Job Hunting

I am halfway through the second semester of my second year of law school, and my wife has been harassing me to start trying to find a job. In the current economy it is going to require some creativity. I've been browsing the online biographies for attorneys at large law firms, searching for inspiration. So far I haven't found anything particularly useful for my resume. 

However, if you're one of those people who never knows what to do with your hands when you're getting your picture taken, this page gives you several different options. 

David Fucking Brooks

IN a recent piece discussing a Pew Survey about where Americans would like to live, Brooks explains that:

The first thing they found is that even in dark times, Americans are still looking over the next horizon. Nearly half of those surveyed said they would rather live in a different type of community from the one they are living in at present.

This is absurd. He is trying to use the fact that most Americans don't like their current living situation as proof that Americans are resilient, or at least restless. "Even in dark times" Americans are unhappy.

He goes on to discuss the five most desirable cities, according to the poll (San Diego, Seattle, Tampa, Orlando, Denver):

They offer the dream, so characteristic on this continent, of having it all: the machine and the garden. The wide-open space and the casual wardrobes.

How wide-open space and casual wardrobes are at odds is beyond me. What I find more interesting about the 5 most desirable places to live is that, with the exception of San Diego, they are all among the top ten gayest cities in America.

What The Fuck Is David Brooks Talking About?

Over the past few days, I have been reading old David Brooks columns. I've discovered that David Brooks is a fucking idiot.

For instance, just before the 2004 election, discussing the appropriate amount of hatred a president should feel towards Osama Bin Laden:

One of the crucial issues of this election is, Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man? Which of these two guys understands it deep in his gut - not just in his brain or in his policy statements, but who feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him?

Fundamentally getting the evil represented by Bin Laden? OK, although I'm not sure what work "fundamentally" is doing in that sentence. But why is it not enough to understand the evil in your brain? Why does it have to be deep in the gut? Why does "gut" turn into "soul"?

Even if we accept that brain-understanding is somehow inferior to gut- or soul-understanding, why would we want someone to be "consumed" by this feeling of understanding of evil? What the fuck is he talking about?

Difference

In law school it is very important to be able to "distinguish" one case from another. So if one court rules that a person who got fired and received severance pay has an obligation to look for a new job, and another court rules that a person in that situation has no such obligation, you have find some difference that explains the divergent outcomes. (Hint: they are two different courts.)

Jayson Stark has written a column about Andy Pettitte ("Player B") and Rodney Harrison ("Player A") about how the media reacted very differently to their apologies for using HGH. Stark is confused, because he sees the two situations as indistinguishable:

Harrison:

I don't condone my decision, my behavior. I'm very, very embarrassed by it. I'm disappointed in myself. I sent the wrong message with my actions. This is something that Rodney Harrison did.

Pettitte:

If I have let down people that care about me, I am sorry, but I hope that you will listen to me carefully and understand that two days of perhaps bad judgment should not ruin a lifetime of hard work and dedication. I have tried to do things the right way my entire life, and, again, ask that you put those two days in the proper context. People that know me will know that what I say is true.

Fever

Strict Product Liability

Several years ago, while trying to save a brunch party that had run out of mimosas, I dropped a bottle of champagne on the sidewalk. The bottle exploded and sent a large shard of glass into my girlfriend's calf. I had to drive her to the hospital, holding a blood-soaked cloth to her leg, while she babbled about not being able to feel her toes. It was a disturbing experience.

That all happened before I became aware of my legal rights. I now realize that I can sue the champagne manufacturer, the liquor store where I purchased the champagne, and possibly the police officer who tried to pull me over while I was driving to the hospital.

The case against the liquor store is fairly simple: they were negligent in selling a bottle of champagne to someone so obviously intoxicated. It might be reasonable for someone to be that drunk at night, but not at two o'clock in the afternoon. The case against the manufacturer is equally straightforward: they are strictly liable for harm caused by their products. The case against the police officer is a little bit trickier, so I'm going to consult with my professor.

That's One Way To Put It

"Dog-fighting NFL man chooses jail"

Exams

Exams are in less than a month and tensions are running high. Law school exams are graded on a strict curve, so the idea is to spread as much misinformation as you can in an attempt to sabotage the rest of the class. It's clear that even some of my closest friends are engaging in this tactic: giving me information that directly contradicts my own understanding of the material, pretending to be confused when I explain things, etc. I admire their effort but I am not so easily fooled.

The main way to study is to put together outlines for each class. You get to use these outlines on the exams, so you want to have a bunch of hypothetical exam questions in your outline. Then you compare the exam question to the ones in your outline and apply the most appropriate one. If you have the right outline, you barely have to do any work on the exam at all.

He's Not Dead

Colts defensive end Dwight Freeney suffered a foot injury that will end his season. The official diagnosis is a Lisfranc injury, but his teammates apparently think it's much more serious than that:

"Dwight is a player you cannot replace," former Pro Bowl safety Bob Sanders said. "But we'll continue to move on, continue to get better. We'll put new guys in and continue to roll. That's what Dwight would want us to do."