Othering

I was recently informed by a guy that I am rather intimidating due to the intellectual level upon which I engage in conversation. After my initial shock, and after I had a chance to reflect, I can understand what he meant. However, I think the intimidation had less to do with my intellect and more to do with my sex. Then again, that is just my opinion.

Several times in my life, I've experienced "othering" moments in which I'm kind of an outcast. I'm not a normal girl since I enjoy reading novels to magazine flipping; book stores over clothing stores; wi-fi blogs over E online. I think that intimidates men, who prefer their women (as a general rule) "dumber" than them. That isn't to say the average woman is stupid. Quite the contrary...I just think they don't show how smart they really are. My other status is due to the fact that I don't hide my intellectual curiosities. Still, I don't think women should have to do this. I think men need to get over it.

I find it incredibly sweet when guys want to protect women and provide for them. But what seems to go along with that is that women must need to be protected and provided for; they can't protect or provide for themselves, or that goes too far into the man's territory. Men seem to want to dominate certain areas of life, including smarts, money, and occupation. I'm not trying to sound like a feminist...I love chivalry as much as the next southern girl. I just wish guys would add a dimension to chivalry - be able to hold a conversation and not back-off when I go into an area with which you are not familiar. Chivalry should include sticking your pride in your back pocket. I find curiosity and a love of learning far more attractive than arrogance and stupidity.

From my pastor...

Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. For by it our ancestors were approved. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible.

--Hebrews 11:1-3

Josh McDowell, well-known author and speaker, wrote one of many best-selling books titled, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Our faith is something we know is true because of evidence and because God has given us the ability beyond our humanity to believe. Nowadays, science is picking up on this. In a major report on scientific investigation and discovery from Time Magazine called “God and Genetics,” scientists suggested that every human being is hard-wired for God. The Scripture said long before us that God has set eternity in our hearts—the spiritual ability to know and experience Him through faith. This is a simple lesson on faith. Someone once said that: “Faith is the ability to see the invisible, hear the inaudible, feel the intangible, and do the impossible.” Do you believe that? Most people think that God is too hard to please and enough is never enough. But God is pleased by people who have faith that receives His Word, rejoices in trials, and refuses to quit. The most amazing thing about our faith as believers is that we have a hope beyond today. Some of you may be wondering how to have faith when it comes to your career, finances, children, health, and so on. But I say just keep believing, hoping, and trusting God. Keep singing hymns of praise and worship to Him. And then sit back and watch, because while you are waiting God will be working constructively, creatively, and powerfully in your life. BECAUSE OF OUR FAITH AS BELIEVERS, WE CAN KNOW THAT WHEN GOD COMES THROUGH…IT WILL BE RIGHT ON TIME.

Randomness

Soda that I currently drink: It is not soda, it is tea! Chai Chai Chai, wonderful stuff.

Something I have recently learned: how to make my own sushi rolls! Talk about saving money!

Recent movie I recommend: Bride and Prejudice - Indian version of the Jane Austen book. Great music.

Things not to do in the rain: try to play Cricket. However, if you want a tan, Cricket in the sun is the way to go!

Current Fav Songs: Rebecca St. James - Wait For Me, MercyMe - Here With Me

Things that tick me off: not having an air conditioner, insurance companies, Mears Mazda-Volvo, west TX drivers.

Difficult thing to do: writing a Revocable Living Trust

Things I do too much of: read the news, surf blogs, read books, listen to music, and not study!

Have No Fear

photo credit

It is nice to see that Londoners are not giving in to the fear and disorder those cowards wish to sponser and encourage. In case the print is too small to read, it says, "Following yesterday's attacks, services are now running on most lines, although you may experience some delays."

Likewise, it appears the markets rebounded rather quickly. I am truly inspirired by the courage of Londoners. :)

ONE

20 years ago...

Look at Africa today...

Will a second time around make a difference?

Me, My Sombrero and Cricket!

Cute Cricket Hat Pic!


Another Cute Cricket Hat Pic!


Will he hit my super bowl?

Inter Alia

Politics, Science, and Faith. Three topics...three little words. Yet they sponsor controversy and cynisim; adherence to ideals for their own sake; positions beyond reproach.

I have been working over the past several weeks on an entry on M-theory (the "mother" of all theories that seeks to establish a Theory of Everything for physicists) and faith. However, during the course of study and compilation, I've come across many a secular view that shows ignorance, to put it frankly, on the part of many "secular" people about what it means to be Christian, what it means to have faith, and what the roles of both those ideas are in daily life.

