Saturday, February 25, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Tough New York Cop™
Tough New York Cop ™
The following story is one that no one has ever told. The reasons for that are complex, but put succinctly, it is because the American public is too squeamish for such a tale. No story has conveyed such raw masculinity from paper to mind so purely. It’s about a tough New York Cop ™ who dresses in a an old light brown suit. He drinks and he quarrels with his superiors. The chief assigns him new rookie partners with every cycle of the moon. He has lived in a houseboat at certain times in his life. Most importantly though, he carries out his crime fighting duties in a manner that leads us, the audience, to ask: “does the end of shooting the cold blooded murderer to death justify the Tough New York Cop’s ™ violent and illegal crime fighting means?” Luckily though, the answer to the question is always an easy one.
Tough New York Cop ™ doesn’t put up with any of your shit. Between the drinking and the crime fighting, Tough New York Cop ™ doesn’t have the energy to even notice you in a room. His tie is always at least two inches from being closed at his neck. Those kind of people don’t give a fuck, so stay away from him, unless that is you are Informant Junkie Guy ™ with some new information on The Murderer ™. In that case you will probably be approached by Tough New York Cop ™. When you are approached by Tough New York Cop ™ you will resist his initial attempts to cajole information out of you. You will be dressed in clothes that look greasy and you will not take a shower one week before approached by Tough New York Cop. You will eventually acquiesce to Tough New York Cop’s ™ demands, albeit unenthusiastically.
Tough New York Cop’s ™ virility is frightening to small animals. Tough New York Cop ™ only likes two kind of women: the Confident No Bullshit Woman and the Girl in Distress. The Confident No Bullshit Woman has seen it all, and now she will take advantage of any opportunity to let you know she is cynical. However, despite all of this experience, she knows that she cannot resist Tough New York Cop’s ™ virility, and that by just standing next to him too long she can become pregnant. Girl in Distress on the other hand does not show any resistance to Tough New York Cop, and is thrilled at idea of having Tough New York Cop Babies ™, who can then be killed by Murderer ™ and thus justify his and many of his henchman’s death.
An interesting question is whether Tough New York Cop ™ could defeat Government Guy in Suit ™. Government Guy in Suit ™ speaks like a robot. Government Guy in Suit ™ is always convinced of the moral validity of his secret operation, even though it is apparent to every one else that the operation is dangerous and un-American. Government Guy in Suit ™ always acts on his own volition so as not to inculpate the United States Government in anything illegal. Government Guy in a Suit ™ has control over vast array of secret technology to seek out Guy Who Knows Something ™ across borders. Government Guy in Suit ™ cannot be reconciled with real life government blunders such as Aldrich Ames because Government Guy in Suit ™ can only be beaten or outsmarted by Guy who Knows Something ™, who never resembles Aldrich Ames.
The following story is one that no one has ever told. The reasons for that are complex, but put succinctly, it is because the American public is too squeamish for such a tale. No story has conveyed such raw masculinity from paper to mind so purely. It’s about a tough New York Cop ™ who dresses in a an old light brown suit. He drinks and he quarrels with his superiors. The chief assigns him new rookie partners with every cycle of the moon. He has lived in a houseboat at certain times in his life. Most importantly though, he carries out his crime fighting duties in a manner that leads us, the audience, to ask: “does the end of shooting the cold blooded murderer to death justify the Tough New York Cop’s ™ violent and illegal crime fighting means?” Luckily though, the answer to the question is always an easy one.
Tough New York Cop ™ doesn’t put up with any of your shit. Between the drinking and the crime fighting, Tough New York Cop ™ doesn’t have the energy to even notice you in a room. His tie is always at least two inches from being closed at his neck. Those kind of people don’t give a fuck, so stay away from him, unless that is you are Informant Junkie Guy ™ with some new information on The Murderer ™. In that case you will probably be approached by Tough New York Cop ™. When you are approached by Tough New York Cop ™ you will resist his initial attempts to cajole information out of you. You will be dressed in clothes that look greasy and you will not take a shower one week before approached by Tough New York Cop. You will eventually acquiesce to Tough New York Cop’s ™ demands, albeit unenthusiastically.
Tough New York Cop’s ™ virility is frightening to small animals. Tough New York Cop ™ only likes two kind of women: the Confident No Bullshit Woman and the Girl in Distress. The Confident No Bullshit Woman has seen it all, and now she will take advantage of any opportunity to let you know she is cynical. However, despite all of this experience, she knows that she cannot resist Tough New York Cop’s ™ virility, and that by just standing next to him too long she can become pregnant. Girl in Distress on the other hand does not show any resistance to Tough New York Cop, and is thrilled at idea of having Tough New York Cop Babies ™, who can then be killed by Murderer ™ and thus justify his and many of his henchman’s death.
