Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: boston08 on September 13, 2006, 01:01:46 PM

Title: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: boston08 on September 13, 2006, 01:01:46 PM
Is this really stupid, pointless, and a waste of money?

Or will it be a nice way to socialize/meet new people/make connections?
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: ApproachTheBench on September 13, 2006, 01:04:27 PM
It's not a bad way to meet new people and relax a little.

It's not going to make you automatically win at life either.  But if you can make a few new friends it's probably worth it.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: jeffrey on September 13, 2006, 01:05:05 PM
Yea! Especially if you don't know other people who have the same interest as you (i.g.law) it sucks when you can't find others who share your same passion. so I see GO FOR IT!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Budlaw on September 13, 2006, 03:36:00 PM
It's not a bad idea. If you look at about any profile of an attorney at a large firm, most will say Phi Delta Phi or Phi Alpha Delta. However, Phi Delta Phi is at most schools an Honors Fraternity, so it may be viewed in a little higher regard than Phi Alpha Delta, but not by much.

Wait until after your first semester grades and then join Phi Delta Phi if you can, but if you can't then at least join Phi Alpha Delta. Hillary Clinton was a member so it can't be that bad right?
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: boston08 on September 13, 2006, 03:49:19 PM
This advice has been helpful. Based solely on this advice, I think I may join.

Anyone else care to contribute?


Also, with regard to the Honors frat: I'm in the top 15% and on Law Review, and I haven't heard anything about it. I just looked it up and sent an email to the president of it at my school to see if there are any requirements for joining.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Budlaw on September 13, 2006, 03:54:46 PM
This advice has been helpful. Based solely on this advice, I think I may join.

Anyone else care to contribute?


Also, with regard to the Honors frat: I'm in the top 15% and on Law Review, and I haven't heard anything about it. I just looked it up and sent an email to the president of it at my school to see if there are any requirements for joining.

Join it. It can't hurt.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Law Student NYC on September 13, 2006, 10:49:42 PM
Join Phi Alpha Delta and the communist party.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: einszweidrei on September 14, 2006, 05:00:57 AM
And bud.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: boston08 on September 14, 2006, 12:53:18 PM
Just found out I'm eligible for the honors frat (top 30% required). I think I'll be joining that.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: jwaxjwax on September 23, 2006, 01:08:20 AM
Yes, joining the honors fraternity is an easy way to get something good on your resume.

Ours looks for people with good grades OR commitment to community service. Top 1/2 + meals on wheels = good looking credential on the resume. You can still go to the PAD parties and they won't throw you out.

It's not like Law Review, where it's going to demand a lot of your time.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: tustetas on October 11, 2006, 09:32:28 PM

It's not a bad idea. If you look at about any profile of an attorney at a large firm, most will say Phi Delta Phi or Phi Alpha Delta. However, Phi Delta Phi is at most schools an Honors Fraternity, so it may be viewed in a little higher regard than Phi Alpha Delta, but not by much.

Wait until after your first semester grades and then join Phi Delta Phi if you can, but if you can't then at least join Phi Alpha Delta. Hillary Clinton was a member so it can't be that bad right?


(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3779/hillarygayro7.jpg)
President Clinton's former mistress Gennifer Flowers (left) claims Bill told her Hillary was a lesbian.  Rumors have swirled about Hillary's relationship with cabinet member Donna Shalala (center) and New York Lawyer Susan Thomases.

'My sources indicate Hillary is bisexual and fools around much more than her husband'
-Political Commentator
Jack Wheeler

(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3222/untitledmf9.png)(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/9146/untitleduy1.png)
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Jack Leatherman on November 25, 2006, 09:53:15 PM
Well, at least she's b, not simply k!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: rosebud on December 07, 2006, 08:22:12 PM
b or k, she's ill ..
Title: Hillary for Prez
Post by: doremi on December 13, 2006, 12:45:25 AM
http://www.flowgo.com/index.cfm?action=view&id=6660&scid=0
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: a l a d i n on December 13, 2006, 12:50:40 AM
LOL doremi! Here's another one,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox33fhRpG4o&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: b l a w g on December 18, 2006, 09:15:10 PM
LOL a l a d i n, it's so fuking funny!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: leg on December 21, 2006, 11:03:03 PM

It's not a bad idea. If you look at about any profile of an attorney at a large firm, most will say Phi Delta Phi or Phi Alpha Delta. However, Phi Delta Phi is at most schools an Honors Fraternity, so it may be viewed in a little higher regard than Phi Alpha Delta, but not by much.

Wait until after your first semester grades and then join Phi Delta Phi if you can, but if you can't then at least join Phi Alpha Delta. Hillary Clinton was a member so it can't be that bad right?


(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3779/hillarygayro7.jpg)
President Clinton's former mistress Gennifer Flowers (left) claims Bill told her Hillary was a lesbian.  Rumors have swirled about Hillary's relationship with cabinet member Donna Shalala (center) and New York Lawyer Susan Thomases.

'My sources indicate Hillary is bisexual and fools around much more than her husband'
-Political Commentator
Jack Wheeler

(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3222/untitledmf9.png)(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/9146/untitleduy1.png)


Did you hear Donald Trump today commenting on Rosie O'Donnell's lesbianism?

Quote
"I think she's very attracted to Miss USA. She probably wanted to put the crown on her head herself."

And then,

Quote
"If you can look as ugly as she looks ... I give her credit for having succeeding moderately."

Quote
"She's not very smart. I think Rosie is stupid."
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: mass on December 21, 2006, 11:13:29 PM

Did you hear Donald Trump today commenting on Rosie O'Donnell's lesbianism?

Quote
"I think she's very attracted to Miss USA. She probably wanted to put the crown on her head herself."


LOL! Look how Rosie fired back,

Quote
"I was afraid to leave her home in case someone with a combover [ahem] came and stole her from me."

She was so right to say what she said -- Tramp is such an ugly hypocrite!

Quote
"(He) left the first wife – had an affair. (He) had kids both times, but he's the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America. Donald, sit and spin, my friend."

O'Donnell impersonated Trump by deepening her voice and flipping her hair to one side. After repeatedly saying she "didn't enjoy him," Rosie discussed Trump's finances – saying he went bankrupt, which Trump denies – and likened him to the "snake-oil salesman on Little House On The Prairie. This is not a self-made man," O'Donnell said. And while O'Donnell and her View co-hosts discussed Conner's alleged drug and alcohol abuse, Rosie was dismissive, saying, "She went out and she was partying – doing what Paris and Lindsay do."
Title: Teen Miss Nevada stripped of her top and of her crown
Post by: ifamlaw on December 25, 2006, 03:33:58 AM
Katie Rees, Miss Nevada USA was stripped of her title Thursday after photos of her stripping her top popped all over the Internet. Some of the fine photos show Katie kissing other girls, exposing breasts, and simulating oral sex (!!!!!!!!!) with other hot girls (Donald suck this male private part!). She also shows off her tasty thong-wearin’ bootie. (http://independentsources.com/wp-content/uploads/katiereesmissnevadatopless.jpg)


Title: Re: Hillary for Prez
Post by: clitlaw on February 14, 2007, 10:44:29 PM

http://www.flowgo.com/index.cfm?action=view&id=6660&scid=0


I'd rather go with her than Obama or Edwards! Unfortunately, however, she is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: alocke on February 15, 2007, 10:12:08 AM
I agree w/Buds-- if you can join the honors frat, you get the same benefits with more resume prestige.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: cmhZa on February 22, 2007, 04:27:33 AM
How do you triangulate among death, hypocrisy and stupidity? Not at all logically, which is why Hillary Clinton's dissembling on Iraq has become a fatal embarrassment not only for her but for anyone who hopes she can provide progressive leadership for the nation. If she has still not found the courage to reverse course on this disastrous war, why assume that as President she would behave any differently? It is unconscionable that those who can accurately measure the true cost of the Iraq folly in wasted lives and resources -- more than 2,500 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of billions of dollars -- dare prefer her to potential 2008 presidential election rivals John Kerry, Al Gore, Russ Feingold and John Edwards, who have all come to speak honestly of this quagmire and our need to extricate ourselves from it.

If your priority is to support an inspiring female candidate to break America's ultimate glass ceiling, why not draft Barbara Boxer? Not electable? Nonsense: The California senator trashed her conservative GOP opponent in a reelection campaign that shunned the failed strategy of Democratic hacks and instead emphasized principle over opportunism. She proved her political integrity again this past week by voting alongside Kerry and Feingold to set a date for getting out of Iraq. Not so Senator Clinton, who seems determined to revive the cold war liberalism that gave us the Vietnam War -- which, according to Robert McNamara, the brilliant Democratic war architect who later conceded he himself didn't believe in that enterprise, took more than 3 million lives.

"I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the President to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government," said Clinton last week at the "Take Back America" conference. "Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests." This is pure gibberish designed to sound reasonable. The Bush Administration has pressured the Iraqi government plenty, from trying to place its handpicked intelligence "assets" in power right after seizing Baghdad through the unseemly act of a sitting US President dropping into Iraq uninvited and unannounced -- a mockery of the claim that we have transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

For more than three years, the United States has micro-managed everything from turning the American taxpayer-financed occupation into a grab fest for US corporate war profiteers to the failed training of the country's new security apparatus, now dominated by Shiite fanatics. Unfortunately for the great imperial Pax Americana scheme of building a pliable, secular government in Baghdad, a goal Clinton shares with the President, the Iraqi voters soundly rejected the candidates favored by the Pentagon and CIA. They chose instead the militant Shiites nurtured in the rogue nation of Iran, ever attendant to the twisted civics lessons of the ayatollahs on both sides of the border.

Predictably, the occupation by the US military of a troubled Muslim nation cobbled together by European colonialists and ruled for decades by a tyrant has unleashed religious and nationalist impulses, increased the popular appeal of extremist and terror groups and destabilized the region. More clumsy "pressure" will only lead to more violent blowback, something Clinton should have known when she voted for this unjustified war in 2002. Like Kerry, Clinton later pitifully explained that vote as a result of being "misled" by a President whom she shouldn't have trusted for a second. Kerry, however, seems to have finally rediscovered the concern he felt as a returning combat veteran, and is outraged that young Americans again are being sent to kill and be killed in a war that makes no sense, except for companies such as Halliburton and Bechtel.

Self-proclaimed "moderate" Democrats, who defend staying in Iraq, like to pretend they are the grown-ups in the argument. In reality, they are like children who have closed their ears to avoid hearing an uncomfortable truth: The longer we've stayed, the worse things have gotten, and that will continue to be the case. It is not the Iraqi government that needs to be pressured by Americans, but rather our own. Clinton needs to stop prattling on about getting the Iraqi government to do this or that wonderful thing before we can pull out. The country needs an honest debate about the lies that led to this war and the true costs of its continuance.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: cantina on March 23, 2007, 01:38:19 PM
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/1/d/1/clinton_bill_hillary_young.jpg)
Bill and Hillary Clinton in their younger days
Title: Miss America undercover
Post by: kdXtv on May 01, 2007, 07:38:58 PM

Katie Rees, Miss Nevada USA was stripped of her title Thursday after photos of her stripping her top popped all over the Internet. Some of the fine photos show Katie kissing other girls, exposing breasts, and simulating oral sex (!!!!!!!!!) with other hot girls (Donald suck this male private part!). She also shows off her tasty thong-wearin’ bootie.