Take, for example, the recent battle about the ten commandments and whether it is ok to have them on public grounds. The Supreme Court ruled recently that it is ok to have them there, but they can't be in the court room. An attorney and pastor for the Church of Christ, Barry Lynn, said, "No one expects politicians and policy-makers to divorce themselves entirely from the roots of their belief system, but in the United States, our laws have to be based on secular justifications."

Since when? The American system of jurisprudence is common-law based. It is based on the English common law system...which cannot be divorced from its Biblical roots. Whether it is right or not, I find it impossible to argue that our laws historically lack grounding in Christian ideals. That said, many I assume would argue that even if we once were religiously inclined as a nation, that should end. Church and state should be separate institutions. I would have to say that I agree...only because my current "secular" government disgusts me. Even still, it saddens and disheartens me that we are steering so far away from what Christ called the spirit of the law. However, I suppose it is inevitable in the great scheme of life. The Bible has a lot to say about the downturn of men in the end of times; I just wish it wasn't America leading the way.

In the mean time, I wish that Christians would not focus on divisive schemes in politics...playing the games politicians play. It doesn't seem to me that is the place to win any battle, much less the war. Governments are, perhaps inherently and most unfortunately, secular. Fight for the things that really matter, such as continuing ability to pray in school (I must note that it is a common misconception that we are not allowed to pray in school - we are). The law might permit abortions, but a girl will never have to make that choice if she hears God's word from the beginning. Remember that our role as Christians is to spread the gospel, and lead all who would hear to Christ. Remember that he said the greatest commandment is to love. Do not judge someone when you learn his sins, no matter how great. We are all tainted in God's eyes.

The thing is, secularists (I use the word broadly) are afraid of Christians, and hence uninformed about what it means to be a Christians, because as a group we have not sent the message properly. We do not live as we should, we do not speak as we should, and we do not listen as we should. Instead of sitting down and explaining the intimate dynamics of a relationship with God, we shout and condemn a sinner for his sins. Remember to remove the spec from your own eye first. Many conservative Christians, instead of going to prisons and getting to the heart of the criminal, sponsor politicians who would build more prisons, which does absolutely no good.

This entry was slightly long and rambly, but I wrote it to say this: faith is not religion. Faith is the anti-religion. Faith gets to the heart of what it means to be human - the ability to know God. Faith is not "a willingness to accept belief in things for which we have no evidence", it is the ability to see and the willingness to accept what is already before us. It is the duty of a Christian to teach this idea through the Bible. However, when the secular of the world make statements like the one above (read more here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1119875749550), then we are failing.

Para mis amigos bilingües

Un actualiza en mi vida:

Mi novio anterior, Suhas, retrocedió a India. Estaba muy triste, pero ahora, estoy bien. Mi hermano y yo moverán a algunos apartamentos nuevos. Mi coche se rompió en, y ahora no me siento seguro. Terminé mi primer año de law school; ahora, asisto las clases del verano - Wills and Trusts y Federal Litigation. ¡Mi profesor para Wills and Trusts es maravilloso! Salgo más también. Lubbock tiene algunos lugares divertidos.

Mi madre moverá a Houston pronto. Todos somos muy entusiasmado. También, uní el equipo de Cricket de escuela. ¡Cuán divertido!

Bien, ahora estoy fuera de español. Espero que todos tengan tanta diversión que lee este como hice escritura.

The Grace by which I stand

When we are too weak to find the words to ask for what we need, the Spirit intercedes for us. We are reminded that we can do all things through Him that strengthens us.

My pastor said that to be a leader, it takes courage. We must face off with trials, stand up when tested, prove true through conflict, and stay the course trusted. Courage sets us apart. When he was tested, it was because of King David's convictions and his commitment to God that he gathered up courage, went to battle against the giant Goliath, defeated him, and overcame the great enemy of the Israelites at the time.