An interesting question is whether Tough New York Cop ™ could defeat Government Guy in Suit ™. Government Guy in Suit ™ speaks like a robot. Government Guy in Suit ™ is always convinced of the moral validity of his secret operation, even though it is apparent to every one else that the operation is dangerous and un-American. Government Guy in Suit ™ always acts on his own volition so as not to inculpate the United States Government in anything illegal. Government Guy in a Suit ™ has control over vast array of secret technology to seek out Guy Who Knows Something ™ across borders. Government Guy in Suit ™ cannot be reconciled with real life government blunders such as Aldrich Ames because Government Guy in Suit ™ can only be beaten or outsmarted by Guy who Knows Something ™, who never resembles Aldrich Ames.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Russian Law
If you absolutely cannot find an MP3, go to www.allofmp3.com Because of a loophole in Russian law, Russian companies can sell Mp3s over the internet for about $1 to $2 per CD and about 10 cents a song.
Friday, February 17, 2006
http://del.icio.us/
Just when you thought you were done wasting tremendous amounts of time on the internet, along came: http://del.icio.us/
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Eddystone Takes Legal Theory Into The 21st Century
Proud Sophists
I’m sure, with all of the philosophers around the world working on ethical issues, that somebody has stumbled across this before, but I have not seen it yet. The problem basically involves this argument:
People get a warm and fuzzy feeling from doing things that are difficult and require discipline. A person feels good when they come home from work at five and still find the time and energy to work out for an hour. When you are finished you feel good about yourself. You didn’t want to do it but you forced yourself anyway. Many times this feeling is right, you should feel good about having the discipline to force yourself to do things you don’t want to do – but many times people use this feeling to usurp their conscience. They feel that because their conscience is saying no to the extent that it is difficult to perform the act, that it is somehow noble to then do that thing.
I have heard, though I would have to look it up to confirm it, that some of the concentration camp guards in Nazi Germany were horrified by what they were doing, but they felt it their duty to do that thing for their country. Though I have not confirmed this, I believe it, because those guards were made up of the same flesh and blood that every other human being on earth is.
I tend to see this a lot in law school. As a lawyer, being able to argue any side is an important skill both because you have to anticipate your opponents arguments and because you may have to defend something you don’t believe in. This is a duty, and one that we should be careful about.
I describe law students as incredibly intelligent people with no passion or imagination. I think a lot of these people have truly found themselves here. They weren’t good at math so they were forced into those horrible liberal arts classes where nothing was ever done, and students just meaninglessly opined for fifty minutes. Now they are in law school, and there is finally a reason for everything – to argue well enough to make good money. The professors reward a student’s ability to argue any side and believe me when I say the students notice.
From the ground level, as a first year law student, I can tell you a lot of these people take real pride and glee in the statement “I’ll argue for whoever pays me” and “I can argue any side, I don’t care.” I hear these tough guy statements a lot. In addition, there is no quicker way to make everyone in your law school think you are annoying than to theorize. “I’m just here to learn the law, get out and get a decent job to support my family” is how everyone wants to act. No one wants to be the guy who actually cares. Sure, you can talk about these things in private conversation, but you would look like a complete ass if you were to slow down a class (God Forbid) with a theoretical question or an ethical comment. The extent to which ethics are talked about in class is just enough to be an insult.
I’m still not sure whether the people in this school are a lot smarter than the people in my previous school, or if the most difficult parts of the curriculum has been stripped away to leave only the pure logic of learning.
This is all a big show, and it is a tragic show. Class is a show, your presence is only required to justify the job and wage paid to the professor. No one is learning anything they will be able to use (save for legal writing, but you actually are only being tested there – not taught). I was once asked “do you think this is ethical” and I couldn’t even respond. I didn’t want to participate in the façade. I had less than 3 seconds for my response, and anything too theoretical would make my classmates eyes roll, so I just said “I guess not.”
You have to be able to argue both sides, but to take revel in having the opportunity to do so troubles me. The Sophists would be proud of today’s law schools. Sophistry is cool and it is noble as well. I have never been anywhere in my life that is such an absurdity as law school. Never have the lack of the emperor’s clothes been so apparent. Never has “its always been done this way” been relied on to such an extent – or the age old (and I hate this) “it builds character” argument – which has been used for centuries to justify the most absurd pedagogical traditions throughout history.