(http://independentsources.com/wp-content/uploads/katiereesmissnevadatopless.jpg)


Miss America Lauren Nelson and veteran fugitive-hunter John Walsh of "America's Most Wanted" recently teamed up with police in a New York City suburb to catch suspected online predators —"Dateline NBC"-style. Nelson, the brainy beauty from Oklahoma who promised during the recent national pageant to promote Internet safety, posed as a 14-year-old girl to help Suffolk County, N.Y., computer cops arrest a handful of men who showed up at a house teeming with police and a television crew. NBC's "To Catch A Predator" series with correspondent Chris Hansen has identified more than 200 suspects in similar fashion, but Walsh said there are so many online predators out there that the more people focusing on the problem, the better.

"Does it surprise you that you set this stuff up and these guys still come out?" TODAY's Al Roker asked Walsh during a live studio appearance with Nelson on Thursday. "It doesn't surprise me. I think the public should be surprised and young people should be surprised that anyone can show up," Walsh said. "Anyone from a 43-year-old man who works at a Mercedes dealership selling Mercedes to a 21-year-old guy that is coming to have sex with who they think, and they know through all of these chats back and forth, is a 14-year-old girl."

Miss America undercover

Nelson posed as a young girl in phone calls initiated after online chats in which suspects allegedly engaged in inappropriate conversation, sometimes exposing themselves via Web cams. The suspects rounded up in Suffolk County after showing up for a meeting with Nelson have pleaded not guilty to attempted dissemination of indecent material to a minor.

One suspect's lawyer told TODAY that his client cannot form the mental intent necessary to commit the crime because of a psychiatric problem. By definition, Walsh said, online predators have something wrong with them, but that doesn't mean society has to give them a pass. "They've all got an excuse," he said. "I've been hunting these guys down for 20 years. I'm the father of a murdered child. Yeah, there's something wrong with them." Walsh became a victim's advocate after his 6-year-old son, Adam, was murdered in Florida in 1981. Walsh is a co-founder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and he championed a new federal law that increases the penalties for people convicted of crimes against children.

'A very brave young lady'

Nelson said she hooked up with "America's Most Wanted" during her first week as Miss America, and the show proposed going after online predators. "They came up with a sting operation idea. I was a little apprehensive, and nervous," she said. "Definitely I was very nervous, but it was a controlled situation .... It was very safe."

For Walsh, the key to the sting's success was having Nelson actually speak to the suspects on the telephone to trick them into believing that the meetings they hoped to arrange were with a 14-year-old girl and not a police trap. When the men showed up, they were dressed down by Walsh, as police officers slapped handcuffs on them. "Lauren was the dealmaker in this," Walsh said, referring to the capture of one suspect police were calling "The Phantom" because he was so careful in the past about whom he would meet and where. "She talked to him on the phone ... She's a very brave young lady. He wanted to hear a voice," Nelson said. "He wanted to know that it was an actual girl he was going to see, a 14-year-old girl."
Title: Al Gore's Son Arrested Again On Drug Charges
Post by: law shop on July 04, 2007, 09:24:59 PM

It is unconscionable that those who can accurately measure the true cost of the Iraq folly in wasted lives and resources -- more than 2,500 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of billions of dollars -- dare prefer her to potential 2008 presidential election rivals John Kerry, Al Gore [...]


Al Gore's hopes are even fainter after this,

(http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_gore_mugshot_070704_ms.jpg)

Al Gore III, 24, Pulled Over Driving 100 MPH With Marijuana and Prescription Drugs in Car, Say Police

By MARCUS BARAM
July 4, 2007

For the second time in four years, former Vice President Al Gore's son has been arrested on charges of possessing marijuana in his car. Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius on the San Diego Freeway at about 100 mph at 2:15 a.m. Wednesday morning when a sheriff's deputy stopped him at the Crown Valley Parkway exit, said Jim Amormino, spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department. The deputy smelled marijuana, a quantity of which he found in the vehicle, while also discovering two prescription bottles containing Valium, Vicodin, Xanax, and Adderall.

"He was cooperative and admitted to smoking marijuana very recently," Amormino told ABCNEWS.com. "None of those drugs in his possession did he have a prescription for," said the spokesman, adding that one of the bottles had no writing on it and one had partial writing on it in someone else's name. The former vice president's son, an associate publisher at Good magazine, was taken into custody and booked into the Santa Ana Inmate Reception Center on narcotics possession charges. Bail has been set at $20,000. The sheriff's department was not sure if Gore's father or mother had contacted their son. Al Gore was traveling back from Europe today, and was not available for comment. "He's still being booked," said Amormino. The Prius, an environmentally-friendly hybrid car championed by his father, was impounded.

The young Gore has a history of driving violations. In December 2003, Gore III was arrested on a marijuana possession charge after police in Montgomery County, Md., stopped the Cadillac he was driving for not having its headlights on. Officers found a partial marijuana cigarette and a baggie containing suspected marijuana, according to police. Gore and two male passengers were arrested and Gore later entered a substance-abuse program that included 12 weeks of urine testing, community service and substance-abuse counseling. He was also ticketed for reckless driving by North Carolina police in August 2000 when he was clocked going 94 mph, and military police arrested him for drunken driving near a military base in Virginia in September 2002.
Title: Re: Al Gore's Son Arrested Again On Drug Charges
Post by: elf on July 05, 2007, 02:21:49 AM

The deputy smelled marijuana, a quantity of which he found in the vehicle, while also discovering two prescription bottles containing Valium, Vicodin, Xanax, and Adderall. "He was cooperative and admitted to smoking marijuana very recently," Amormino told ABCNEWS.com. "None of those drugs in his possession did he have a prescription for," said the spokesman, adding that one of the bottles had no writing on it and one had partial writing on it in someone else's name. The former vice president's son, an associate publisher at Good magazine, was taken into custody and booked into the Santa Ana Inmate Reception Center on narcotics possession charges. Bail has been set at $20,000. The sheriff's department was not sure if Gore's father or mother had contacted their son. Al Gore was traveling back from Europe today, and was not available for comment. "He's still being booked," said Amormino. The Prius, an environmentally-friendly hybrid car championed by his father, was impounded.


My @ # ! * i n g God, how it is possible they can charge you with a felony (judging from the bail amount I am assuming they're charging him with a felony) for possessing marijuana, Vicodin and Adderall?! @ # ! * the American hypocrisy!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Vera on July 05, 2007, 04:07:15 PM

[...]

O Donnell impersonated Trump by deepening her voice and flipping her hair to one side. After repeatedly saying she did not enjoy him, Rosie discussed Trump s finances – saying he went bankrupt, which Trump denies – and likened him to the snake-oil salesman on Little House On The Prairie. This is not a self-made man, ODonnell said. And while ODonnell and her View co-hosts discussed her alleged drug and alcohol abuse, Rosie was dismissive, saying, She went out and she was partying – doing what Paris and Lindsay do.


The best of the best on her part was when she emceed the Matrix Awards in front of 2,000 feting New York women at the Waldorf-Astoria Grand Ballroom. Rosie dropped the bomb as Barbara Walters lowered her head on the dais and covered her face with her hand. ODonnell concluded about Donald Trump by grabbing her crotch and shouting, EAT ME!
Title: Gore III Victim of Daddy's "War on Drugs"
Post by: 6flags on July 05, 2007, 09:02:52 PM

Al Gore's hopes are even fainter after this,

Al Gore III, 24, Pulled Over Driving 100 MPH With Marijuana and Prescription Drugs in Car, Say Police

By MARCUS BARAM
July 4, 2007

For the second time in four years, former Vice President Al Gore's son has been arrested on charges of possessing marijuana in his car. Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius on the San Diego Freeway at about 100 mph at 2:15 a.m. Wednesday morning when a sheriff's deputy stopped him at the Crown Valley Parkway exit, said Jim Amormino, spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department. The deputy smelled marijuana, a quantity of which he found in the vehicle, while also discovering two prescription bottles containing Valium, Vicodin, Xanax, and Adderall.

"He was cooperative and admitted to smoking marijuana very recently," Amormino told ABCNEWS.com. "None of those drugs in his possession did he have a prescription for," said the spokesman, adding that one of the bottles had no writing on it and one had partial writing on it in someone else's name. The former vice president's son, an associate publisher at Good magazine, was taken into custody and booked into the Santa Ana Inmate Reception Center on narcotics possession charges. Bail has been set at $20,000. The sheriff's department was not sure if Gore's father or mother had contacted their son. Al Gore was traveling back from Europe today, and was not available for comment. "He's still being booked," said Amormino. The Prius, an environmentally-friendly hybrid car championed by his father, was impounded.

The young Gore has a history of driving violations. In December 2003, Gore III was arrested on a marijuana possession charge after police in Montgomery County, Md., stopped the Cadillac he was driving for not having its headlights on. Officers found a partial marijuana cigarette and a baggie containing suspected marijuana, according to police. Gore and two male passengers were arrested and Gore later entered a substance-abuse program that included 12 weeks of urine testing, community service and substance-abuse counseling. He was also ticketed for reckless driving by North Carolina police in August 2000 when he was clocked going 94 mph, and military police arrested him for drunken driving near a military base in Virginia in September 2002.


It's no secret the Clinton Administration kicked the "Global War On Drugs" up to ten. And as karma would have it, the son of the former President’s right hand man has been busted yet again for possession of pot while operating a hybrid car...

Whose fault is this again, y'all? Repeat it after me — Daddy's and "Daddy's' boss.

Sonny boy gets busted with a "small amount" of pot and now he gets to face the music because of the unwinnable, hugely expensive and unconstitutional "War On Drugs" that good ole' "Daddy" and his boss waged upon the U.S. taxpayers' checkbooks (the "bad guys") for decades with ZERO return on the so-called "investment."

Global warming is a serious reality, and great "kudos" go out to "Daddy" for his heartfelt and dedicated, award winning work in this arena, but then again, "Dear Ole' Dad" isn't quite perfect either, is he? "Draft Gore In '08" supporters shouldn't forget this simple fact so easily either, by the way. After all, the terse results of Mr. Gore's dedication to turning potheads into criminals has found their way to "Dear Ole' Dad's" doorstep. And results such as these are GUARANTEED... ALWAYS.

Again, it's called "karma," and it's very REAL...
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Victoria Principal on July 06, 2007, 04:00:19 AM
Al Gore himself has long admitted that he smoked pot, both during his stint in Vietnam and for a *brief while* after his return. He claims that it was only a few times. Here again he seems to be lying. Former drug buddies of Gore have come forward to say that he was a heavy smoker, right up until his first run for Congress in 1976. In college, Gore was said to be hanging out in the basement of his dorm, getting high and watching TV most of the time. After his return from Vietnam, friends such as John Warnecke say that got high with Gore as often as 3 or 4 times a week, listening to Grateful Dead albums and talking about what they would do if they were presidents. Al Gore stoned was a mix of expansiveness, melancholy and paranoia, Warnecke said.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: john jacob on July 07, 2007, 03:41:18 PM
I'd wager that Hillary Clinton was too cautious to ever have lesbian contact. Seriously. Although, does anyone remember a few years back when Hillary was writing her memoir and people were talking about how she'd chronicle on her fooling around in the WH? So she wouldn't look like a complete cuckold to Bill
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: landrover06 on July 07, 2007, 10:19:01 PM

It's not a bad idea. If you look at about any profile of an attorney at a large firm, most will say Phi Delta Phi or Phi Alpha Delta. However, Phi Delta Phi is at most schools an Honors Fraternity, so it may be viewed in a little higher regard than Phi Alpha Delta, but not by much.

