, was less than spectacular. It's not that he wasn't friendly. He just seemed to embody multiple negative stereotypes all at once. He was focused completely and utterly on money, he had no interests, he had a definite twitch, he was overly self-assured, he was abrupt and rude, and he just did not feel put together as a human being. He sent back his fish, which had bacon in it (he's Kosher), blaming it on the menu, he said if he wasn't a lawyer he'd be a banker for the money, he doesn't even like what he does, but he likes that he gets to rub shoulders with the richest, and hopes to make connections, and doesn't seem to have any life outside of his work. He wasn't evil or soulless...he just seemed lost. I felt uncomfortable discussing AIDS in India with him, because he was struggling so hard just to ask me questions about it.

Of course he treated me with extreme politeness, but I could see that if I were a paralegal or even conceivably a law student he could have treated as inferior...then he probably would have. In any case, him aside, SA had the nicest people I had met to date. People who were firmly determined to remain people. And that's a good thing.

The second firm, WC, was in a really retro looking building. I believe this is an issue for several of the major NYC firms, which is that their decor reflects an earlier era of decadence, which today looks extraordinarily backwards. I can't quite explain it, but the signage and the decor just seemed oddly 1980's. It doesn't actually matter to me what the offices look like, but it's bizarre to me that people who spend so much time and money on other worthless items don't spend any money on their own surroundings. I distinctly recall walking by an office with an associate sitting alone at his desk...and the room was just four white walls, a desk, and a computer. Maybe it's because I like taking the time and energy to make my living/working spaces more full and ultimately more organic, but man...that is some stark shit. As for the people at W&C, once again, I thought they were fantastic. One woman partner looked COMPLETELY like some normal, completely harmless woman. Another Partner spent 10 minutes talking to me about guitars. A third one left the art world to do Trusts and Estates (?!?!?!). And the fourth was a British Indian woman who was just an intense conversationalist. All said though, something about the office reminded me far too much of "Office Space" so I think I'll have to pass. Plus, upon mentioning the name of this firm to a professor of mine, the immediate response, and I'm talking immediate, was "Evil. Next?"

After I left the office, and spent 30 minute fruitlessly trying to hail a cab near Times Square (Jesus Christ, suck), I received a call and an offer from SASMF (I figure that one should be fairly obvious). So the tally is two. No matter what I'm safe. Now it's a matter of seeing if I can get these last two, STB and DPW...and if I do...then comes another round of annoying decisionmaking.

Turns out I'm getting at interviewing though. I actually think this has made me a better conversationalist. Not that it is anymore interesting to talk to me now, but it's just easier for me to sound natural and genuine when I make transitions like "Wow, you moved ALL the way from structured finance and market securitization to debt restructuring and bankruptcy? That's fascinating?...well that's great. So where did you grow up?"

Tally:
SC - Check
SASMF - Check
WC - Confident.
SA - Not sure. A little too loose tongued.
STB - Hope!
DPW - Hope x 2!
Milbank Tweed Hadley and McCloy: Not so much. The name itself...jesus.



You'd think I'd have better pictures...but it has been what I have looked up in terror at...but it's all I can find. Short of this:

Weighty Matters.

Sounds like normal blog post title about to say something faux-weighty...but it's actually just a brief message to proclaim that I've clearly gained weight...again...due to the law school lifestyle.

Unfortunately, I'm not actually working so hard that there is a clear tradeoff. In actuality, I'm watching a lot of television and eating any food in my apartment. Life is good.

Or not.

Oh. And jesus christ. A 100 dollar tab a day in a 4-star hotel with room service is such an exacerbating circumstance.

One down!

So at the tail-end of my interview session, on a Friday afternoon, with lawyers who ranged from the obviously miserable with their jobs, to those who seemed enthusiastic about their work...I received my first offer! The interviews didn't go particularly well, and this was the most prestigious of the firms with which I interviewed, and they just said "well...you have an offer."

So...just a little minor boo-yah because now my backup firm is the top of the firms with which I interviewed!

(although 5 years ago in the superlatives category they were known as the "worst firm to work for in the country"...so we shall see)

Anyway, I'm at a Kinko's using the internet because my hotel is charging 10 bucks a day for wireless and I'm totally not up to that...so I gotta run.

Not Another Political Post

Disclaimer: This post is particularly self-indulgent, dry, and boring. Read at your own risk. The good money says you won't make it to the end. More normal posts will hopefully resume again sometime soon.

Of course the title is a riff on that movie (which, of course, I’ve seen), which in turn means that this is yet another political post. Since I’m flying out to New York (and St. Louis!) for the next 9 days for interviews…I will likely mostly be posting about that, maybe…for the next few days so I thought I’d squeeze in this last one…

As a completely non-political science theory person, I’m going to outright disclaim how simplistic my analysis is here, and how doubtless, most of you are already aware of what I’m posting about…but basically I was reading Haubenreich’s blog and got into thinking about the left/right political spectrum…and thought I would post about an idea that hit me like a bolt of lightning a few years ago. (The fact that this hit me like a lightning bolt shows how early in the stages of developing I really am…hence…the blog name.)