Whenever I criticize law school I always have the need to say that there are aspects of law school that I am impressed by – the absence of lazy and unintelligent people foremost. The students are incredibly considerate to each other. I haven’t met any bad people in law school, but I have met plenty who could allow themselves to be through a mix of ambition and the anything goes pedagogy of law school.
- Things that are difficult are good
- Doing something that is unethical is sometimes difficult
- Therefore, doing something unethical is good.
People get a warm and fuzzy feeling from doing things that are difficult and require discipline. A person feels good when they come home from work at five and still find the time and energy to work out for an hour. When you are finished you feel good about yourself. You didn’t want to do it but you forced yourself anyway. Many times this feeling is right, you should feel good about having the discipline to force yourself to do things you don’t want to do – but many times people use this feeling to usurp their conscience. They feel that because their conscience is saying no to the extent that it is difficult to perform the act, that it is somehow noble to then do that thing.
I have heard, though I would have to look it up to confirm it, that some of the concentration camp guards in Nazi Germany were horrified by what they were doing, but they felt it their duty to do that thing for their country. Though I have not confirmed this, I believe it, because those guards were made up of the same flesh and blood that every other human being on earth is.
I tend to see this a lot in law school. As a lawyer, being able to argue any side is an important skill both because you have to anticipate your opponents arguments and because you may have to defend something you don’t believe in. This is a duty, and one that we should be careful about.
I describe law students as incredibly intelligent people with no passion or imagination. I think a lot of these people have truly found themselves here. They weren’t good at math so they were forced into those horrible liberal arts classes where nothing was ever done, and students just meaninglessly opined for fifty minutes. Now they are in law school, and there is finally a reason for everything – to argue well enough to make good money. The professors reward a student’s ability to argue any side and believe me when I say the students notice.
From the ground level, as a first year law student, I can tell you a lot of these people take real pride and glee in the statement “I’ll argue for whoever pays me” and “I can argue any side, I don’t care.” I hear these tough guy statements a lot. In addition, there is no quicker way to make everyone in your law school think you are annoying than to theorize. “I’m just here to learn the law, get out and get a decent job to support my family” is how everyone wants to act. No one wants to be the guy who actually cares. Sure, you can talk about these things in private conversation, but you would look like a complete ass if you were to slow down a class (God Forbid) with a theoretical question or an ethical comment. The extent to which ethics are talked about in class is just enough to be an insult.
I’m still not sure whether the people in this school are a lot smarter than the people in my previous school, or if the most difficult parts of the curriculum has been stripped away to leave only the pure logic of learning.
This is all a big show, and it is a tragic show. Class is a show, your presence is only required to justify the job and wage paid to the professor. No one is learning anything they will be able to use (save for legal writing, but you actually are only being tested there – not taught). I was once asked “do you think this is ethical” and I couldn’t even respond. I didn’t want to participate in the façade. I had less than 3 seconds for my response, and anything too theoretical would make my classmates eyes roll, so I just said “I guess not.”
You have to be able to argue both sides, but to take revel in having the opportunity to do so troubles me. The Sophists would be proud of today’s law schools. Sophistry is cool and it is noble as well. I have never been anywhere in my life that is such an absurdity as law school. Never have the lack of the emperor’s clothes been so apparent. Never has “its always been done this way” been relied on to such an extent – or the age old (and I hate this) “it builds character” argument – which has been used for centuries to justify the most absurd pedagogical traditions throughout history.
Whenever I criticize law school I always have the need to say that there are aspects of law school that I am impressed by – the absence of lazy and unintelligent people foremost. The students are incredibly considerate to each other. I haven’t met any bad people in law school, but I have met plenty who could allow themselves to be through a mix of ambition and the anything goes pedagogy of law school.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Stay in School
There are moments when I truly comprehend the fact that I am still in school despite being almost 24 years old. It is at these moments when I realize no matter what experiences I have or how intelligent I am, I am still a child to some extent. I had one of these moments this morning. I think the way one of the rooms in my school is built just invites people to hit your chair with their foot, causing a little vibration that is really annoying. Maybe it annoys me more than most, but it reminded me of the time I was seventh grade and a kid who was sitting behind me, we’ll call him “Mike A.” - was kicking my chair rather violently and I turned around and asked him in as nice a way possible to please stop. He told me to “shut up” and I did because I did not want to get my head beat in, and I sat there and suffered through his now intensified chair kicking.
If you would have told me back then that 11 years later I would be sitting in a classroom still getting my chair kicked it would be a depressing thought. At least now there is (probably) no chance of getting my head beat in after school and I can fuck around on my laptop during class.