Wait until after your first semester grades and then join Phi Delta Phi if you can, but if you can't then at least join Phi Alpha Delta. Hillary Clinton was a member so it can't be that bad right?


(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3779/hillarygayro7.jpg)
President Clinton's former mistress Gennifer Flowers (left) claims Bill told her Hillary was a lesbian.  Rumors have swirled about Hillary's relationship with cabinet member Donna Shalala (center) and New York Lawyer Susan Thomases.

'My sources indicate Hillary is bisexual and fools around much more than her husband'
-Political Commentator
Jack Wheeler

(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3222/untitledmf9.png)(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/9146/untitleduy1.png)

That's her perogative and her sexual preference is her own private business.  She is infinitely better than that collosal idiot of a president George Bush.  Bush looks like he's given a few BJs in his lifetime in order to move ahead.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: ayn on July 08, 2007, 09:18:00 PM
She's had plasic surgery. Look up pictures of her when Bill was first became Arkansas governor.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: landrover06 on July 09, 2007, 02:07:09 AM
Why not? What can it hurt?  Just another network that can only be beneficial.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: paddco on July 11, 2007, 10:57:13 AM
Just a quick point of clarification, there is no such thing as a "Legal Honors Fraternity."  PDP allows its chapters to set GPA requirements, but those range from top 10% to a 2.0.  A C average does not qualify for "Honors" status anywhere.  That disparity really can cause some problems when you walk out the doors of your school and run into PDPs who belong to Inns with different (or no) GPAs. 

The PDP constitution and a message on their website from their Executive Director Tim Wheat also clearly state that they are not an "Honors Fraternity." 

I suggest that you join whoever you feel comfortable with.  P.A.D. is the largest, by far with over 265,000 living members.  Presidents, Congressman and U.S. Supreme Court Justices have all seen the benefits of membership over the years and joined after they were in office or on the bench.  In addition, over 9,000 students joined P.A.D. this past year. 

P.A.D. has grown to our current size because we have always been a fraternity of firsts; the first to welcome members of all races, the first to welcome women, the first to welcome members of all creeds into membership.  P.A.D. is also the only law fraternity to provide undergraduate students with an opportunity to learn about the law and make an informed decision about whether a career in the law is for them.  At the law school level, we also focus heavily upon academic assistance and providing our members with professional development opportunities and alumni networking.  Contrary to other posts here, a good number of P.A.D. events are for members-only. 

PDP is the oldest, but much smaller.  DTP is the smallest and also accepts individuals from non-ABA approved law schools, which P.A.D. and PDP do not. 

Take a look at all three websites and see which appeals to you.  Also, when you get to school, get to know the members of each fraternity.  You won't make a "wrong" choice, but you'll want to make the best choice for you.  I have very good friends that belong to the other fraternities, but I've never regretted joining P.A.D.  We're the not the best because we're the biggest, we're the biggest because we provide the best membership experience and services.   

Sincerely,

Byron K. Rupp
Director of Chapter Operations
Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, International
410.347.3118
dco@pad.org



Yes, joining the honors fraternity is an easy way to get something good on your resume.

Ours looks for people with good grades OR commitment to community service. Top 1/2 + meals on wheels = good looking credential on the resume. You can still go to the PAD parties and they won't throw you out.

It's not like Law Review, where it's going to demand a lot of your time.
Title: CNN Blog Report on the Debate
Post by: Adrian on July 24, 2007, 05:52:22 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfCi3xivEY8&mode=user&search=
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: K a r i on August 10, 2007, 02:57:12 AM

http://www.flowgo.com/index.cfm?action=view&id=6660&scid=0


I'd rather go with her than Obama or Edwards! Unfortunately, however, she is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad.


Personally I believe Obama is a female private part and Hillary is a female dog. Which would you like in the White House, a female private part or a female dog? Sorry, I don't like Hill, but I'd rather have a female dog in the White House than a female private part. Plus Bill as the First Lady, that dude would be a G, lol.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: aver on August 10, 2007, 10:06:45 PM
LOL Kari! ;)
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: gainsay on August 12, 2007, 02:23:31 AM

She's had plasic surgery. Look up pictures of her when Bill was first became Arkansas governor.


You're so right, ayn!


(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/1/d/1/clinton_bill_hillary_young.jpg)
Bill and Hillary Clinton in their younger days

Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: jwaxjwax on August 16, 2007, 07:23:38 PM
"Phi Delta Phi is an honor fraternity to which students with a minimum academic standing or service commitment are invited. Phi Delta Phi, established in 1869, is the oldest professional fraternity in the western hemisphere and many leaders of the bench, bar and law schools are members. Those who seek camaraderie, good fellowship and promotion of the highest standards of professional and personal ethics may be interested in Phi Delta Phi. In addition, Phi Delta Phi offers tangible benefits including scholarships, student loans, regional and international meetings and conventions."

"PAD is the world’s largest professional legal fraternity serving students, law schools and the profession. It is dedicated to the ideals of community service. Its goal is to form a strong bond uniting students and teachers with the bench and bar. This international organization offers professional programs, student loans, job preparation, job placement assistance, insurance programs, a quarterly publication, conventions, conferences, awards and lifetime friendships. PAD is open to all students."
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: abstruse on August 17, 2007, 06:44:59 AM

[...] Plus Bill as the First Lady, that dude would be a G, lol.


Amen!
Title: Re: Hillary for Prez
Post by: apocryphal on August 19, 2007, 05:57:09 PM

I'd rather go with her than Obama or Edwards![...]


John Edwards has a problem -- the feelings of uncertainty that he emanates by way of his mannerisms and delivery, as if he is begging you to agree with him instead of just telling you what he thinks, which makes him appear less confident.  People get the feeling like he is "holding something back" so they don't trust him. It's his vibes that create that feeling. I have also talked about how people would react to John Edwards based on his body language, and that was confirmed over the weekend when I got into it with some Democrats who were calling John Edwards "a punk."  They said they "like him," like almost all Democrats will say, but that "he is a punk...America doesn't want a punk for its President."  By punk, what do they mean? Punk implies "wimp, weak, fragile, flimsy, sissy," whatever is not strong or manly. This is why the right-wing knew that the focus on John Edwards' hair would stick.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: asperity on August 19, 2007, 06:33:10 PM
During the questions about gay marriage Edwards had a nervous look on July 24; he put his hands in his pockets, which is also a classic sign of nervousness, Jo Ellan Dimitrius, a body language expert said. When someone's body language appears overly-expressive, one question usually comes to mind: Gay or Italian? But I think, John Edwards's body language comes across as "sleazy trial lawyer." Like many great performers, he's reached the stage where his tricks and mannerisms have become self-conscious and exaggerated.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: fledgling on August 21, 2007, 04:17:45 AM
Do you know what Edwards could possibly mean when saying that Republican candidates are George Bush on steroids ??
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: foray on August 21, 2007, 04:52:06 AM

John Edwards has a problem -- the feelings of uncertainty that he emanates by way of his mannerisms and delivery, as if he is begging you to agree with him instead of just telling you what he thinks, which makes him appear less confident.  People get the feeling like he is "holding something back" so they don't trust him. It's his vibes that create that feeling. [...]


Oh please, do you think Hillary is better? I mean, take a look at her face when she talks -- you can easily tell when what she's saying is something she's does not really believe in simply by observing her facial expressions. She's not that good at body language lying. The one public person that has absolute mastery over her body language is Oprah -- she'll just not let out anything she doesn't want to get out.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: dissipate on August 21, 2007, 07:15:33 PM

Oh please, do you think Hillary is better? I mean, take a look at her face when she talks -- you can easily tell when what she's saying is something she's does not really believe in simply by observing her facial expressions. She's not that good at body language lying. The one public person that has absolute mastery over her body language is Oprah -- she'll just not let out anything she doesn't want to get out.


Here it is an interesting piece on body language lying

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,5331.msg62288.html#msg62288
Title: Re: Hillary for Prez
Post by: susanna mon amour on August 24, 2007, 06:54:47 PM

John Edwards has a problem -- the feelings of uncertainty that he emanates by way of his mannerisms and delivery, as if he is begging you to agree with him instead of just telling you what he thinks, which makes him appear less confident.  People get the feeling like he is "holding something back" so they don't trust him. It's his vibes that create that feeling. I have also talked about how people would react to John Edwards based on his body language, and that was confirmed over the weekend when I got into it with some Democrats who were calling John Edwards "a punk."  They said they "like him," like almost all Democrats will say, but that "he is a punk...America doesn't want a punk for its President."  By punk, what do they mean? Punk implies "wimp, weak, fragile, flimsy, sissy," whatever is not strong or manly. This is why the right-wing knew that the focus on John Edwards' hair would stick.


Well, Edwards has been called publicly a 'faggot' -- so there's nothing surprising about people thinking in the terms you do. Edwards, on his part, has replied that such slurs simply show what kind of country we live in.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: one hot summer night on August 27, 2007, 01:58:27 AM

It's no secret the Clinton Administration kicked the "Global War On Drugs" up to ten. And as karma would have it, the son of the former President’s right hand man has been busted yet again for possession of pot while operating a hybrid car...

Whose fault is this again, y'all? Repeat it after me — Daddy's and "Daddy's' boss.

Sonny boy gets busted with a "small amount" of pot and now he gets to face the music because of the unwinnable, hugely expensive and unconstitutional "War On Drugs" that good ole' "Daddy" and his boss waged upon the U.S. taxpayers' checkbooks (the "bad guys") for decades with ZERO return on the so-called "investment."

Global warming is a serious reality, and great "kudos" go out to "Daddy" for his heartfelt and dedicated, award winning work in this arena, but then again, "Dear Ole' Dad" isn't quite perfect either, is he? "Draft Gore In '08" supporters shouldn't forget this simple fact so easily either, by the way. After all, the terse results of Mr. Gore's dedication to turning potheads into criminals has found their way to "Dear Ole' Dad's" doorstep. And results such as these are GUARANTEED... ALWAYS.

Again, it's called "karma," and it's very REAL...


(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6528/untitled38fc3.png)
The Spiritual Law of Karma, 'What goes around comes around'.
Title: Re: Hillary for Prez
Post by: sislaw on August 27, 2007, 03:40:48 AM

Well, Edwards has been called publicly a 'faggot' -- so there's nothing surprising about people thinking in the terms you do. Edwards, on his part, has replied that such slurs simply show what kind of country we live in.


I'm kinda curious to know whether Ann Coulter would dare to call Tom Cruise a faggot.
Title: Re: Hillary for Prez
Post by: palimpsest on August 28, 2007, 02:45:37 AM

Well, Edwards has been called publicly a 'faggot' -- so there's nothing surprising about people thinking in the terms you do. Edwards, on his part, has replied that such slurs simply show what kind of country we live in.


I'm kinda curious to know whether Ann Coulter would dare to call Tom Cruise a faggot.


;)
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: gaudy on September 04, 2007, 01:59:51 AM

She's had plasic surgery. Look up pictures of her when Bill was first became Arkansas governor.