Daddy: thank you for teaching me the power of prayer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artist : Brian Littrell
Song : In Christ Alone

In Christ alone will I glory
Though I could pride myself in battles won
For I've been blessed beyond measure
And by His strength alone I overcome
Oh, I could stop and count successes like diamonds in my hands
But those trophies could not equal to the grace by which I stand

In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope

Is Christ alone

In Christ alone do I glory
For only by His grace I am redeemed
For only His tender mercy
Could reach beyond my weakness to my need
And now I seek no greater honor in just to know Him more
And to count my gains but losses to the glory of my Lord

In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope

Is Christ alone

A Legal Marvel

The following article really speaks for itself. I used Tribe's book this past semester. Good stuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laurence Tribe's Big Surprise
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
05-27-2005


Ordinarily, the announcement by a law professor that he is not completing the second volume of the third edition of his book would not even merit a yawn.

But when that professor is Harvard Law School's liberal lion Laurence Tribe, the book is his famed treatise "American Constitutional Law" and he announces his decision in a letter to a Supreme Court justice, legal academics are left gasping in surprise and reaching deep for the appropriate metaphor.

"It's like Michael Jordan leaving basketball at the top of his game," says Ross Davies of George Mason University School of Law.

"This is like George Lucas announcing that he would not finish Episode III," adds Florida International University law professor Thomas Baker.

More esoterically, Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin compares Tribe's announcement to Harvard Professor Henry Hart sitting down and refusing to deliver his third Holmes Lecture at Harvard Law School in 1963. "I can't think of a scholarly decision of similar symbolic importance," Balkin wrote on his Balkinization blog.

Tribe's treatise, first published in 1978, has been acclaimed as the leading -- or at least the most provocative -- modern synthesis of constitutional doctrine, assigned to countless law students and cited in more than 60 Supreme Court decisions. He revised it in 1988 and again in 1999 when the first volume of the third edition was published.

That most recent volume made headlines, surprisingly enough, because in it Tribe embraced a more individual rights view of the Second Amendment than he had before -- a shift that the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates seized on as vindication of their longtime assertions.

Now, with the nonpublication of the second volume, Tribe may make headlines again. Tribe's announcement came April 29 in a letter to Justice Stephen Breyer, who had asked him casually how he was coming on the second volume, which was scheduled to cover individual rights issues.

Tribe decided to write Breyer back. His "Dear Steve" letter and a 12-page elaboration will be published by Green Bag, Davies' law review at George Mason.

Tribe, 63, said neither personal factors nor ennui were at issue in his decision not to proceed. "It's not my health, which is fine," he wrote. "Or that I've lost interest in the questions the unpublished chapters would have discussed or the drive to pursue them doggedly."

Rather, Tribe said he had made his decision because, as he told Breyer, "conflict over basic constitutional premises is today at a fever pitch," moving rapidly in unpredictable directions. "No treatise, in my sense of that term, can be true to this moment in our constitutional history -- to its conflicts, innovations and complexities."

Tribe implies that a mere catalog or hornbook reciting recent decisions might be achievable, even if rapidly outdated. But a treatise seeking to explain constitutional themes and pull together seemingly disparate doctrines can't be done now, Tribe asserts. "I do not have, nor do I believe I have seen, a vision capacious and convincing enough to propound as an organizing principle for the next phase in the law of our Constitution."

Comparing the current turmoil to the beginning of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency in 1932, Tribe said, "attempting to proclaim a new synthesis would bespeak utter hubris were it not so manifestly quixotic."

Tribe cited the current debate over the use of international law in Court decisionmaking, renewed discussion of the "Constitution in Exile" movement, and sharp divisions over Establishment Clause doctrine as examples of flux in constitutional law. He also took a swipe at the "tragic" handling of the Terry Schiavo case by President George W. Bush and others, and conveyed a general discontent with the combative conservatism that he sees dominating the legal landscape.

Tribe's statement marks "an important moment" in legal scholarship, Yale's Balkin says, because of Tribe's status as the leading symbol of liberal constitutional interpretation. "When Larry Tribe says that a paradigm shift may be on the way, it is worth sitting up and taking notice."

Georgetown University Law Center professor Mark Tushnet, former president of the Association of American Law Schools, also said Tribe's decision is noteworthy -- and understandable. "There is always fluctuation, a buzz about certain doctrines," says Tushnet. "But here he's saying, correctly I think, that the uncertainty is much greater. Constitutional law has been proceeding on a plateau or a mesa, but now we are moving toward the edge."

Vanderbilt University Law School Professor Suzanna Sherry says Tribe is "a little late in realizing there is no grand unifying theory." She adds that Tribe's treatise was "invaluable when it was published, but now there are many more resources available."