Other moments include being told not to bring open containers into the library during a library orientation. I don’t ever want to go on another library orientation in my life, let alone be told sternly not bring open containers in the library. I’m tired of it.
I have to say though, in many ways Law School is devoid of most of the annoying characteristics of schools and students in general, but it also makes those pre-law school things stand out even more. A good example is student government. I don’t want to be embarrassed for the people who run for student office anymore.
I’ll put more up when I think of them.
If you would have told me back then that 11 years later I would be sitting in a classroom still getting my chair kicked it would be a depressing thought. At least now there is (probably) no chance of getting my head beat in after school and I can fuck around on my laptop during class.
Other moments include being told not to bring open containers into the library during a library orientation. I don’t ever want to go on another library orientation in my life, let alone be told sternly not bring open containers in the library. I’m tired of it.
I have to say though, in many ways Law School is devoid of most of the annoying characteristics of schools and students in general, but it also makes those pre-law school things stand out even more. A good example is student government. I don’t want to be embarrassed for the people who run for student office anymore.
I’ll put more up when I think of them.
Regular Guy
I love when people try to be the “regular guy.” Much of navigating the social scene in American involves tying to be this “regular guy.” Great lengths are taken to not do anything the regular guy would not do. I think the reason I get along with Europeans when I do is that they are not burdened by the incessant need to not do anything that would be “weird.” Eastern Europeans in general seem to have no sense of what is weird by American standards (I doubt, though I don’t know for sure, that they use the term in the same manner, or as frequently as Americans).
What is cool in America usually involves some kind of detachment. Passion for anything seems to be the least cool thing one could do. How this concept came about I don’t know – it surely wasn’t James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, and I hate when people even imply that. James Dean’s character in that movie, especially when considered by today’s social standards, is a freak (that’s right…watch it again).
I have known many people who this does not apply to at all (mostly people from Eddystone), but I have also known many people who truly measured their ever action, no matter how minor, against the standard of the “normal person” as defined by television mostly Gettysburg). What would the Backstreet Boys do? Or the guy on Punked? People get most of their ideas of appropriate behavior from TV, and all we get there are the short scenes of planned, written, made up, laboratory clean reality. Is that anything to base your behavior off of?
Some examples are appropriate. I wish I had written down every instance of this I have seen but most of them occurred when I was with someone I did not want to be with. If you know what I am talking about then you have probably experienced an instance where you are with someone and you say or do something and you can just see these calculations going on through the skull of the person with you. The “weird” response (sometimes a long “okaaaaay”) is usually appropriate for those people when they are not sure what to do. You can’t go wrong calling something weird or just putting it in a light that makes it seem not normal.
What is cool in America usually involves some kind of detachment. Passion for anything seems to be the least cool thing one could do. How this concept came about I don’t know – it surely wasn’t James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, and I hate when people even imply that. James Dean’s character in that movie, especially when considered by today’s social standards, is a freak (that’s right…watch it again).
I have known many people who this does not apply to at all (mostly people from Eddystone), but I have also known many people who truly measured their ever action, no matter how minor, against the standard of the “normal person” as defined by television mostly Gettysburg). What would the Backstreet Boys do? Or the guy on Punked? People get most of their ideas of appropriate behavior from TV, and all we get there are the short scenes of planned, written, made up, laboratory clean reality. Is that anything to base your behavior off of?
Some examples are appropriate. I wish I had written down every instance of this I have seen but most of them occurred when I was with someone I did not want to be with. If you know what I am talking about then you have probably experienced an instance where you are with someone and you say or do something and you can just see these calculations going on through the skull of the person with you. The “weird” response (sometimes a long “okaaaaay”) is usually appropriate for those people when they are not sure what to do. You can’t go wrong calling something weird or just putting it in a light that makes it seem not normal.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Muslim Cartoons
In case anyone is curious to see what the Muslim cartoons that caused so much controversy look like, they are here.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
New Apartment
I’ve been in the new apartment for 24 hours. So far everything is good. The only discrepancy was one of the landlord’s agents barging in during the middle of the day to show the apartment to someone (I guess because it is similar to the others). That is something I take very seriously. The whole point of me moving was to not have people barging in on me. I wonder what would have happened if I had asked for the provision that allows a landlord to come in at any time to be taken out of the lease. It probably would have been the first time someone actually tried to negotiate with them, and I imagine they would have promptly told me to get lost. Anyway, putting a bolt on the door will fix this problem.
Anyway, pictures are here.
Anyway, pictures are here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)