Hillary is rumored to have likely bought hundreds of votes in a Hasidic New York neighborhood during her 2000 senatorial run by persuading her husband to commute criminal sentences for several New Square residents.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: everyman on September 06, 2007, 09:04:09 PM
Wow!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: pluck on September 15, 2007, 12:27:51 PM
A Gallup poll showed Clinton with a favorable rate of 55%. True, her unfavorable number is 39%, which is high enough for concern -- but one that is nearly identical to Bush's on the eve of his reelection. And the unfavorable rating registered by Republican contender Bill Frist was nearly as high as his favorable numbers, with 32% saying they'd never heard of him. Then there was this eye-opening question:

If Hillary Rodham Clinton were to run for president in 2008, how likely would you be to vote for her -- very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?

Very likely 29
Somewhat likely 24
Not very likely 7
Not at all likely 40
No opinion 1

At the risk of laboring the point, 29% plus 24% adds up to a majority. I can hear my pals answering this as they read these numbers: "Yes, but that's before the conservative attack machine gets a hold of her..." Well, no, it isn't. They've been going at her with verbal tire irons, machetes, and sawed-off shotguns for 12 years now. Clinton's negatives are already figured into her ratings. What could she be accused of that she hasn't already confronted since she entered the public eye 14 years ago? Clinton today is in a position similar to Bush's at the beginning of 2004. Democrats hoped that more information about the president's youth would knock him down. But voters had already taken the president's past into account when they voted for him in 2000. More information just wasn't going to make a dent. In fact, as the spring of 2005 turned to summer there were yet another book and a matched spate of tabloid broadsides. In the face of it all, Hillary appears, if anything, to be getting stronger. Indeed, the more the right throws at her, the easier it is for her to lump any criticism in with the darkest visions of the professional Clinton bashers.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: paddco on December 19, 2007, 01:00:48 PM
Actually, if you look at the PDP website and/or Constitution, you will see that it's not.  We also have a letter on file from PDP Executive Director Tim Wheat in which he states that you are not.  If you want to join or belong to PDP, good for you.  Just make sure that you're joining for the right reason and not due to the false impression that you're joining an honorary law fraternity.  As mentioned before, such a thing does not exist. 

"Phi Delta Phi is an honor fraternity to which students with a minimum academic standing or service commitment are invited. Phi Delta Phi, established in 1869, is the oldest professional fraternity in the western hemisphere and many leaders of the bench, bar and law schools are members. Those who seek camaraderie, good fellowship and promotion of the highest standards of professional and personal ethics may be interested in Phi Delta Phi. In addition, Phi Delta Phi offers tangible benefits including scholarships, student loans, regional and international meetings and conventions."

"PAD is the world’s largest professional legal fraternity serving students, law schools and the profession. It is dedicated to the ideals of community service. Its goal is to form a strong bond uniting students and teachers with the bench and bar. This international organization offers professional programs, student loans, job preparation, job placement assistance, insurance programs, a quarterly publication, conventions, conferences, awards and lifetime friendships. PAD is open to all students."

Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Free Radical on December 22, 2007, 12:29:28 PM
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7917/billaryclintonuk5.jpg)
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: ruffl on December 24, 2007, 11:48:24 AM
On March 5 of this year Hill told the nation's leading gay rights group in an unpublicized speech that she wants a partnership with gays if elected president. Clinton also said she opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband's presidency. "I am proud to stand by your side," Clinton said in a keynote speech to the Human Rights Campaign. Neither Clinton's campaign nor her Senate office made any announcement that she would be making the Friday address.

In the speech, Clinton joked that she shares the same initials as the group, and pledged to maintain the same close working relationship that last year helped defeat the federal amendment which would have banned same-sex marriage. "I want you to know that this is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am president," Clinton told the group. "I want you to know that just as you always have an open door to my senate office, you will always have an open door to the White House and together we can continue this journey."

Clinton's husband Bill Clinton was president when the Pentagon instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which says gays may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private. In 1999, as she prepared to run for the Senate from New York, Clinton publicly opposed that policy. Previous to Bill Clinton's administration, gays were flatly forbidden from serving in the military. Sen. Clinton said it would be safer for the nation if openly gay soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen could wear the uniform.

"This policy doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians, it hurts all our troops and this to me is a matter of national security and we're going to fix it," Clinton said. Her chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards and Barack Obama, also favor repealing the policy. She also attacked the Bush administration for making political appeals based on gay rights issues, vowing that her presidency would mark "the end of leadership that has politicized the most personal and intimate issues." Human Rights Campaign vice president David Smith said Clinton's comments were "very well received," though he added the group is not endorsing any candidate and does not anticipate making an endorsement "anytime soon."

Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff said Tuesday the candidate "affirmed her desire to have a strong partnership with the community as president," adding they were "delighted" the speech was available on the Internet. Clinton aides said no announcement was made because the group's gathering is traditionally closed to the press. Video of the speech was posted on the group's Web site. Smith said such annual board meetings have always been closed to the press, but it was the first time he could remember that a speech at such a meeting had been made public afterward. "There's no contradiction," he said. "The event is always closed to the press and we wanted to make (the remarks) available for people to see."
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: marygo on December 25, 2007, 11:18:14 AM
That is why I think Hill is discredited in front of voters -- and not only in relation to her position towards gays ... she just cannot escape the image of her husband.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: burka on January 01, 2008, 02:23:39 PM
Can you tell me one who's not discredited, marygo?
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: l i e b e on January 10, 2008, 11:48:36 AM
Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51d-%2BLT6RGL._SS500_.jpg)

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" :: An Interesting Book

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4gQv19gbqL0
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Cafe Cargo on February 03, 2008, 12:52:14 PM
Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51d-%2BLT6RGL._SS500_.jpg)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4gQv19gbqL0


It may be a story of a soldier who happens to be gay. Either topic alone has merit, but the two in juxtaposition adds a surprising dimension. A tremendous waste and energy lost to the human experience when a person fails to live an authentic life and pursue her or his authentic self. The utter irony that an American gay soldier is willing to die to protect the freedoms of his fellow citizens, but yet is not free to be himself. We often see advertisements to join the Army and BE ALL YOU CAN BE. But it seems the Army doesn't really mean what it says for everyone who joins the Army. Indeed there should be no "conflict" in being a gay man and an American soldier, and at the same time.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: al so on February 05, 2008, 10:24:26 AM

[...] Indeed there should be no "conflict" in being a gay man and an American soldier, and at the same time.


As a matter of fact, soldier, there should be no conflict in a being a gay man and an American citizen, at the same time...
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: tide on March 13, 2008, 03:36:30 PM
(http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4504/ssdasdsdgx8.jpg)
Title: Solomon Amendment & DADT
Post by: karipidis on March 20, 2008, 02:26:51 PM

Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.


The Solo mon Amendment and Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy =  Same Problem, Different Victims.

(http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/816/untan0.jpg)

Like the Solomon Amendment, DADT purports on its face to limit no more than expression. Just as law schools are asked to welcome discriminatory recruiters but maintain a fully inclusive identity, non-heterosexual service members are asked to pretend to be straight (or to say nothing at all, and thereby acquiesce to presumed heterosexuality) but maintain a fully gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. If this kind of feat is impossible for the homophobic Boy Scouts or antihomophobic law schools, it is certainly impossible for homosexuals themselves. "Being" gay is as much a matter of expression — the decision to "come out" of the closet, once and then over and over again — as it is about the sexual feelings you have or the sexual acts you perform. Expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed. Solomon and DADT even resort to the same mechanics of expression/identity coercion. Just as the Solomon Amendment tells law schools that they can "choose" to keep their nondiscrimination policy intact so long as they're prepared to lose millions of dollars in federal funding, the military quasi-ban tells present and would-be servicemembers that they can "choose" to come out so long as they're prepared to lose their federal jobs. In both instances the choice is arguably illusory and neither one is it fair, honest, or dignified for either the coercer or the coerced.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: mgkoefod on March 20, 2008, 03:02:55 PM
tag
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: A l m a on March 23, 2008, 01:53:25 PM
(http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7131/70137933hj6.jpg)
Title: Obama -- Military Service? Sorry! But my Grandpa was a veteran!
Post by: synchronicity on May 27, 2008, 08:36:46 AM
Obama's been criticized for not having served in the military service.

(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1353/artobamaplaneappn4.jpg)

He responded: "I will cede to no one the ability to talk about veterans issues. My grandfather was a veteran. Those veterans benefits helped my grandparents to raise my mother. I have veterans throughout the state of Illinois that I've been fighting for since I came into the United States Senate."
Title: Re: Solomon Amendment & DADT
Post by: nmla on May 27, 2008, 09:40:35 AM

Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.


The Solo mon Amendment and Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy =  Same Problem, Different Victims.

(http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/816/untan0.jpg)

Like the Solomon Amendment, DADT purports on its face to limit no more than expression. Just as law schools are asked to welcome discriminatory recruiters but maintain a fully inclusive identity, non-heterosexual service members are asked to pretend to be straight (or to say nothing at all, and thereby acquiesce to presumed heterosexuality) but maintain a fully gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. If this kind of feat is impossible for the homophobic Boy Scouts or antihomophobic law schools, it is certainly impossible for homosexuals themselves. "Being" gay is as much a matter of expression — the decision to "come out" of the closet, once and then over and over again — as it is about the sexual feelings you have or the sexual acts you perform. Expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed. Solomon and DADT even resort to the same mechanics of expression/identity coercion. Just as the Solomon Amendment tells law schools that they can "choose" to keep their nondiscrimination policy intact so long as they're prepared to lose millions of dollars in federal funding, the military quasi-ban tells present and would-be servicemembers that they can "choose" to come out so long as they're prepared to lose their federal jobs. In both instances the choice is arguably illusory and neither one is it fair, honest, or dignified for either the coercer or the coerced.


Interesting, tagging it!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: multiplechoice on August 02, 2008, 08:35:41 PM
Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51d-%2BLT6RGL._SS500_.jpg)

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" :: An Interesting Book

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4gQv19gbqL0


I guess you all know by now that if there were one person out there who believes in the power of word - that's me. Yet I am perplexed how it is possible that a man like Merritt can settle for nothing more than this ..
Title: Re: Solomon Amendment & DADT
Post by: latvia on January 27, 2009, 09:55:47 AM

The Solo mon Amendment and Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy =  Same Problem, Different Victims.

(http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/816/untan0.jpg)

Like the Solomon Amendment, DADT purports on its face to limit no more than expression. Just as law schools are asked to welcome discriminatory recruiters but maintain a fully inclusive identity, non-heterosexual service members are asked to pretend to be straight (or to say nothing at all, and thereby acquiesce to presumed heterosexuality) but maintain a fully gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. If this kind of feat is impossible for the homophobic Boy Scouts or antihomophobic law schools, it is certainly impossible for homosexuals themselves. "Being" gay is as much a matter of expression — the decision to "come out" of the closet, once and then over and over again — as it is about the sexual feelings you have or the sexual acts you perform. Expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed. Solomon and DADT even resort to the same mechanics of expression/identity coercion. Just as the Solomon Amendment tells law schools that they can "choose" to keep their nondiscrimination policy intact so long as they're prepared to lose millions of dollars in federal funding, the military quasi-ban tells present and would-be servicemembers that they can "choose" to come out so long as they're prepared to lose their federal jobs. In both instances the choice is arguably illusory and neither one is it fair, honest, or dignified for either the coercer or the coerced.


