Politics: A new beginning

[bridge of love]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Fourth tier schools often beat higher ranked schools in bar passage percentage because they really make sure to teach all bar subjects and basically spend 3 years training their students to pass the bar. Which is obviously necessary if you go to a fourth tier school b/c it is unlikely that you'll get a job that is patient enough to give you one extra chance, the way BigLaw often does.

it begs the question* "why hire from tier 1?" I went to a tier 1.5 D.C. school so this isn't ego, but I swear I've worked with several graduates of U of M who didn't know venue from jurisdiction. I've made the bet they could write a solid essay answer on a hypothetical statute against theft on Jupiter, taking account of the greater gravity, from there days in Outer Space Law. But, I mean law school should at least teach you the tools in your toolbox.

on the other U of M did have a 90% pass rate, so its not a big difference.

*I remember a tutorial on Stalin about "begs the question" and when it is properly used, but can't remember the answer. But, I did at least issue spot.

[sgtclub]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._student_says/

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._student_says/

And why not? I mean, who really wants to hear about *mandatory* national service or whether the war on drugs makes any sense? Its way more important that we keep everything lighthearted for the American audience or else we'd be watching CSpan! God forbid.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And why not? I mean, who really wants to hear about *mandatory* national service or whether the war on drugs makes any sense? Its way more important that we keep everything lighthearted for the American audience or else we'd be watching CSpan! God forbid.

Exactly. This only pisses me off because CNN, like all journalistic outlets, wraps itself in the objectivity flag and then pulls shit like this.*

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by bridge of love
it begs the question* "why hire from tier 1?" I went to a tier 1.5 D.C. school so this isn't ego, but I swear I've worked with several graduates of U of M who didn't know venue from jurisdiction. I've made the bet they could write a solid essay answer on a hypothetical statute against theft on Jupiter, taking account of the greater gravity, from there days in Outer Space Law. But, I mean law school should at least teach you the tools in your toolbox.

on the other U of M did have a 90% pass rate, so its not a big difference.

*I remember a tutorial on Stalin about "begs the question" and when it is properly used, but can't remember the answer. But, I did at least issue spot.

People hire from tier one or tier two or whatever on the assumption that smarter people got into those schools. That assumption is based on the grades/scores on tests needed to get in. There is also some level of assumption that higher tiers will teach people better, so I guess the question becomes what are law schools supposed to teach? Is it how to pass a bar exam (which can be done by most law grads with a 2 month preparation period) or is it some process relating to legal reasoning? I think most big firms would expect the latter. Heck, some people in Wisc never even take a bar exam. Does that make them worse lawyers?

[bridge of love]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
......smarter people got into those schools. That assumption is based on the grades/scores on tests needed to get in. There is also some level of assumption that higher tiers will teach people better,

Well, thank you. I do hope the next time I'm arguing with these liberals here they remember this about me.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bridge of love
Well, thank you. I do hope the next time I'm arguing with these liberals here they remember this about me.

Be sure to remind them. I hear they appreciate that.

[bilmore]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...day-commentary

(LA Times commentary article on Iraq.)

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...day-commentary

(LA Times commentary article on Iraq.)

I was concerned that you were one of the millions of flightless waterfowl that perished after storms in the Antarctic set icebergs adrift and prevented them access to the ocean. Glad to see you're okay.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...day-commentary

(LA Times commentary article on Iraq.)

Welcome back, but don't let Shape Shifter fool you -- you know how reptiles are around birds.

I agree with the sentiment in the Gelernter piece. But if there's any danger that we're going to do a half-assed job in Iraq, it's coming from the White House. We don't have enough troops there as it is, they're talking about scaling down, and an election is coming.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

John Kerry's campaign is looking worse and worse.

And Wesley Clark can't really support a flag-burning amendment, can he? Oh the humanity!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
John Kerry's campaign is looking worse and worse.

And Wesley Clark can't really support a flag-burning amendment, can he? Oh the humanity!

Here's his quote - I have no clue what it means:

"I'm in favor of the American flag amendment, but as I travel around the country, what I see is a new spirit of patriotism, and it `goes a long way beyond the American flag."

Kerry's is far better - he should be as clear and decisive on other issues:

"As I've said before, if I saw someone burning the flag, I'd punch them in the mouth because I love the flag, but the constutition that I fought for preserves the right of free expression."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
John Kerry's campaign is looking worse and worse.

And Wesley Clark can't really support a flag-burning amendment, can he? Oh the humanity!

Ya know, I really just don't get the flag-burning amendment BS. The laws against burning stuff publicly, e.g., indoors or outdoors in major cities, is already on the books. Furthermore, I believe almost every city in America has laws for stuff like disorderly conduct if it is reasonably construed to breach the peace of another. This shit is a no-brainer back in the day when I had some say in such things. In particular, you wanna burn a flag on, say, Constitution avenue, then you'd get the smack-down for resisting an underlying disorderly arrest, and numerous complainants who would swear that the burning and accompanying, e.g., noise, breached their peace.

Which, in effect, got you the arrest and the beating.

You might think I'm kidding about this, but I'm not. Our government has enough laws, and I can't imagine that they wouldn't support application against the relevant fact pattern of public burning.

And if someone is burning a flag in, e.g,. their own backyard, then who the fuck cares? My honest-to-God only concern is that people shouldn't have to watch this if they don't want to (Constitution Avenue). The burning itself doesn't personally bother me.

So what gives? Why doesn't anyone else ever say this?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Here's his quote - I have no clue what it means:

"I'm in favor of the American flag amendment, but as I travel around the country, what I see is a new spirit of patriotism, and it `goes a long way beyond the American flag."

Kerry's is far better - he should be as clear and decisive on other issues:

"As I've said before, if I saw someone burning the flag, I'd punch them in the mouth because I love the flag, but the constutition that I fought for preserves the right of free expression."

And its the "punch them in the mouth" type of quote, that makes me think that he's not completely unreasonable. He is exactly one of the guys who I wouldn't want to randomly encounter flag-burners on Constitution Ave. (without a permit).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Why doesn't anyone else ever say this?

Right on, brother.