So, I had never really known what to say when people ask me where I stand politically. On one hand, it’s abundantly clear that I am socially liberal. But it’s not safe to say that I’m liberal. I generally believe in personal choices/self-determination for sexuality, race, abortion, drug use, victimless crimes, and personal morality, which all belong with the left. On the other hand, I think Communism is retarded. Maybe it’s the fact that I studied so much economics in college, or maybe it’s the fact that I do believe market mechanisms, capitalism, and the idea of economic incentives will increase productivity and growth at a much higher rate than a centrally planned state with all of the weakness of political infighting, massive bureaucracies (and their petty bureaucrats), and the complete lack of personal incentive for improvement in productivity. (Of course all this is obvious and incredibly simplified, I just wanted to explain why I think Communism is retarded. Not just ill-conceived, but retarded. Not necessarily a slam on Marxism per se, but at least a slam on communism. I also find it unfortunate that market economics is so clearly considered a "right" position, since "left" policies also harness market forces and market theories to reach the same goal. (ie. in a recession, "liberals" would advocate the "injection" of government stimulus and government spending close the recessionary gap, while "conservatives" would advocate cutting taxes to increase investment/consumption to close the recessionary gap.)

My fundamental, underlying value, however, remains individual human experience…thus my beliefs are all guided towards enabling personal freedom and the ability of each person to not be hampered in pursuing happiness. So, if you really had to boil it down…I am a "regulated free-market", social liberal who believes government has a role to mitigate poverty, inequality, and systemic repression, whether economic, social, or political, but should not replace the role of civil society and self-determination. Thus, I was always somewhat conflicted because I believe that government should keep its heavy paws off of personal (social) choice, but I wasn’t sure how to draw a principled distinction between non-interference in personal (social) choice and personal (economic) choice (ie. taxes).

Under the current framework, I’m either 1) kinda sorta liberal, 2) kinda sorta conservative, 3) not really, but kinda libertarian, or the dreaded 4) Centrist, which doesn’t really seem to have any meaning. I just felt confused.

Thus comes what is called the “Political Compass,” a paradigm revision (not really a shift I guess) that helped me clear things up a bit.

It's not really much of a change, but social and economic philosophies are nicely broken apart. Here's another version...apparently with where modern politicians and famous people fall. I don't know if I actually agree with the placement of certain people (Tony Blair?), and I never even considered that people like Robert Mugabe had actually governing philosophies...I just sorta assumed they were mindless demons. But clearly, figures like Mao and Stalin would fall on the top left, Andrew Sullivan would fall on the bottom right, and I think that I would fall very slightly right or left of center in the bottom right quadrant, although not too far down.

Clearly, these are inelegant and lacking in precision. But then again, I don’t think it’s necessary or useful to be precise here. I would say that the terms “Authoritarian/Fascism” and “Libertarian/Anarchism” are a little unhelpful as they embody more specific end goals instead of values...and so I would prefer “Order” on top and “Freedom” on the bottom or maybe even “Social Order” and “Social Freedom”…which more fairly puts both ends of the spectrum on equal footing as plausible and positive alternatives, instead of two doom and gloom labels like "Fascism" and "Anarchism."

There’s two more axes that I think should be accounted for, but I’m not sure how they would fit into the picture. One axis (making it 3-D!) would be a way to account for the relative weights of the other two axes (ie. Hippies would put increased weight on the social/vertical axis, while Milton Friedman's super-free market fiscal policy would put increased weight on the economic/horizontal axis). I think given those three axes, it would be quite simple to place people relative to each other, although the final product would be a 3-D cube with 8 quadrants. (would they still be called quadrants if there are 8 of them?)

...as for the second axis...I was thinking about it during my international trade class this morning, but at this point I have completely blanked and I have no idea what I thought it was going to be. Maybe it's takin the axis and wacking me over the head with it for wasting your time.

Did I even make sense? It's actually a really simple thing where left and right get broken up into left right economics, and up down social policy. I just babbled my way around it. Any Thoughts?

Anyway, boobies, farts, poop, asslick. And Angus Bethune. (This is your reward for making it to the end.)

Wish me luck over the next week.

P.S. - On a lighter note, concerning Madonna's adoption of the Malawian child:
--She went to the Malawian orphanage and handed out signed copies of her book.
--She adopted a child whose father was still alive.
As brilliantly put by TheSuperficial:

So instead of food or medicine, this egotistical bitch handed out signed copies of her book. To starving Africans. Who probably can't read. She might as well have given them autographed pictures of herself. Not only that, but the child she chose to adopt still has a father. Instead of saving a true orphan, she chose the one kid that actually has family. She's doing pretty much every wrong thing you can do when adopting a child. If she was making a pizza, right about now she'd be smashing some glass into the dough and looking for some watermelons for the pizza sauce.