Interesting juxtaposition between the two I'd say!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: show my IP on January 27, 2009, 10:04:52 AM
What's so "interesting" about it, latvi? It's only natural to juxtapose the two of them.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: show my IP on January 27, 2009, 10:05:46 AM
What's so "interesting" about it, latvi? It's only natural to juxtapose the two of them.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: show my IP on January 27, 2009, 10:07:57 AM
What's so "interesting" about it, latvi? It's only natural to juxtapose the two of them.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: chainlaw on January 27, 2009, 10:30:49 AM
In order not to enter multiple posts wait a little bit for your original post to show up before submitting it again. Sometimes the site will do that.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: mauchly on December 20, 2011, 03:01:35 AM

John Edwards has a problem -- the feelings of uncertainty that he emanates by way of his mannerisms and delivery, as if he is begging you to agree with him instead of just telling you what he thinks, which makes him appear less confident.  People get the feeling like he is "holding something back" so they don't trust him. It's his vibes that create that feeling. [...]


Oh please, do you think Hillary is better? I mean, take a look at her face when she talks -- you can easily tell when what she's saying is something she's does not really believe in simply by observing her facial expressions. She's not that good at body language lying. The one public person that has absolute mastery over her body language is Oprah -- she'll just not let out anything she doesn't want to get out.'


Actually, Oprah's the kind of person who'll let out more than she'll ever believe could have been let out..
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Julie Fern on December 20, 2011, 07:28:02 AM
well, then, who right?
Title: 'Something' Better than 'Nothing'!
Post by: pretamanger on December 20, 2011, 10:38:53 PM
I guess no one. I mean, this "body language" thing is complete bulls h i t - I know that it's being relied on a lot, by a hell of a lot of LE pros, but they KNOW deep down themselves that that's just not true (that they can actually tell if one's lying using the "behavioral cues" they elicit in their suspects). I am sure this may not the right time for class, but I have to tell you this: there are simply no verbal or non-verbal cues unique to lying. In fact, there are very small differences between those who tell the truth and liars. A truth-teller might appear nervous and thus judged to be lying, as it also possible that a liar might just be very good at it (lying). Not to mention that oftentimes lies are embedded in truths.

LE people will tell you that they "know what they are doing" and that their years of experience have taught them things - stuff that they can't even explain logically (rationally) to other people, that 'vibe' kind of thing - that enable 'em to detect lying (deceit). They will mock, for instance, psychologists' work on the subject showing the absence of any credible "cues to deception" and they will boast they have learned such "cues" by spotting liars in real-life situations, not in "experimental studies."

Psychologists, then, had LE personnel as study participants, asking them to detect deception by actually interviewing in the manner of their choice a mock suspect. The police officers were no better than plain folk study participants - they were able to say whether someone was lying or not with an accuracy of just 57% (remember that you have an 50% chance of telling such just by guessing!)

Finally, LE people will tell you that they need a "method" when going for this kind of thing, and that "something" is better than "nothing." They start with a certain "version" of the story (the so-called "evidence") and slowly get the suspect to "validate" such story, with a written statement at the end of the process, signed by him and witnessed by 2 other people. The most critical part of this process is at the beginning, when the LE people will try to rationalize to themselves that the person they have in front of them may have actually committed the crime, and that they have, more likely than not, accurately classified him as either a truth-teller or a liar. So, in a certain sense, it does involve a certain degree of self-brainwashing on the part of the investigators themselves. I mean, think about it - if you consider the actual method/technique you are using completely 'crap', you just won't be able to carry it on for hours and hours on end, every day of your life!

Now, do they come to truly believe at the end of the day that the confession they got by means of their manipulative/coercive tactics and strategies was true (the one they'll use in the courtroom to have the defendant found guilty). Probably Yes. Probably No. In fact, the majority of them tend to think of all this as part of their of work, one which due to its nature, makes necessary not to place much importance on dichotomies such as true/false.
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Julie Fern on December 21, 2011, 05:29:58 AM
yes.  they often assholes.
Title: Re: Poly
Post by: figurati on December 22, 2011, 05:37:14 PM

I guess no one. I mean, this "body language" thing is complete bulls h i t - I know that it's being relied on a lot, by a hell of a lot of LE pros, but they KNOW deep down themselves that that's just not true (that they can actually tell if one's lying using the "behavioral cues" they elicit in their suspects). I am sure this may not the right time for class, but I have to tell you this: there are simply no verbal or non-verbal cues unique to lying. In fact, there are very small differences between those who tell the truth and liars. A truth-teller might appear nervous and thus judged to be lying, as it also possible that a liar might just be very good at it (lying). Not to mention that oftentimes lies are embedded in truths.

LE people will tell you that they "know what they are doing" and that their years of experience have taught them things - stuff that they can't even explain logically (rationally) to other people, that 'vibe' kind of thing - that enable 'em to detect lying (deceit). They will mock, for instance, psychologists' work on the subject showing the absence of any credible "cues to deception" and they will boast they have learned such "cues" by spotting liars in real-life situations, not in "experimental studies."

Psychologists, then, had LE personnel as study participants, asking them to detect deception by actually interviewing in the manner of their choice a mock suspect. The police officers were no better than plain folk study participants - they were able to say whether someone was lying or not with an accuracy of just 57% (remember that you have an 50% chance of telling such just by guessing!)

Finally, LE people will tell you that they need a "method" when going for this kind of thing, and that "something" is better than "nothing." They start with a certain "version" of the story (the so-called "evidence") and slowly get the suspect to "validate" such story, with a written statement at the end of the process, signed by him and witnessed by 2 other people. The most critical part of this process is at the beginning, when the LE people will try to rationalize to themselves that the person they have in front of them may have actually committed the crime, and that they have, more likely than not, accurately classified him as either a truth-teller or a liar. So, in a certain sense, it does involve a certain degree of self-brainwashing on the part of the investigators themselves. I mean, think about it - if you consider the actual method/technique you are using completely 'crap', you just won't be able to carry it on for hours and hours on end, every day of your life!

Now, do they come to truly believe at the end of the day that the confession they got by means of their manipulative/coercive tactics and strategies was true (the one they'll use in the courtroom to have the defendant found guilty). Probably Yes. Probably No. In fact, the majority of them tend to think of all this as part of their of work, one which due to its nature, makes necessary not to place much importance on dichotomies such as true/false.


You forgot to mention polygraph widely used by LE as a lie-detection tool - the CIA and FBI will swear by it! (They use it regularly to screen their candidates and current employees). Of course, not because that the polygraph really works and they'll sure tell you that, but because they know how they can make people think it works ... hence it does work, doesn't it?!

And yet, we all know that judges in courts of law won't accept polygraph - now if daddy won't believe his sons, why should we?! 

pretamanger, you appear to be very polite when describing this whole thing - I wouldn't hesitate to call them total d i c k s for what they do!



Don't worry. My husband, who is the most prudish, innocent kind of man had been accused of all manner of sexual perversion, or some such nonsense, and came home in tears. I believe they did something to brainwash him, as I remember that day he kept muttering things about being "a bad man" and "a bad person." And my hubby is the sort of fellow who's absolutely embarrassed to the point of mortification if some sleazy ad pops up on the internet -- definitely not a "bad man." They're pervs there, and I was happy my hubby didn't get the job back then.   



A group of students here: We've been laughing with this since yesterday when we read it! I mean, we feel sorry for the poor guy having gone thru the ordeal, but on the other hand it's so entertaining to see someone take seriously the CIA bull ... I mean, come on, everyone knows what sick dogs CIA people are!

Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: decline on December 24, 2011, 09:00:05 PM
figurati - don't get me started with all the * & ^ % they call "science," and that they claim that it "works." Take a look at this other post - it talks about "conditioning," role models" and the like that they use in the military to train soldiers to kill in battle. Now, anyone with a brain can figure it out that those young, naive guys who enlist in the military know what they will be asked to do, and that they would do it, were these "techniques" used on them, or not!


Conditioning Killers in the Military. On the training bases of the major armies of the world nations struggle to turn teenagers into killers. The "struggle" for the mind of the soldier is a loopsided one: armies have had thousands of years to develop their craft, and their subjects have had fewer than two decades of life experience. It is a basically honest, age-old, reciprocal process, especially in today's all-volunteer U.S. army. The soldier intuitively understands what he or she is getting into and generally tries to cooperate by "playing the game" and constraining his or her own individuality and adolescent enthusiasm, and the army systematically wields the resources and technology of a nation to empower and equip the soldier to kill and survive on the battlefield. Operant conditioning is a higher form of learning than classical conditioning. It was pioneered by B.F. Skinner and is usually associated with learning experiments on pigeons and rats. The traditional image of a rat in a Skinner box, learning to press a bar in order to get food pallets, comes from Skinner's research in this field. Skinner rejected the Freudian and humanist theories of personality development and held that all behavior is a result of past rewards and punishments. To him the child is a tabula rasa, a "blank slate," who can be turned into anything provided sufficient control of the child's environment is instituted at an early enough age.

Instead of firing at a bull's-eye target, the modern soldier fires at man-shaped silhouettes that pop up for brief periods of time inside a designated firing lane. The soldiers learn that have only a brief second to engage the target, and if they do it properly their behavior is immediately reinforced when the target falls down. If he knocks downs enough targets, the soldier gets a marksmanship badge and usually a three-day pass. After training on rifle ranges in this manner, an automatic conditioned response called automaticity sets in, and the soldier then becomes conditioned to respond to the appropriate stimulus in the desired manner. This process may seem simple, basic, and obvious, but there is evidence to indicate that it is one of key ingredients in a methodology that has raised the firing rate from 15-20% in World War II to 90-95% in Vietnam. On the other hand, you have arcade video games. A game with a western motif is that in which you stand before a huge video screen and fire a pistol at actual film footage of "outlaws" as they appear on the screen. This is identical to the shoot-no shoot training program designed by the FBI and used by police agencies around the nation to train and enable police officers in firing their weapons.

Social Learning and Role Models. There is a third level of learning that pretty much only primates and humans are capable of, and that is what is called social learning. This third level of learning, in its most powerful form, revolves primarily around the observation and imitation of a role model. Vicarious Reinforcement: you see the role model being reinforced in a manner that you can experience vicariously. Similarity to the Learner: you perceive that the role model has a key trait that makes him or her similar to you. Social Power: the role model has the power to reward (but does not necessarily do so). Status Envy: you envy the role model's receipt of rewards from others. The drill sergeant is a role model, the ultimate role model.

Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Figaro on January 09, 2012, 06:00:31 PM

figurati - don't get me started with all the * & ^ % they call "science," and that they claim that it "works." Take a look at this other post - it talks about "conditioning," role models" and the like that they use in the military to train soldiers to kill in battle. Now, anyone with a brain can figure it out that those young, naive guys who enlist in the military know what they will be asked to do, and that they would do it, were these "techniques" used on them, or not!


Literally insane, decline!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: that guest on January 30, 2012, 06:57:50 PM
When people think of "fraternities" they think they're all about binge drinking, partying, and hazing at local frat houses. But P.A.D. is a *professional* co-ed fraternity - which is totally different from your mom and pop frat societies.
Title: Re: 'Something' Better than 'Nothing'!
Post by: Country Day on February 10, 2012, 04:38:29 PM

I guess no one. I mean, this "body language" thing is complete bulls h i t - I know that it's being relied on a lot, by a hell of a lot of LE pros, but they KNOW deep down themselves that that's just not true (that they can actually tell if one's lying using the "behavioral cues" they elicit in their suspects)


When you say "behavioral cues" you mean, like, the subject looked down, or avoided eye contact, stuff like that?
Title: Re: Non-Verbal Leakage
Post by: pobis on February 14, 2012, 01:19:31 PM

Law professors won't do much overtly, they engage in subtle violence. Often, when we think of violence, we think of the very overt, loud, obvious kind — primarily physical violence, but also in the form of "over the top," very loud, confrontational (and frightening) yelling, screaming or threatening.