George Mason's Davies held out hope that Tribe, like Michael Jordan, might "come back and take another swing at it." He added, "I refer to it all the time. When you are reading his book, it's like reading a book, not an encyclopedia. There's a rhetorical flair." Baker at Florida International agrees: "I feel a sense of loss that such a gifted and capable scholar has thrown up his hands."

Tribe's publisher is more optimistic. "Foundation Press will wait," said publisher Steve Errick. "We'll write Larry next year about his plans and keep the light on." Errick added, "Other texts and other publishers might fill the gap for now, but Larry's book defines and leads the way."

Tribe's decision gives a boost to his two main competitors in the market for constitutional treatises: Erwin Chemerinsky's "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" and "Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure" by Ronald Rotunda and John Nowak.

Authors of both books had different reactions to Tribe's announcement.

Chemerinsky, now a law professor at Duke, once worked as a research assistant to Tribe for his first edition. "Larry Tribe's book is the most brilliant book on constitutional law that I have read. Everyone -- judges, lawyers, professors, students -- will be worse off for not having up-to-date editions of this landmark book. It's a huge loss."

Rotunda, a professor at George Mason, said, "I can sympathize. It's a lot of work to synthesize." But Rotunda did not agree that the current flux of the law made synthesis impossible. "Every time is a transition time. There are always new directions in the law. I'm not sure this time is all that different."

Law as a Profession

A common stereotype, and one that probably deserves some credibility, is that practicing law is a lucrative choice of a profession. There are many lawyers who earn a lot of money. What is more, our culture builds up this image, much like it does the medical profession. Doctors and lawyers - marry one and you are set for life.

The sad fact of the matter is that the legal profession's image takes away from its higher calling: justice. The powerful dollar (or yen, or euro, or whatever) becomes a glittering deterrent for a newly minted attorney in deciding what jobs to consider and which one to take. Paying back student loans, buying fast cars, and living in the ultra-nice areas all entice and enslave the profession. We forget those principles of justice learned in our opening days and months of law school. We set aside those legal ideals of great jurists past in favor of current trends and impressions.

As a profession, we should not focus on money or power. Both are finite and corrupting. Instead, we should focus on what my Con Law professor called the General Level. Every now and then, and more often than we do, we should think about the cases we are presenting before the court and what they mean in the larger scheme. We should think about how we are contributing to precedent, and whether it is in a good or a bad way. We should carry with us always those principles of justice so rooted in our society that they are fundamental ways of thinking - or at least they should be for practicing attorneys. We should not choose the area of law that earns us the most money, but the area of law we would most enjoy practicing in and to which we could contribute the most. That may very well be business torts, but it may also be civil litigation for people in rural areas. It should be our conscious, not our wallet, that guides our practice as individuals and as a profession.

Set Apart

I begin with a statement: The essence of humanity is spiritual. There is logic and emotion, yes, but that is not what makes a person, a person. In the beginning, the world was created - the oceans, the land, the animals, and the heavens. Then, God created man. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27). What sets us apart is that we were created in the image of God.

The question at this point becomes, what does that mean? Does God have two legs and arms, a head full of hair, a sense of smell? I do not think it is our physical nature that the Bible is referring to, but the spiritual nature of man that was created in God's image. That is what sets us apart from all the other creatures on the earth.

Nothing in the physical world gives us salvation; it is through faith, by a decision of the heart, a decision of our spirit to accept and follow Christ that we rise from the fall and come to God again. For many years, physical offerings were given to God for forgiveness. Ultimately, however, it was a spiritual offering that brought salvation to the entire world. "I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." (John 5:25). If the essence of humanity is not spiritual, then how could it be that those who are dead physically can still hear the word of God and chose life? Humanity is spiritual, and that spirit was created in God's image, and that is what sets us apart from the rest of creation.

This has great significance today. For example, in the debate about homosexuality, some people justify it by saying it is natural and point to species of, say, African frogs that can change sex on call. However, though frogs are a part of creation and received the breath of life (See Gen 1:30), they were not set apart and created in God's image. Men have a higher calling than frogs and the rest of creation. We are called to serve God and submit to Him in love because He loves us. There is a specific prohibition against homosexuality in the book of Leviticus, and we must follow it.