While I DO hate the French...

Another completely unrelated, random post about world politics...This time about France. And while I do find the French people to be annoying, whether in their ultra-liberal politics, socialism, snootiness, pomp, or sense of superiority...I do think that their lame stances on the war in Iraq and on Middle Eastern policy are entirely justified because of their immigration problems. The Lady has made it perfectly clear to me in the past that the French take their soft-against terrorism stance due to the massive numbers of Muslims in France, who have formed their own ghettos and slums, and who are increasingly violent and in a state of unrest due to the inability to find work, a la socialist economy, and the feeling of discrimination (which seems perfectly reasonable, considering that they live amongst the French.)

Thus, to say yes to any stance against an Arab or Muslim state is to invite another repeat of the riots we saw last year, where apparently 10,000 vehicles were torched.

This train of thought has been rattling around in my head for awhile, and it was recently brought back to life by this article:

France's Interior Ministry said 2,500 police officers had been "wounded" this year. The head of the hard-line trade union "Action Police" Michel Thooris... describe[d] conditions in housing developments turned slums as "intifada." Police cruisers are pelted daily with stones and "Molotov cocktails"...An average of 14 policemen a day are injured in bloody clashes with jobless youngsters.

I don't really know much about average statistics, but that seems like an awful lot to me. 2,500 a year?

There are two things that actually interest me about this whole issue. First, the rise of violent Islam internal to European states has produced an equally radical backlash, namely right-wing nationalist extremism to combat the "threat of Islam." (Not unfamiliar of course, but I won't join the hystericalm knee-jerk left in calling all our Republicans fascists.) I'm just going to end this thought by stating that I think the rise of right-wing extremism is never a good thing. Period.

Second, this seems, at least to me, to be an affirmation of the conservative belief that multiculturalism is ill-conceived, and that integration is essential to any large-scale immigration problem. (Multiculturalism being the belief that a society can/should be composed of distinct cultural groups of equal status, as opposed to a more integrationist approach). If you look at the French Riots, Van Gogh murder, London bombings, and the ghettoization of Muslims in Europe, the Multi-cultural capital of the world, it appears that allowing or encouraging these communities to remain distinct breeds identities of separateness, alienation, and division.

For example, I remember reading about the new phenomena of "Digital Ghettos" in England, that is, technology has enabled the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities to get all of their television and cultural programming directly from Pakistani and Bangladeshi providers and networks. As a result, if you live in a Pakistani neighborhood and watch all Pakistani television from your dish, and read all Pakistani papers from the internet...living in London really doesn't mean a thing.

Obviously the counterexample is the United States, which at least until recently, has been incredible at integrating its immigrant populations. I'm still not sure what to make of the current immigration issue though...considering the proliferation of "Little Mexicos" and "Little Havanas" around the country. Maybe I'm just a white kid in a Chinese body who is happy to have accepted my position in this country, but I still tend to believe that assimilation and integration is absolutely crucial. Who the fuck knows.


Does anyone not understand why I put up pictures of Twinkies?


P.S. - Should I stop posting about these random political thoughts? I mean, I don't think it'll make a difference as to whether I continue to do it or not...but I wonder if it's annoying. I like it because it helps me articulate these amorphous ideas in my head...but I don't want to drive away the 2 and a half people who read this thing. (Actually respond if you would be so kind.)

P.P.S - Is it must me, or do lots of Europeans look somewhat inbred?

The IKEA Idea

So, instead of doing my "Accounting for Lawyers" homework, I decided to a little bit of my daily news reading and I came across an interesting article about IKEA. It's not necessarily to follow the link or read about it, but there was a really interesting observation about the company and the Swedish political economy that I hadn't realized:

IKEA is staffed very sparsely, as opposed to say Wal-Mart. There aren't tons of people in the store walking around at all times helping you out, standing around and doing nothing. Furthermore, the products are largely, if not completely unassembled. Most of the products seem to be machine-produced en masse, and the assembly of the products is all done by the consumer.

The reason?

Apparently this model is a necessity of the Swedish socialist economy, which commands very high wages for even the lowest wage workers...such that they simply cannot afford to pay the high cost of labor. Instead, they've designed a business model that requires low levels of constant labor input, whether it's service provided in the stores or menial laborers in the factories. Granted, there must be much higher levels of fixed costs and initial start-up costs, but in the long-run, labor costs will not be a consistent burden on their operating costs. So, in hiking up employment protections through the public sector, the private sector has innovated and adapted to simply do away with employment. Nice.