But there is also a more subtle and insidious form of "word violence," and this occurs much more frequently because it "goes under the radar" and masks itself as "normal." While it can be easily dismissed or overlooked because of its quieter presentation, it can do serious damage none-the-less, by

1) creating stress
2) fostering oppression
3) deflating motivation
4) curtailing creativity
5) eventually leading the way to more overt forms of violence.

In individual interactions, one who uses the power of words in subtly violent ways may be doing so consciously, in a purposeful effort to manipulate, or unconsciously, out of his or her "unexamined Shadow." Examples of subtle "word violence" can show up as malicious gossip, passive-aggression, purposeful withholding, inconsistency, incivility, and bullying, to name a few.

[...]

Withholding draws its power from the imprinting of an authoritarian system, in which people have been trained by more overt communications — including body language — so that ultimately the overt words or facial/body expression are no longer needed in order for the person in the perceived position of authority to manipulate the situation to his or her advantage. [...]


Some parts of the body can be controlled more than others. The easy parts to discipline are those parts whose actions we are most aware of in everyday signaling. [...] The legs and feet are of particular interest because this is the part of the body where people are least aware of what they are doing. [...] Legs and feet are a vital give-away area.


Here it is a very interesting post on "body language" lying kind of thing!
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: e l i on February 25, 2012, 04:11:26 PM

After a verbose preamble, which among other things informs you helpfully that "behavior becomes unacceptable when it infringes on the rights of others," the  Code of Conduct of the Public Library of the city where I live provides thirty-one examples of unacceptable conduct. These examples can be sorted into five general categories:

1. Highly site-specific regulations (i.e., "Eating or Drinking," "Overcrowding at Study Tables or Carrels (limit of 4 per study table").
2. Behavior associated with street people ("Bathing/Washing Clothes," "Lack of Shoes or Shirt," "Loitering including refusal to leave at closing").
3. Behavior evincing failures of basic acculturation mechanisms ("Obscene Language," "Body Odor/Perfume/Cologne (Excessive) which Elicits General Complaint or Causes Discomfort to Other Library Users," "Excessive Public Displays of Affection").
4. General criminal behavior ("Theft," "Gambling" "Physical, Sexual or Verbal Abuse or Harassment of Library Users or Staff").
5. Criminalized behavior associated with mental illness or substance abuse ("Exhibitionism/Flashing," "Visible Drug or Alcohol Intoxication," "Voyeurism/Peeping").

[...]

[...] How well does this theory apply to a typical piece of modern bureaucratic regulation? Or the types of behavior the library code prohibits, you might note that only those listed in the first category can be thought to convey useful information to any minimally socialized member of the community. There could be a real reason as to whether you're allowed to bring a bag of pretzels into the library, but do you really require "notice" that you can't snatch purses, expose yourself to patrons, do your laundry in the bathroom, or play high-stakes poker in the reference area? Suppose you hadn't been given notice of any of these things; does it follow you're free to claim as a defense insufficient publicity on the part of the state?

Can there be any non-psychotic person of minimally functional intelligence who would suppose that any of the things on this list, other than those dealt with in the most site-specific regulations, were not prohibited? [...] So here we seem to be faced with a wholly superfluous invocation of legal rules: rules that merely reflect tacit social understandings that themselves have no apparent need to be cast into a public legal text.

[...]

Posting a public notice of the unacceptability of theft, or of exhibitionism, or of physical and sexual abuse, is very much like passing yet another law providing still more penalties for the sale of already illegal drugs. Such actions represent our legal culture's equivalent to the practice of nailing garlic over doorways to repel vampires. In each case a psychological imperative born of a sense of lack of control, and of the fear and anxiety this sensation produces, demands of us that we "do something." Those same factors then lead us to do things that appear in the cold light of rational analysis to be almost wholly irrational.


Funny I read the other day a joke - it kinda illustrates what's talked about here:

Little Johnny is riding a bike to the street corner and he sees a cop riding a horse. The cop asks "Did Santa give you that bike?" and Johnny replies "Yes!" so the cop hands him over a ticket and says, "Here, next year, tell Santa to put lights on it!"

Johnny gets annoyed and asks "Did Santa give you that horse?" The cop plays along by telling him "Yes!" and Johnny tells him "Next year, tell him the d i c k goes under the horse, not on top of it!" and rides off on his bike.
Title: Re: Mauvaise Foi
Post by: c o l o m b u s on February 29, 2012, 05:04:01 PM
Quote
Quote

[...]

[...] Sartre calls it "bad faith" when you deny the concept of free will by lying to yourself about your self and freedom. This can take many forms, from convincing yourself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where you act as "you should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm. This does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is bad faith: The main point is the attitude you takes to your own freedom, and the extent to which you act in accordance with this freedom. A sign of bad faith can be something like the denial of responsibility for something you have done on the grounds that you just did "as one does" or that your genes determined you to do as you did. Lying to yourself might appear impossible or contradictory. Sartre denies the subconscious the power to do this, and he claims that the person who is lying to himself has to be aware that he is lying - that he isn't determined, or this "thing" he makes himself out to be.


[...] Sartre indeed derides those who act out roles: bourgeoisie with their comfortable sense of 'duty', homosexuals who pretend to be heterosexuals, peeping Toms who get caught in the act of spying and, most famously of all, waiters who rush about. All of these, he says, are slaves to other people's perceptions - 'the Other'. They are exhibiting mauvaise foi -- 'bad faith'. He emphasizes what is not over what is, the latter being a rather humdrum sort of affair consisting of the kind of things that scientists examine, while the 'what is not' is really much more interesting. [...] And hence, we come back to our own natures, our own 'essences'. We exist, yes, but how do we 'define ourselves'? It is here that the waiter comes in:

Quote
His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the hand and arm

This spotlight on 'consciousness' is what made Sartre's name. But, curiously enough [...] his lifelong intellectual confidante and companion Simone de Beauvoir, also describes various kinds of consciousness, in passages ranging from wandering through an empty theater (the stage, the walls, the chairs, unable to come alive until there is an audience) [...] As well as this one:

Quote
It's impossible to believe that other people are conscious beings, aware of their own inward feelings, as we ourselves are aware of our own," said Françoise. "To me, it's terrifying when we grasp that. We get the impression of no longer being anything but a fragment of someone else's mind."

[...] Now who's showing bad faith? Sartre or the waiter?

[...] Truly it is itself a philosophical tale. On the one hand there is the well-known plot of Sartre the womanizer who denies the dutiful Beauvoir the marriage in order to preserve his 'existential freedom'. On the other, and much less known, is the factual history recorded in their letters to one another. This records that, in 1930, Sartre proposed marriage to Beauvoir. She was aghast at this, both for the conventionality of the proposal, and for the conventionality of Sartre's assumptions, and it was she who insisted instead that if they were to spend their years together she wanted to be able to continue to have other relationships (with both male and female lovers).

[...] back to the waiter. Now I've observed waiters too. They often need to perform tasks quickly, for a practical reason, not an optional one related to their 'false consciousness'. The job is skilled -- demanding more than demeaning [...]


That's what happens when people sit all day long in a coffee shop - they would, of course, have nothing else to do but watch waiters come and go!


pobis, that's not the point - I guess the philosopher (Sartre) has chosen the waiter as the better representative of the people who kind of "act" - as you can see from the post there are others he could have commented on and examined in the level of detail they he's doing the "waiter."
Title: Re: Join PAD Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: bologna on March 04, 2012, 04:52:05 PM
Quote
Quote

[...]

The hypertrophied rationalism of American law is a product of trying too hard to be good: of failing to accept that law is always a somewhat crude and potentially destructive social steering mechanism, that works best when it remains a tacit presence in the social background. Instead Americans insist on subjecting themselves to a dictatorship of the bureaucratic: one in which the answer to every important social conflict inevitably involves more rules and procedures, more rights and obligations, more "reasons" and "principled justifications" given in the course of constructing ever-more complex analytic and rhetorical circles for choosing to do this rather than that -- in brief, more law.

The excesses of American rule of ideology are in large part enabled by our unwillingness to accept that reason, when properly employed, works to make its further employment superfluous. Reason, that is, works ironically toward its own effacement. [...] Outside a legal equilibrium zone law tends to be both an invisible and a powerful factor in the maintenance of social cohesion. By contrast within such a zone the inevitable contradictions in the legal rules such situations produce are clearly visible, and as a consequence the rules themselves are rendered relatively useless. Faced with such legal and social contradictions, we can not decide efficiently processed legal disputes on the basis of "reason". We merely decide.

The essential fallacy of legal rationalism is thus to think that what works well in moderation will work even better in large doses. So deep is this belief that when the more extreme manifestations of legal reason fail altogether we tend to manifest a willful blindness to this failure, or we undertake what soon become perverse efforts to perfect systems of rules that, by the nature of the problems they address, can't be perfected. When neither of these strategies work we do what courts often do and simply indulge in magical thinking, assuming, of course, e.g., that because a court ends its opinion with the phrase "it is so ordered," "it" is both going to happen, and to produce a series of predictable social effects.

[...] American law, that is, may well find itself betrayed by its own overweening pride in having succeeded in its quest to bring so much of American life under its sway. As a consequence of the legal system's increasing tendency to deny the true nature of its crucial but relatively modest role as a social coordination and dispute processing mechanism, our law is becoming so elaborate, so hypertrophied, so pointlessly complex, and hence so unnecessarily expensive that alternate modes of getting from here to there on the social map are already springing up all around us. [...] And of course various militant ideologies of the far right serve as disconcerting reminders of how considerably more radical forms of dissent against what is called the rule of law are already simmering.

Like the donkey of the fable who starves to death because he is exactly equidistant from two stacks of hay and therefore can't decide rationally to which stack he should go, we demand dispositive reasons for choosing where there are none. Less principled than the ass, we than "discover" -- at great fiscal and psychological expense -- some answer that must be arrived at more or less arbitrarily, while still insisting that this particular outcome was impelled by the law, or legal principles, or reason itself.


Here it is an interesting post on Americans in general - the way they think, behave and the like - very much in consonance with the prevailing ideology described in the above post. Couldn't be otherwise, after all, America's "philosophy" and ideology was fashioned after of the French Revolution's Illuminism.

Quote

In casual conversation (called "small talk"), Americans prefer to talk about the weather, sports, jobs, people they both know, or past experiences, especially ones they have in common.  As they grow up, most US citizens are warned not to discuss politics or religion, at least not with people they do not know rather well, because politics and religion are considered controversial topics. By contrast, people in some other cultures are taught to believe that politics and/or religion are good conversation topics, and they may have different ideas about what topics are too "personal" to discuss with others.

The ideal among Americans is to be somewhat verbally adept, speaking in moderate tones. They are generally taught to believe in the "scientific method" of understanding the world around them, as if there is some kind of "truth" about people and nature that can be discovered by means of "objective" inquiry. People from some other countries might pay more attention to the emotional content or the human feeling aspects of a message, without assuming the existence of an "objective truth."