Another example is in the abortion debate. When does life begin? Life begins at conception with the zygote. God knew us before and during our growth in our mother's womb (Jer 1:5). The physical status of a person does not correlate to his or her spiritual status. If we are spiritual, then abortion must be murder, since the spirit already resides in the mother's womb no matter the size of child.

This particular blog entry may offend some people who think they can't help but be homosexual or that it is woman's body, she may do as she chooses. We all belong to God because He created us. We are called to treat our bodies as temples to the Lord. That is so very important when living in a culture of pleasure, gratification, and sin.

Can we amend some amendments?

This will be short due to time constraints. Nonetheless, I must rant.

The 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Well, now isn't that great? It is pretty clear there are some "rights" out there not mentioned in the constitution, like the highly inclusive right of privacy perhaps, but it isn't clear who has them and who isn't allowed to mess with them except that the Federal Government neither has them nor can touch them. So, my fellow Constitutional law scholars, we have a problem; a problem the Court has yet to really address.

Really these amendments need to be changed...Replaced...something. I'm very much the advocate of states rights, but I'm even more an advocate for individual rights. Ultimately, fundamental rights (and yes, that is ambiguous in and of itself) should be retained by the people exclusively. States should have no say in that area.

Now the question really is, what is fundamental? If the right to an abortion fundamental? What about the right to marry someone of the same sex? The question depends on how you define the right; there may not be a fundamental right to have an abortion, but there may be a fundamental right to privacy and decisional autonomy. Should the government have any say at all in what we do with our bodies? Or is that ultimately a moral choice - one which has consequences before God and no other? Then again, if you say it is a moral choice, the bible if very clear about civil obedience and the need to obey the government. No man (or woman) has power but for the grace of God.

Regardless, the Framers could have been a lot more clear about who has what rights. If they had just said that rights not given to the Federal Government or States in the Constitution or the amendments were reserved to the people, that would make studying for a Con Law exam easier...and Constitutional jurisprudence more manageable. However, we are faced with debates of static and dynamic rights, of expressed and implied liberties, of original intent versus evolving mores. Posterity has been given the task of defining individual rights, who has them, and who can limit them. Wouldn't it have been better to say that in the first place?

What men must understand

Recently, one of my friends told me about a personal struggle that I understand all too well; she was absolutely taken with someone who couldn't even see her. She clings to the hope that one day he will, not because she actually desires him, but because he symbolizes her need to be loved. She is experiencing a loneliness unique to women.

What men can never understand is the spiritual struggle women go through almost daily. Yes, there is some degree of difference between men and women. The measure isn't really in the performance of work, education, or sports. The real measure of that degree is in our spiritual conversations with other people and most importantly, God.

"...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (genesis 3:16). I think that must be a hard line for most women to read. But the key to understanding is that, like every other part of the fall, our lot has also been redeemed. For, though as wives we are suppose to submit to our husbands, the apostle Paul said: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy..." (Eph 5:22). In Ephesians 5:21, we are all called to submit to one another; it is an act of love, not of domination.

This of course doesn't mean that the pain my friend feels will vanish. Just because God commanded men to honor women doesn't mean they will. However, God loved us first; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;" (Jer 1:5). In the end, we are sisters in Christ and daughters of God. He loves us and we can call Him our father. No matter the pain we feel in dating or, unfortunately, even in marriage, God is there for us regardless - no matter what. We pray to find Godly men who will love us as we should be loved, but even if we don't, God's love is greater than we could ever find here anyway.

There is a song by ZOEgirl called "Scream" that exemplifies this discussion beautifully.

"Does anybody know how I feel? Sometimes I'm numb, sometimes I'm overcome; Does anybody care what's going on? Do I have to wear my scars like a badge on my arm, For you to see me, I need release; Do I have to scream for you to hear me? Do I have to bleed for you to see me? 'Cause I grieve, you're not listening to me. Do I need to scream?"
...........

"I've been marked, set apart; But I'm cut so deep and afraid of the dark; One drop of blood from the hole in Your hand, is enough to heal me and make me stand.

'Cause I'm clean, He is listening to me

I don't have to scream for Him to hear me; Don't have to bleed for Him to see me; 'Cause I'm clean, He is listening to me;"

Exposition will come "post haste"; reference is "Eve's Revenge" by Lillian Calles Barger and the essay "This is my body" posted at: http://www.damarisproject.org/content/Features.asp?Action=Detail&Id=42

Power!