The obvious broader implication is that the Swedish economy will essentially hemorrhage away domestic industry and manufacturing (I'd be willing to bet that all IKEA products are made in China), and an inevitable loss of competitiveness and reduced growth...especially as Sweden is part of the European Union (which, I assume means that even if they have access to low-wage migrant workers...they can't legally pay them low wages). So it makes you wonder what the future of socialism is...or what it could even conceivably be. I've gotten into this talk many times about how France is equally going to buckle under the weight of competition (a government mandated 35-hour workweek!??!), so this is just a nice concrete demonstration of it in action.

I'm obviously extrapolating from the tiny fragments I've read about Sweden and the beloved IKEA, but I thought it was interesting. It's likely that I've just posted things both enormously obvious and stupid.

You Tubes.

Ten bucks says none of you follow these links, but I thought it was interesting to see a Mainstream media commentator lambast the president with such a Daily Show, sarcastic "Fuck you Mr. President" discussion of the recently passed "torture, detainment, and no civil rights in the name of fear of terrorism" bill. So here's a link to the video, which is hosted on Andrew Sullivan's blog.

And for the hell of it, I've also included Jon Stewart's interview with Bill Bennett about gay-marriage. I'm still shocked by what an amazing figure Jon Stewart has turned out to be over the past few years. Very few people have been able to articulate the conscience of so many people the way he has...Plus he's just so goddamned effective.

News Bits.

Nothing of interest, except these two brief, unrelated stories.

Texas is now encouraging their children to attack armed intruders in the school. I actually don't know how I feel about it. I mean, once a guy steps into a school with a gun out it doesn't really seem like anything is going to stop him from killing children (yes. they're all male.) But then again, I feel like if I went into a school with the purpose of killing a few specific people, getting smacked in the face with a book is going to make me want to kill whoever threw it.

And...Mohammed Yunus, the inventor of micro-credit and the Grameen Bank, won the Nobel Prize! Damn right! Relieving poverty wins the Peace Prize. I totally approve.

I know I make fun of jews, but...

I apologize for the ranting character of this post, especially following after the super bitch-tits post. But...Jesus Christ, I am fucking sick of so many elements of the Muslim world. Maybe it's a little intolerant of me, but I simply do not and will not accept a world-view that does not believe in the possibility of peaceful co-existence with other human beings. Obviously I'm opposed to all religious fundamentalism, but what the fuck is going?!?!?! The most recent problem?

Exhibit 1:
Dubbed "Apple Mecca," this glass box happens to resemble the Ka'aba in Mecca because it is cubic. In addition, it is open 24 hours a day, like the Ka'aba. Finally, it serves alcohol. Thus, an outcry from parts of the Muslim community procaliming this an offense to Muslim Dignity, which should be dismantled.

Response? Fuck you.




Exhibit 2: Left: Burger King produced an ice cream cone with a stylistic picture of an ice cream swirl on the lid. Right: The Arabic Symbol for Allah. Because of the outrage and anger over the disrespect to Allah and Muslims, Burger King was forced to pull this ice cream lid.

Response? Fuck you.


Exhibit 3: The Danish Cartoons Protest in London.

Need I say more? The only real comment is how sickened is how free speech has been hijacked to suppress free speech.

Response? You guessed it. FUCK YOU.











Of course there's no need to mention the more high profile issues like actual violence and the absolute disregard for human rights and the status of women and homosexuals.

Actually, nevermind. I'll go ahead and post about homosexuals in the Muslim World.

Exhibit 4: Homosexuality in Iran. These two boys, aged 18 and 16, were executed for having homosexual sex. A 16 year old boy. A junior in high school...was executed for being gay?



Response? May you burn in hell.

Guess the Actor.

If, somehow, you can guess who this is...then you are awesome.
Chances are you have no idea...but I'm offering you a chance at possessing my eternal esteem.


For Those of you who have no idea who Charlie Talbert is, Here you go.
Angus: Best Movie of All Time.

Actual Life.

I'm been posting a lot of random crap recently, partly because these are the things I actually look at and find amusing, and because I haven't had much time. All in all, these stupid posts are essentially what you would experience if I were still there in your immediate presence, as I would likely poke you to look at the picture of Jiang Zemin, or ramble on about the state of the North Korean government and how Pyongyang actually looks like a normal city.

However, the real reason is that I've been doing OCI for the past 3 weeks. That's 3 full weeks of interviews in between, before, and after classes. For some reason, most of my interviews have fallen after my monday and tuesday classes...which means I have class from 8:15-4:30, then I have get into my suit and book it to the hotel where we are interviewed, and interview from 5:20 til about 7:00. At that point, I'm usually exhuasted for my 8:15 the next day. More importantly, I probably wore myself getting ready for 6 classes and 8 interviews the week before. In essence, it's been a brutalizing experience. The good news? I wrapped up 3 interviews today, and have only 1 more left on Friday at 5:40...and I'm not even going to take that callback if I get it.