The result is that Americans are likely to view a very articulate person with suspicion. This is because Americans are not intellectually capable of anything more than simple talk. The conclusion that Americans are intellectually inferior is logically reached when you also consider the fact that Americans do not regard argument as a favorite form of interaction. What US citizens regard favorably as "keeping cool" -- that is, not being drawn into an argument, not raising the voice, looking always for the "facts" is nothing else but coldness and lack of humanness.


pobis, not surprisingly, here I find another post describing a bit the American mentality, stressing on the Puritan/Calvinist inheritance as well:

Quote

[...] The Puritan mind reasons: "Well of course the witch doesn't want to be saved from her own evil. That's why we must save her from herself by burning her at the stake." Sounds absurd, but that American major said after the destruction of the village of Ben Tre in Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." A true Puritan there. [...] Think Fallujah. We're burning the country at the stake. It's a form of mental illness, but it's a sickness we all accept as normal.

Terrorism is the latest encounter of the Puritan mind with the irrational, and the traditional Islamic culture that promotes it will just have to be destroyed to save it. World politics will be so much more hygienic once we exterminate the vermin. [...] A key element in understanding the Calvinist mentality is its need for control and its willingness to use whatever level of violence necessary to repress the "irrational" elements in human experience, and the pre-modern in the Puritan demonology is full of irrational images triggering fears in need of suppression—magic, witches, Catholic ritual, shifty Jews, hot-tempered Italians, voodoo practicing Africans, the savage Indian.

Theirs is a tight, priggish, white-bread, control-obsessed world, sterilized of anything that suggests mystery, transcendence, or the non-rational in general. The Puritans and their Calvinist cousins the Scotch Irish, of course, didn't invent priggishness, nor are they, obviously, the only ones in the history of humanity who have justified the violent repression of their enemies for religious reasons. But theirs is the peculiarly modern form for the religious persecution of the enemy, and it lingers in Anglo-American culture, and is so much in the cultural air we breathe that we cannot see it clearly. At the very heart of modern "religiosity," whether in its Calvinist or its more secular versions, is fear of the uncontrollable non-rational.

The American right's fear of communism/socialism is more akin to the Islamic fear of modernity, which is the fear of an uncontrollable future. If fascism derives its mystique from a mythological past, communism derives it from a mythologized future. Progressives look to the future.  Conservatives look to the past. Progressives distrust the past and its pre-modern irrationality; Conservatives distrust those who look to the future with an irrational utopianism. Progressivism is experiencing hard times these days because during a culturally decadent period like the one we're currently suffering through, we don't know what to hope for.  We have only the weakest sense of plausible future possibility.  We are capable of seeing the future only as a variation on 'more of the same', and that is not a vision that inspires concerted action. [...]

Title: Re: Mauvaise Foi
Post by: stayover on March 08, 2012, 01:14:33 PM
Quote
Quote

[...]

[...] Sartre calls it "bad faith" when you deny the concept of free will by lying to yourself about your self and freedom. This can take many forms, from convincing yourself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where you act as "you should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm. This does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is bad faith: The main point is the attitude you takes to your own freedom, and the extent to which you act in accordance with this freedom. A sign of bad faith can be something like the denial of responsibility for something you have done on the grounds that you just did "as one does" or that your genes determined you to do as you did. Lying to yourself might appear impossible or contradictory. Sartre denies the subconscious the power to do this, and he claims that the person who is lying to himself has to be aware that he is lying - that he isn't determined, or this "thing" he makes himself out to be.


[...] Sartre indeed derides those who act out roles: bourgeoisie with their comfortable sense of 'duty', homosexuals who pretend to be heterosexuals, peeping Toms who get caught in the act of spying and, most famously of all, waiters who rush about. All of these, he says, are slaves to other people's perceptions - 'the Other'. They are exhibiting mauvaise foi -- 'bad faith'. He emphasizes what is not over what is, the latter being a rather humdrum sort of affair consisting of the kind of things that scientists examine, while the 'what is not' is really much more interesting. [...] And hence, we come back to our own natures, our own 'essences'. We exist, yes, but how do we 'define ourselves'? It is here that the waiter comes in:

Quote
His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the hand and arm

This spotlight on 'consciousness' is what made Sartre's name. But, curiously enough [...] his lifelong intellectual confidante and companion Simone de Beauvoir, also describes various kinds of consciousness, in passages ranging from wandering through an empty theater (the stage, the walls, the chairs, unable to come alive until there is an audience) [...] As well as this one:

Quote
It's impossible to believe that other people are conscious beings, aware of their own inward feelings, as we ourselves are aware of our own," said Françoise. "To me, it's terrifying when we grasp that. We get the impression of no longer being anything but a fragment of someone else's mind."

[...] Now who's showing bad faith? Sartre or the waiter?

[...] Truly it is itself a philosophical tale. On the one hand there is the well-known plot of Sartre the womanizer who denies the dutiful Beauvoir the marriage in order to preserve his 'existential freedom'. On the other, and much less known, is the factual history recorded in their letters to one another. This records that, in 1930, Sartre proposed marriage to Beauvoir. She was aghast at this, both for the conventionality of the proposal, and for the conventionality of Sartre's assumptions, and it was she who insisted instead that if they were to spend their years together she wanted to be able to continue to have other relationships (with both male and female lovers).

[...] back to the waiter. Now I've observed waiters too. They often need to perform tasks quickly, for a practical reason, not an optional one related to their 'false consciousness'. The job is skilled -- demanding more than demeaning [...]


That's what happens when people sit all day long in a coffee shop - they would, of course, have nothing else to do but watch waiters come and go!


pobis, that's not the point - I guess the philosopher (Sartre) has chosen the waiter as the better representative of the people who kind of "act" - as you can see from the post there are others he could have commented on and examined in the level of detail they he's doing the "waiter."


How about actors? Couldn't he have chosen the actor to describe for us this "unauthenticity" thing?!

Just a suggestion, yanno!
Title: Re: Mauvaise Foi
Post by: Tahiri on March 09, 2012, 04:39:51 PM
Quote

[...] Sartre indeed derides those who act out roles: bourgeoisie with their comfortable sense of 'duty', homosexuals who pretend to be heterosexuals, peeping Toms who get caught in the act of spying and, most famously of all, waiters who rush about. All of these, he says, are slaves to other people's perceptions - 'the Other'. They are exhibiting mauvaise foi -- 'bad faith'. He emphasizes what is not over what is, the latter being a rather humdrum sort of affair consisting of the kind of things that scientists examine, while the 'what is not' is really much more interesting. [...] And hence, we come back to our own natures, our own 'essences'. We exist, yes, but how do we 'define ourselves'? It is here that the waiter comes in:

Quote
His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the hand and arm

This spotlight on 'consciousness' is what made Sartre's name. But, curiously enough [...] his lifelong intellectual confidante and companion Simone de Beauvoir, also describes various kinds of consciousness, in passages ranging from wandering through an empty theater (the stage, the walls, the chairs, unable to come alive until there is an audience) [...] As well as this one:

Quote
It's impossible to believe that other people are conscious beings, aware of their own inward feelings, as we ourselves are aware of our own," said Françoise. "To me, it's terrifying when we grasp that. We get the impression of no longer being anything but a fragment of someone else's mind."

[...] Now who's showing bad faith? Sartre or the waiter?

[...] Truly it is itself a philosophical tale. On the one hand there is the well-known plot of Sartre the womanizer who denies the dutiful Beauvoir the marriage in order to preserve his 'existential freedom'. On the other, and much less known, is the factual history recorded in their letters to one another. This records that, in 1930, Sartre proposed marriage to Beauvoir. She was aghast at this, both for the conventionality of the proposal, and for the conventionality of Sartre's assumptions, and it was she who insisted instead that if they were to spend their years together she wanted to be able to continue to have other relationships (with both male and female lovers).

[...] back to the waiter. Now I've observed waiters too. They often need to perform tasks quickly, for a practical reason, not an optional one related to their 'false consciousness'. The job is skilled -- demanding more than demeaning [...]


That's what happens when people sit all day long in a coffee shop - they would, of course, have nothing else to do but watch waiters come and go!


pobis, that's not the point - I guess the philosopher (Sartre) has chosen the waiter as the better representative of the people who kind of "act" - as you can see from the post there are others he could have commented on and examined in the level of detail they he's doing the "waiter."


How about actors? Couldn't he have chosen the actor to describe for us this "inauthenticity" thing?!

Just a suggestion, yanno!


That would be too obvious - I mean, of course, actors are "acting" - don't you think?!
Title: Re: Mauvaise Foi - Ironic Distance
Post by: Romina on March 10, 2012, 04:39:11 PM
Quote

[...] Sartre indeed derides those who act out roles: bourgeoisie with their comfortable sense of 'duty', homosexuals who pretend to be heterosexuals, peeping Toms who get caught in the act of spying and, most famously of all, waiters who rush about. All of these, he says, are slaves to other people's perceptions - 'the Other'. They are exhibiting mauvaise foi -- 'bad faith'. He emphasizes what is not over what is, the latter being a rather humdrum sort of affair consisting of the kind of things that scientists examine, while the 'what is not' is really much more interesting. [...] And hence, we come back to our own natures, our own 'essences'. We exist, yes, but how do we 'define ourselves'? It is here that the waiter comes in:

Quote
His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the hand and arm

This spotlight on 'consciousness' is what made Sartre's name. But, curiously enough [...] his lifelong intellectual confidante and companion Simone de Beauvoir, also describes various kinds of consciousness, in passages ranging from wandering through an empty theater (the stage, the walls, the chairs, unable to come alive until there is an audience) [...] As well as this one:

Quote
It's impossible to believe that other people are conscious beings, aware of their own inward feelings, as we ourselves are aware of our own," said Françoise. "To me, it's terrifying when we grasp that. We get the impression of no longer being anything but a fragment of someone else's mind."

[...] Now who's showing bad faith? Sartre or the waiter?

[...] Truly it is itself a philosophical tale. On the one hand there is the well-known plot of Sartre the womanizer who denies the dutiful Beauvoir the marriage in order to preserve his 'existential freedom'. On the other, and much less known, is the factual history recorded in their letters to one another. This records that, in 1930, Sartre proposed marriage to Beauvoir. She was aghast at this, both for the conventionality of the proposal, and for the conventionality of Sartre's assumptions, and it was she who insisted instead that if they were to spend their years together she wanted to be able to continue to have other relationships (with both male and female lovers).

[...] back to the waiter. Now I've observed waiters too. They often need to perform tasks quickly, for a practical reason, not an optional one related to their 'false consciousness'. The job is skilled -- demanding more than demeaning [...]


That's what happens when people sit all day long in a coffee shop - they would, of course, have nothing else to do but watch waiters come and go!


pobis, that's not the point - I guess the philosopher (Sartre) has chosen the waiter as the better representative of the people who kind of "act" - as you can see from the post there are others he could have commented on and examined in the level of detail they he's doing the "waiter."


How about actors? Couldn't he have chosen the actor to describe for us this "inauthenticity" thing?!

Just a suggestion, yanno!


That would be too obvious - I mean, of course, actors are "acting" - don't you think?!


Funny that you mention this Mauvaise Foi thing, Tahiri - or whoever started with it at the beginning

I'm sure you all remember the famous Café de Flore in Paris where Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus used to hang out together. And then, all of a sudden, there's this split; over fundamental issues, I tend to believe.