Not that I think there is a mass conspiracy afoot...but, think about the following. In the midst of a national energy crisis, what is the president in the news for most often (besides, of course, his "occasional" verbal slip)? Social Security. What is on the mind of the average voter? Gas prices. In addition to looking ahead to the next 40 years of social security, which is great, I think something more needs to be said about the next 40 years of energy also. That doesn't stop at the debate about the Alaska. It means moving away from oil to other forms of energy. Other energy sources would help us cut off those nasty OPEC ties. This isn't going to happen overnight, so a long term plan needs to be put into motion now. But where is the dialogue on this topic? I haven't seen much. "Alternative" energy sources seem to be left to the leftys, the hippies, "those" people. Of course, this is only one person's perspective. But I am none of the above, and I am most definitely for getting away from oil as our main energy source. There are a number of things that could replace it. Wind power is becoming pretty big here in west Texas. But that isn't it. We could have a number of sources or we could move to one main, streamlined form of energy - like hydrogen or hydro-electricity. It could be government or privately run. (That is a whole other debate). Regardless, something must be done and soon.

Who does he think he is?

Bill Gates was at it again, dabbling in something his "education" doesn't really qualify him to do. I understand that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation gives a lot of money to high school programs. I understand also that it might take someone who has experienced something to really know the bad impact of it. That said, Bill Gates goes beyond the reach of his mouse pointer when he shows up at a Governor's convention this past weekend saying high schools are obsolete. I understand he was a corporate sponser, so he is more than entitled to get up and speak. Still, what qualifies him to give suggestions to our elected governors on how schools should be run? Where is his Masters in Education and Business Administration? Oh that's right, he dropped out of college. So when he says high schools today aren't preparing kids for a college education and that every kid today needs to go to college, he must really know...right? He was smart enough to get into Harvard, but his high school teachers never taught him the value of education. Wrong. He attended Lakeside School, Seattle's most exclusive prep school. There, he got the education that took him to Harvard and that enabled him to drop out so he could become a software developer. Further, Bill Gates has no idea what it is like in the high schools to which he refers - the ones that are obsolete because they don't prepare kids for college. Those are typically the poorer schools, that have less funding due to whatever reasons, be it a poor state finance system or what not. Bill Gates never went to such schools...not when his mother was a trustee on various corporate boards and his father was a corporate lawyer. So where do his credentials come from that he is qualified to advise on such a matter? I grow very tired of money and power being the only two criteria one must meet before you are a guru on every subject. Governors should be listening to teachers, principles, parents, and students in these "obsolete" high schools to get the real picture. Corporate sponsorship is fine - but that is where it should end, at sponsorship. The goal of education reform is good, but the means choosen to effect that goal - coporate lecturers - have no rational relationship to that end. When will our politicians get a clue?

Law School Culture

I have decided that I really don't understand the law school culture. Competition ^ infinity. Ugh. Why can't we all just get along? Like those crazy English majors? Then again, I really don't like English majors....they think too much and do too little. At least law is a profession that can change the world. English can of course too, I suppose, but when was the last time English gave you a speeding ticket, settled a million dollar law suit, or held an election in a place that isn't even a country. No, law is much more exciting and intriging. But way too mean.

Yes I know, cry me a river. I was reading some of the introductory stuff in my Con Law book right after Marbury. Wonderfully thoughful material. It made me excited to be in this profession. But then I started reading blogs and such, where people talking about T1, 2, 3, and 4 schools. Who Cares! Tell me, what are people at Harvard learning that is so much more golden than me at Tech? Give me a break.

Well anyway, I'll just stick with my books. They seem to be nicer.

Back at it again

::silence:: ::silence:: ::BANG!:: The horses are out of the gates again. Many a law student has experienced this once in a life time event...the beginning of the second semester of One L. Grades are back, and no matter how you did, you wonder how everyone else did and if you are in the dreaded last spot.

No matter how you did, you still have to play the game. You still have to look interested in class...typing away like a madman. But I've noticed long looks in the hallways of people who were previously jovial and the first people to ask me last semester, "How are you doing? Are you understanding everything?", and then to continue without pause to say, "Yeah, whew, I just finished compiling my completed outline with the one the Law Review editor gave me."