As for the interviews, this is the ultra-boring rundown of the last 3 weeks:

Week 1: Two out of the three firms I wanted in the first week rejected me summarily, and I didn't have any callbacks by the end of the first week. It was disheartening, mostly because I began to fear that I left behind everything that made me happy for nothing...or less than nothing as I tend to think I would have been able to get callbacks from those two firms from Wash U...but who knows. I also got rejected from two firms which were my backup firms. Which also terrified me. I figured I just really sucked at interviewing. My policy of being honest, open, somewhat cynical, and just being me was basically a failure. I did, however, get a callback at my top choice in this whole damned process. I met with the career services office because of my fear that I sucked total ass at interviewing...and they just told me I'd be fine.

Week 2: I had one interview at a monstrously large and powerful firm. I ended up interviewing with the global hiring partner of the entire firm (ie. he handles hiring for the firm of like 1600+ attorneys). I was lame, bumbling, but apparently he appreciated it.

Week 3: Yom Kippur has fucked this shit up. Because of cancelled classes, I have makeup classes this week on friday, and I am designated to be on call. PLUS, this week he decided to assign our class the same number of pages it took him the first 5 weeks to cover...at the tail end of which I will be on call. I had/have 7 interviews this week, including 3 firms which I applied for purely on the basis of their rankings and Anglo-sounding names from the 1800's. Oh, and I was so tired by today that I slept right through my 8:15 class...and just went straight to my 3 interviews.

These partners are surprisingly nice people. They don't seem like they are particularly interesting, or that I have anything in common with any of them, but I've had some really interesting conversations (interesting being a relative term) with them and I've actually felt more at ease than I had thought I would feel. At this point, I have a fair number of callbacks... and I'm just fine with the ones I got...as well as carrying a grudge against the ones I didn't get (not really, but kinda)....and I'm just ready for this shit to be over with.

As for the rest of the week and a half, I have tons of homework to prepare for, a human rights advocates meeting (which for some reason requires homework, a mini-brief, and an oral orgument), international law journal editing, a flag football game (I scored two touchdowns in the rain and knocked the hell out of a girl on accident last time), one more interview, and a whole lotta fatty unhealthy foods without even a little exercise. And when I say all that...it's with a sense of relief.

Ok that's all. I've posted enough, and I doubt that any of you even read this far. So here's a nice big fuck you to all the people who haven't read this sentence, and a smile and a handshake for those who have.

Just LOOK at that Chinese Grandpa jacket.

So...notice that the elderly Chinese couple in the picture look like they bought their clothes from the same 90% off sale that all Chinese-American parents and grandparents buy their clothes. The funny grey jacket, ill-fitting, cheaply designed, worn in an extraordinarily Asian style. Like my grandfather. And the little old Chinese woman with the funny blue jacket. These people were Jiang Zemin and Lady Jiang, the ex-President of China and Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, and head of the military. The most powerful man in Asia. Ruthless. Ambitious. Consorted with the legendary Chinese politicians...and hand-picked by Chairman Mao himself. Standing with the President of the United States in plain sight of the world.

...and still so Asian it's unbelievable. What happened to the era of the bad-ass dictator? Is there any more innocuous looking couple in the world?


And just for shits and giggles...

Quote of the Day - Jon Stewart:

On Ann Coulter: I actually feel sorry for her. Once your career is based on denigrating 9/11 widows, what's your second act? Unless you dig up Mother Teresa and stick a dildo in her eye, nothing could be more offensive.

Guess the City.

I'm bored. Partially because I'm a total loser who has lost control of his life, and because I have nothing better to do. So guess the city. Anyone? Surprises me frankly...

Harry Potter: Smug, Arrogant, and Stevie.

This is totally random, but I read this article today and thought it was fantastic. I just enjoyed it...so if you've read or seen Harry Potter, you might like this little break.

A Long Post with Many Topics

Don't hold this post against me in any way...but I'm feeling really empty and alone...and I just felt like writing. Something about me is definitely wrong recently and I don't even know what it is. So I'm just going to ramble for awhile.

Topic 1:
I feel so apathetic these days. I completely lack positive energy of any sort, and I don't know why. I'm still reactive to things that anger me, whether it's political, social or personal, but I lack any affirmative energy...positive feelings. It's really hard to do anything, from work to working out to jobs to interviews to my entire fucking future, without giving a shit. And I simply don't give a shit. It bothers me. But I'm too bitter to do anything about it...

Topic 2:
I saw the movie "Jesus Camp." The movie was just a documentary following major figures in a religious evangelical camp for children and the broader implications of evangelicals in American politics and life. Strangely, the movie did little more than just reminded me of my life. The movie itself was not that great...it was selectively edited, it thought it was more provocative than it actually was, and although highlighting the disgusting nature of the political evangelical movement...it didn't really bring anything new to light. It didn't change my perspective on the world, but merely deepened an understanding that I have held for years.


Two reasons?
1) I spent a year immersed in extreme evangelical Christian life while I was with Karen. I heard continued prayers about covering us "in your blood Lord," about God's plan, God's will...I saw children in orphanges and churches speaking in tongues, weeping during prayer, convulsions of those seized with the spirit. I sang Christian songs. I sat and stared at the God Channel. I was involved in prayer 2-5 times a day. I went to an enormous evangelical rally involving a total of 3 million people over 3 days where the healer and preacher Benny Hinn sang and preached to a crowd of Indians. I watched millions of hands raised in the air to receive healing from Jesus. And I went to church every single week.

Today I realize that they simply copy the Americans. Evangelicals are the same the world around...and the movie just didn't surprise me. Maybe it would surprise you though.

2) Have I ever told you I went to Jesus Camp myself? Long story (kinda) short, upon moving to South Carolina my parents enrolled me in a "Science Camp" at a local university. Unwittingly, my parents had enrolled me in "Science Camp" (quotations absolutely necessary) at Bob Jones University. (That name should have knocked you flat with its significance.)

In any case, I had no idea...and I went. A few random moments:
--Opening Lecture, Opening Sentence: "Everything you've been taught in school about science is wrong."
--I decided that I would be cool and swear in front of my roommate on the very first day of arrival. I said to my mother "what is this shit?" and felt cool. My roommate...clearly...was not impressed.
--I wore an alien workshop shirt. The shirt, entitled "Missing Link" had an evolution-progression picture of a monkey, next to an alien, next to a human. One kid pointed out, "ha ha, that's funny." I didn't understand why. And he actually said "ha ha".
--I was locked in a room with a greasy curly haired counselor for 5 hours and forced to memorize and read Bible passages in order to be saved. The problem was, I didn't understand what it meant to be saved...I had never heard the term before, and so I couldn't get out. To this day I still have certain passages memorized.
--We were told on the very first day a very interesting perspective on the world: "As you know, in electromagnetism, positive attracts negative, but positive repels positive. So how does an atom's nucleus stay together if it's all protons, which are all positive? If the rule is right, then they should repel right? Right. This is the power of God's will. God's will is so strong, and so widespread that he holds together every single nucleus together by his will." This is too stupid for words. On so many levels.
--This was my first encounter with anyone who had ever literally believed the Bible. And I simply could not comprehend it. I kept trying to find ways to explain why he would say things like "yes, I believe Noah's Ark is out there somewhere." I was flabbergasted.
--My fat, ginger, tubbo hallmate told me that implanted chips in the back of your hand or in your forehead are the mark of the beast...and that any good Christian would die rather than have those implanted.
--I had a blonde friend, who looked suspiciously like Jonathan Brandis (but with more...vacant eyes). The insult we mutually used against each other, in a friendly way, was "Bufflehead." Buffle isn't another word for Ass, or Butt, or Shit. A bufflehead is a bird. We saw a bird in a case...a Bufflehead...and I believe it began when I said something to the effect of "Hey Jonathan Brandis, YOU'RE A bufflehead!" after which his eyes lit up and he latched on. Look it up. I'm not making this up.

I felt haunted by this experience for a very long time, and didn't realize until several years after that it was traumatic in its own way. I simply did NOT understand what was going on. I never comprehended that the universe contained people who were like this. And I was a fucking 8th grader who didn't know his ass from his left nostril, and I was speechless. And I'm not talking about a smart, worldly 8th grader. I'm talking about an 8th grader who was an absolute idiot.

Note: In the previous and subsequent summers, I also attended Chinese Camp (2 times), and Academic Team/Quiz Bowl Camp (3 times). Thus, I didn't get laid 'til I was 18.


3) The Amish
Disclaimer: My whole burgeoning anti-gun thing began about week before the sudden media attention to gun control (albeit sparked, in part, by watching "Lord of War"). So while I freely admit that many of my topics and issues come from other sources...the gun stuff isn't media saturation. It's just good sense.

This Amish shooting comes at an interesting intersection (only for me), in that it took place in the midst of my growing awareness of the idiocy of the gun lobby and gun policy in this country, as well as the nature of Christian faith in America. Andrew Sullivan has an interesting name for this particular brand of Christianity that dominates politics, which he calls Christianism...which I think it fitting given the Islamic/Islamist distinction, so I'll stick with it.