Long faces and game playing aside, I really distress that grades are such a big deal. No matter how people did, most of the class is glad to not be at the bottom of the curve; that Glad It Isn't Me mentality. At orientation, we were told we all deserved to be here or we wouldn't be. We are the best of the best. But then, why the Ds? And why are 28 people on academic probation? Though I am fully aware that law school is about learning how to deal with the competitive field of law, and I know in general what it feels like to get good grades and feel proud of what you did, some days, I really feel law school should be pass/fail. You fail if you really don't know the stuff and you pass if you are someone above that. The Bar Exam will distinguish the real lawyers from the pretenders.

In all this mess, there are still the good people. The people who did well, but don't brag. The people who didn't do as well, but are happy for those who did. The people who have high spirits in general, and know that law school isn't the be all and end all, and that 40 years of practice will be what makes you, you. I aim at being one of these people; they are the ones that I want to practice with and the ones that I will be proud to say are my colleagues.

Post Exam

I keep reading and hearing different things that people did to study for exams. It worries me immensly because it makes me think I am going to fail. I really don't want to fail. I have never failed before. But this is the first time I really think I stand a chance. Then again, I didn't know anything else to do to study for exams. You see, I didn't make tons of flash cards. I found increasingly they were a waste of time. And I didn't look at every old outline that was out there; that wasn't nearly as effective and trying to construct my own. The more I think about it, the more things I could have done so differently. There is always next semester, provided that my grades aren't so low that I get a letter from the Dean saying, "Don't bother to try again." There are things that I did do. I read all of the can briefs available! And I said lots of prayers. And I talked to people who weren't doing as much as me to make myself feel better. I made sure I had all of the black letter rules of law down. And I looked ahead to next semester to decide the things I would do differently. Like, reading all the cases and not just most of them. And, focusing on the big picture all the time rather than worry about the tiny little facts of the case the professor might catch me and make me look stupid for all of 6 seconds. Yes, my life as a first semester One L was difficult...mostly because I had no clue what I needed to be doing. But now that I have a clue...well...I'm hoping that I make it to next semester to implement my new found clueness.

War

As evil as it may seem, often necessary and perhaps indispensable, war is a part of life. Never in history has there been a period of world peace. There is always an aggressor and a need to defend. I think it naive that liberals seem to think the world would be a "better" place without Bush. Not to say it is better with him, but really, does it matter what leadership commands?

I would argue that such answers lay in history. Notorious, almost, for our individualism, America has long been the home of cowboys and movie stars; big business and arrogance. Yet, for all the symbolism and pretense, I think that America's role in history is undercut by, in a sense, "macrohistoric" factors. Not to digress, but only to name a few: Hitler, Vietnam, the League of Nations and the United Nations, China, and the Soviet Union.

So what does that mean? It means that our relation to the history is defined by our relationships and actions, not by our essential purpose or meaning. Today, for example, America is known as an aggressive hegemon; a dictator of democracy. That makes to no sense. I would argue that America is a great counter balance to world powers such as Europe, now the EU, China and the nations and factions that comprise the Muslim world. Our decidedly Christian, moral, individualistic, "arrogant", powerful, a proactive existence makes the world better because without it, the void would be filled...and filled by something most likely much worse.

I say worse because the balance is rather clear. This is not Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. This is bigger than that. The world is going to be divided in the future, and that divide will be more than politics of war and peace. It will be a divide of existence, and the US's existence is only one half of that. The existence of the other side, the "pro-peace", pro-apathy, pro-state, pro-appeasement, pro-elite is clear. It was through appeasement and pro-peace efforts that WWII started. No one was willing to stand up to Hitler and say no. And today, but for America standing up and saying No to the Muslim terrorist, where would we be? Many argue the Muslim terrorist is a reaction to the US, but that holds no water, as the saying goes. The Muslim terrorist would exist regardless, because his purpose, his mission is not to get rid of America but to seek world power. That is what it is all about. Power. And power is exactly what man has never, and will never, have. Secular power is worthless anyway since the secular is incontrollable.

The power of war to change things is undeniable. The loss that America is willing to sustain to win that war is honorable, but the cost is great. The sad thing is, we will loose this war with the terrorists; it cannot be won. But the noble thing to do is to stand up and try anyway. The "other" side can only whine; but the existence of the American "hegemon" is balance and is powerful in and of itself. Notwithstanding the many sad and tragic stories of its founding, this nation began its formation in the 17th century, was founded in the 18th century, and continues to be in the 21st century something different from what was; something else. Something that history would one day see as a nation that stood up when others wouldn't and didn't back down from what should be done.