In any case, I may have been misinformed by media reports of the reaction, but the Amish seemed to have dealt with this ineffably brutal tragedy with unbelievable amounts of forgiveness, tolerance, and calmness. I believe that the responses from the community were essentially calls to forgive the killer, not to hate him. It was reported that someone was teaching children that "We must not think evil of this man" at the funeral. In addition, the Amish have not gone on television, they have not called for press conferences, they haven't called for revenge or sought a scapegoat, or had any perfectly reasonable reactions to this incident -- they haven't done anything but suffer and forgive. I mean, I'm sitting here completely detached from the situation and I'm hoping that this guy's eyes, ears, genitalia, and intestines are being torn from his body by red-hot hooks in hell. (although technically the existence of such a hell doesn't bode well for me)...and these people who were so utterly violated by such an inhuman infliction of loss...were able to muster up forgiveness...I'm stunned. If someone took my family or someone I loved in such a pointless, arbitrary, and horrific manner, I would have no other goal in my life from that moment forward than to inflict as much misery on that person as possible until they take their own life. I'm in awe...

...This seems like Christianity, as intended, as something of value.


Drinking: As you can tell, the mood of my post shifted radically from start to finish...mainly because I emptied half a bottle of wine. There are so many french words on this bottle that I don't even know what the name is...but it did score a 90 on the Wine Spectator rating...it's called, I believe...2004 Cotes du Ventoux (appellation) by J. Vidal-Fleury, a red Rhone Wine. I think it's great.

Liberals without Ideas.

I found this interesting passage by an ex-Yale ACS president Ian Bassin to be startlingly on point:

Ask a group of self-described liberal law students to articulate what they stand for and you’re likely to get either rambling, incoherent replies or blank stares. Those who do answer may touch upon issues ranging from equality to opportunity to reproductive freedom, but are unlikely to be able to unite these ideas under any consistent philosophical framework. Those who have a philosophical framework are lucky if they can explain it in less than 30,000 words.

The single greatest problem of contemporary legal liberalism is that too many of us are at a loss for words to describe what we stand for. One irony is that our past success may be to blame for this current failure. Many of us grew up in such liberal atmospheres that we were never challenged to defend liberal principles or to even grapple with the difficult questions at their core. As American society has polarized over the last generation—mine is the first for whom red and blue are defining traits—more of us have grown up in homogenous intellectual spheres. Instead of having our peers challenge our ideas, we play yes men to ourselves, nodding in agreement on what we believe without ever having to utter a definitive phrase. . . .

Compare this with what a conservative at many of today’s left-leaning law schools must experience. In most of her classes, the only conservative voice she hears is her own. In order to cling to her beliefs, she must defend them tenaciously with both friend and foe. Confronted with a chorus of opposing arguments, her education is an intellectual boot camp. She’s been tested, her positions forged in fire, and she’s emerged a refined soldier for her cause. The liberal, on the other hand, has spent his period of intellectual maturation on the couch so to speak. Every once in a while either throwing or receiving that knowing look, but never having to exert too much effort to get it right. While the conservative emerges muscular and defined, the liberal is paunchy and a bit slow.

I think he's absolutely right (except for "the conservative emerging muscular and defined" part). I'm not entirely sure that he's working within the right framework though, that is, I think liberalism is inherently aware of and constantly grappling with complexity, which leads to an inability to subsume policy preferences under a single principle. I think the unwillingness to bend to some unified theory of human existence and interaction is what fragments liberal thought and liberal politics...and I'm not entirely sure this is a fixable problem.

I've been working on my own ideas over the past few years, and I would have to say that I'm not sure I've gotten any closer to an answer either. I attempted to formulate the early stages of what I actually believed while sitting in an airport two weeks ago, but it came out...rambling and 30,000 words long...but I hope (!) that that arises out of a need to emphasize subtleties, nuance, and incorporation of those devilish little inconsistencies rather than a lack of belief.

Anyhow, I really didn't get anywhere with this post...just thought that it was an interesting passage, and since I don't have anyone to talk to about this stuff here, I thought I'd put it up here.

Query: Fraudulent Transfers

Yes, the use of the word "Query" is with tongue firmly in cheek...but I have a professor here who does it, apparently that one Wash U guy said it, and it's now an official new heading for my posts...meaning, I have a question I need answered. I figure this would be a useful way for me to ask questions about things I don't understand, and HOPEFULLY solicit some sort of response. So...here:

What the fuck is a fraudulent transfer in creditor/debtor law? My professor just spent two hours trying to relate corporate veil piercing and equitable subordination back to the normative principle of fraudulent transfers...and he never explained what a fraudulent transfer was. There are so many pronouns and vagaries in the definition that I can't quite grasp the baseline principle. So please, someone, tell me. And when you do tell me, use examples.

My impression is that if I lend some Jew a bunch of money (imagine that!), and when the due date came, he lent it all to someone else, let's call him...Antonio...then HIS loaning of the money to Antonio is the fraudulent transfer and I can get it back? Is there actually "fraud" (ie. misrepresentation) involved anywhere in the transaction?

If i'm right, then at least give me more examples, because I still can't quite grasp the core of the idea.

Delicious

You must have already seen all this and been exposed to it all…but I just had to post it just in case…

So we have a Christian Conservative Republican Fella. And not just any fella. An outspoken advocate against sexual deviance, particularly against children. He was the Chairman on the House Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children, once proclaiming "For too long our nation has tracked library books better than it has sex offenders…That day is coming to an end” upon the passage of a Child Protection and Safety Act in July.

An upstanding citizen and protector of our Christian values, he once commented on Bill Clinton’s scandal in 1998, decrying the evils of such a horrible, horrible man proclaiming: "It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." About adults who use the internet to exploit children sexually he said "They're sick people; they need mental health counseling,

His cause? A crusade against sexual predators and internet pornography. Introducing legislation imposing tough penalties for transferring obscene materials to minors on the internet. Passing laws tracking sexual predators.

(Of course all this commentary is just because I’m bored and in the library…so here’s the fun stuff….)

Of course Maf54 is Mark Foley.

Xxxxxxx is a 16 year old boy, a congressional page.

And Off we go!

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

* * *

Maf54 (7:46:33 PM): did any girl give you a haand job this weekend

Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:38 PM): lol no

Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:40 PM): im single right now

Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:57 PM): my last gf and i broke up a few weeks agi

Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): are you

Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): good so your getting horny

Xxxxxxxxx (7:47:29 PM): lol…a bit

Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself

Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): no

Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM): been too tired and too busy

Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow…

Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha

***

Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:31 PM): well i dont use my hand…i use the bed itself

Maf54 (7:54:31 PM): where do you unload it

Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:36 PM): towel

Maf54 (7:54:43 PM): really

Maf54 (7:55:02 PM): completely naked?

Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:12 PM): well ya

Maf54 (7:55:21 PM): very nice

Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:24 PM): lol

Maf54 (7:55:51 PM): cute butt bouncing in the air

* * *
Maf54 (7:57:05 PM): i always use lotion and the hand

Maf54 (7:57:10 PM): but who knows

Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:24 PM): i dont use lotion…takes too much time to clean up

Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:37 PM): with a towel you can just wipe off….and go

Maf54 (7:57:38 PM): lol

Maf54 (7:57:45 PM): where do you throw the towel

Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:48 PM): but you cant work it too hard….or its not good

Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:51 PM): in the laundry

Maf54 (7:58:16 PM): just kinda slow rubbing

Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:23 PM): ya….

Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:32 PM): or youll rub yourslef raw

Maf54 (7:58:37 PM): well I have aa totally stiff wood now

* * *
Maf54 (7:58:59 PM): but it must feel great spirting on the towel

Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:06 PM): ya

Maf54 (7:59:29 PM): wow

Maf54 (7:59:48 PM): is your little guy limp…or growing

Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:54 PM): eh growing

Maf54 (8:00:00 PM): hmm

Maf54 (8:00:12 PM): so you got a stiff one now

* * *
Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me

Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that

Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again

Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2

Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful

Xxxxxxxxx (8:09:38 PM): lol

Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size

Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:00 PM): thank you

Maf54 (8:10:22 PM): still stiff

Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:28 PM): ya

Maf54 (8:10:40 PM): take it out

Now I really don’t care about this issue at all, except that I find it highly amusing, especially the public and ignominious outing of a flat-out hypocrite. One who went out of his way to smear a politician for personal, private and consensual sexual relations between consenting adults. Practice whatever the hell you want, just stop preaching it...or legislating it...or getting power by exploiting hatred against it.

The real point of this post is posting the IM conversation between a morally righteous Christian Conservative Congressman and a 16 year old boy…assuming that most of you didn’t have the interest to seek out the conversation. (I stumbled across it on Slate)

Unsurprised.

Ah yes...yet another rash of execution style killing of children that simply isn't possible without free access to guns.

Two Notes

1) I finally got my first call-back today...Thank God...and I have received my second official rejection, though I'm quite sure I already have 3 rejections for sure. At least I haven't TOTALLY fucked things up.

2) I was proud to be an American today as I read a series of cases where the United States Government went to the mattresses to defend sea turtles from shrimp boats around the world in the international trade arena. We required turtle-friendly shrimp boats from everyone or else we simply would not buy from them. Go Team America! (I actually don't give a shit about turtles, but I'm totally ecstatic that the US government would protect them with its official policy, and defend it tooth and nail against Southeast Asian economies. Pride.)

I fucked up.

Well, the report on the first week of interviews...is probably that I royally fucked things up. I don't know exactly what it was...but I'm not getting callbacks from the firms I wanted to work for. My only guess is that I'm being too honest. I have had a series of fantastic, interesting, and engaging conversations...but I think that I'm implying that I don't want to be with a Wall St. firm. I don't mean to, but it's really hard to flat out lie about everything I want to do...and hard to lie about how I really don't have any direct interest in servicing Wall St.

Anyway, I think it's time to just be a ruthless liar to get these summer jobs. So wish me luck...and hope I get a job that was worth the misery that is transferring...