There's actually a post on the "Asylum" thread by CoQ10 dealing a lil' bit with the particular differences between the two (I can't quote it directly, for reasons that we are all aware by now). 

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3003617.msg5215615#msg5215615

You see, Sartre was complaining why people couldn't properly be what they choose to be, deploring any kind of "acting" on their part, and wanted them to be truthful to the core, so  to speak.

Camus, on the other side, came a little by little, to believe that basically people can (but not necessarily so, as Sartre maintained) create meaning in their lives, and thus have something for which to strive in life.

As both believe that there's no such thing as "meaning," or "value" in life, the whole point of debate is as to whether the pursuit of the "constructed" meaning (on the part of man) is a futile gesture or not. Sartre is dead serious about it, as you read above.

But Camus, introduces a quite curious term, he says that whatever people do, they should take care that they don't overdo it, or fully identify with that thing they're doing. According to him, they must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd (otherwise one runs the risk of losing from one's perspective what one's really is, beginning to think they really stand for this invented, fictitious meaning they've themselves constructed).
Title: Re:
Post by: garçon on March 11, 2012, 07:47:37 PM
Quote

[...] Sartre indeed derides those who act out roles: bourgeoisie with their comfortable sense of 'duty', homosexuals who pretend to be heterosexuals, peeping Toms who get caught in the act of spying and, most famously of all, waiters who rush about. All of these, he says, are slaves to other people's perceptions - 'the Other'. They are exhibiting mauvaise foi -- 'bad faith'. He emphasizes what is not over what is, the latter being a rather humdrum sort of affair consisting of the kind of things that scientists examine, while the 'what is not' is really much more interesting. [...] And hence, we come back to our own natures, our own 'essences'. We exist, yes, but how do we 'define ourselves'? It is here that the waiter comes in:

Quote
His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the hand and arm

This spotlight on 'consciousness' is what made Sartre's name. But, curiously enough [...] his lifelong intellectual confidante and companion Simone de Beauvoir, also describes various kinds of consciousness, in passages ranging from wandering through an empty theater (the stage, the walls, the chairs, unable to come alive until there is an audience) [...] As well as this one:

[...] Now who's showing bad faith? Sartre or the waiter?

[...] Truly it is itself a philosophical tale. On the one hand there is the well-known plot of Sartre the womanizer who denies the dutiful Beauvoir the marriage in order to preserve his 'existential freedom'. On the other, and much less known, is the factual history recorded in their letters to one another. This records that, in 1930, Sartre proposed marriage to Beauvoir. She was aghast at this, both for the conventionality of the proposal, and for the conventionality of Sartre's assumptions, and it was she who insisted instead that if they were to spend their years together she wanted to be able to continue to have other relationships (with both male and female lovers).

[...] back to the waiter. Now I've observed waiters too. They often need to perform tasks quickly, for a practical reason, not an optional one related to their 'false consciousness'. The job is skilled -- demanding more than demeaning [...]


Funny that you mention this Mauvaise Foi thing, Tahiri - or whoever started with it at the beginning

I'm sure you all remember the famous Café de Flore in Paris where Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus used to hang out together. And then, all of a sudden, there's this split; over fundamental issues, I tend to believe.

There's actually a post on the "Asylum" thread by CoQ10 dealing a lil' bit with the particular differences between the two (I can't quote it directly, for reasons that we are all aware by now). 

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3003617.msg5215615#msg5215615

You see, Sartre was complaining why people couldn't properly be what they choose to be, deploring any kind of "acting" on their part, and wanted them to be truthful to the core, so  to speak.

Camus, on the other side, came a little by little, to believe that basically people can (but not necessarily so, as Sartre maintained) create meaning in their lives, and thus have something for which to strive in life.

As both believe that there's no such thing as "meaning," or "value" in life, the whole point of debate is as to whether the pursuit of the "constructed" meaning (on the part of man) is a futile gesture or not. Sartre is dead serious about it, as you read above.

But Camus, introduces a quite curious term, he says that whatever people do, they should take care that they don't overdo it, or fully identify with that thing they're doing. According to him, they must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd (otherwise one runs the risk of losing from one's perspective what one's really is, beginning to think they really stand for this invented, fictitious meaning they've themselves constructed).


Take a look at this post - I deliberately chose it for the use of 'active' and 'passive' terms - please comment on, if you feel you've smth to say related to.

I am not passing judgment or anything like that here.

(http://s18.postimage.org/6o0i7qz6v/image.jpg)
Title: Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Merci on March 12, 2012, 01:34:53 PM
Nothing shows up, garcon?! Should have pasted its URL!
Title: Re: Join PAD Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: Lefka on March 16, 2012, 04:40:52 PM

After a verbose preamble, which among other things informs you helpfully that "behavior becomes unacceptable when it infringes on the rights of others," the  Code of Conduct of the Public Library of the city where I live provides thirty-one examples of unacceptable conduct. These examples can be sorted into five general categories:

1. Highly site-specific regulations (i.e., "Eating or Drinking," "Overcrowding at Study Tables or Carrels (limit of 4 per study table").
2. Behavior associated with street people ("Bathing/Washing Clothes," "Lack of Shoes or Shirt," "Loitering including refusal to leave at closing").
3. Behavior evincing failures of basic acculturation mechanisms ("Obscene Language," "Body Odor/Perfume/Cologne (Excessive) which Elicits General Complaint or Causes Discomfort to Other Library Users," "Excessive Public Displays of Affection").
4. General criminal behavior ("Theft," "Gambling" "Physical, Sexual or Verbal Abuse or Harassment of Library Users or Staff").
5. Criminalized behavior associated with mental illness or substance abuse ("Exhibitionism/Flashing," "Visible Drug or Alcohol Intoxication," "Voyeurism/Peeping").

[...]

[...] How well does this theory apply to a typical piece of modern bureaucratic regulation? Or the types of behavior the library code prohibits, you might note that only those listed in the first category can be thought to convey useful information to any minimally socialized member of the community. There could be a real reason as to whether you're allowed to bring a bag of pretzels into the library, but do you really require "notice" that you can't snatch purses, expose yourself to patrons, do your laundry in the bathroom, or play high-stakes poker in the reference area? Suppose you hadn't been given notice of any of these things; does it follow you're free to claim as a defense insufficient publicity on the part of the state?

Can there be any non-psychotic person of minimally functional intelligence who would suppose that any of the things on this list, other than those dealt with in the most site-specific regulations, were not prohibited? [...] So here we seem to be faced with a wholly superfluous invocation of legal rules: rules that merely reflect tacit social understandings that themselves have no apparent need to be cast into a public legal text.

[...]

Posting a public notice of the unacceptability of theft, or of exhibitionism, or of physical and sexual abuse, is very much like passing yet another law providing still more penalties for the sale of already illegal drugs. Such actions represent our legal culture's equivalent to the practice of nailing garlic over doorways to repel vampires. In each case a psychological imperative born of a sense of lack of control, and of the fear and anxiety this sensation produces, demands of us that we "do something." Those same factors then lead us to do things that appear in the cold light of rational analysis to be almost wholly irrational.


Funny I read the other day a joke - it kinda illustrates what's talked about here:

Little Johnny is riding a bike to the street corner and he sees a cop riding a horse. The cop asks "Did Santa give you that bike?" and Johnny replies "Yes!" so the cop hands him over a ticket and says, "Here, next year, tell Santa to put lights on it!"

Johnny gets annoyed and asks "Did Santa give you that horse?" The cop plays along by telling him "Yes!" and Johnny tells him "Next year, tell him the d i c k goes under the horse, not on top of it!" and rides off on his bike.


Hahaha eli - you're so funny - I have read a slightly different version of the joke though - anyway!
Title: Re: Join PAD Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: b e ç k a on March 21, 2012, 01:30:02 PM
I can also see 'WTP" has made an interesting post on the other closed thread. Here it is, along with the link.

Quote
Quote

[...]

There are, however, other ways that similar types of defenses against the homosexual self-label can be articulated. These males to be "homophobic, gay-bashing hoodlums who pick up or are picked up by a gay male, have sex with him, and they exorcise their own homosexual guilt by assaulting and maybe killing him. The "exorcist syndrome" which is a version of the "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" nature manifested by people like Cardinal Spellman and Roy Cohn. The phenomena is also similar to a "split personality" situation. One of the personalities is "the grand inquisitor," as McCarthy and Cohn had become in a spectacular way, and it needs to punish the homosexual part of their 'personality'. This internal war is also projected outward causing these socially created monsters to harm other gay males by ruining their careers or, as other males will do, punishing them may include physical assaults and even murder.

[...]

Here's another parallel from poster maj:

Quote

[...] The "grandiosity gap" - the painful and narcissistically injurious gap between their grandiose fantasies and their dreary and humiliating reality - becomes emotionally insupportable. They decompensate and act out. [...] Unbeknownst to them, they seek self punishment. They are at heart suicidal. [...] This is called "projective identification". They attribute evil and corruption to their enemies and foes. These forms of paranoia are called projection and splitting. These are all primitive, infantile, and often persecutory, defence mechanisms.

When coupled with narcissism - the inability to empathize, the exploitativeness, the sense of entitlement, the rages, the dehumanization and devaluation of others - this mindset yields abysmal contempt for the narcissist's victims. The overriding emotion of terrorists and serial killers, the amalgam and culmination of their tortured psyche - is deep seated disdain for everything human, the flip side of envy. It is cognitive dissonance gone amok. [...] To justify this apparent contradiction, the mass murderer casts himself as an altruistic savior of a group of people "endangered" by his foes. [...]

[...] Their cosmic significance is daily sustained by newspaper headlines, ever increasing bounties, admiring copycats, successful acts of blackmail, the strength and size of their opponents, and the devastation of human life and property. Appeasement works only to aggravate their drives and strengthen their appetites by emboldening them and by raising the threshold of excitation and "narcissistic supply". Terrorists and killers are addicted to this drug of being acknowledged and reflected. They derive their sense of existence, parasitically, from the reactions of their (often captive) audience.

Erich Fromm suggested that both Hitler and Stalin were narcissistic mass murderers. Hitler and Nazism are often portrayed as an apocalyptic and seismic break with European history. Yet the truth is that they were the culmination and reification of European history in the 19th century. Europe's annals of colonialism have prepared it for the range of phenomena associated with the Nazi regime - from industrial murder to racial theories, from slave labor to the forcible annexation of territory. [...] Moreover, Nazi Germany innovated by applying prevailing racial theories (usually reserved to non-whites) to the white race itself. It started with the Jews - a non-controversial proposition - but then expanded them to include "east European" whites, such as the Poles and the Russians. Germany was not alone in its malignant nationalism. [...] Nazism - and Fascism - were world ideologies, adopted enthusiastically in places as diverse as Iraq, Egypt, Norway, Latin America, and Britain. At the end of the 1930's, liberal capitalism, communism, and fascism (and its mutations) were locked in mortal battle of ideologies. [...]

[...]

What was the role of the Jews in all this? [...] The Jews constituted a perfect, easily identifiable, reification of all that was "wrong" with Europe. They were an old nation, they were eerily disembodied (without a territory), they were cosmopolitan, they were part of the establishment, they were "decadent", they were hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, they were different, they were narcissistic (felt and acted as morally superior), they were everywhere, they were defenseless, they were credulous, they were adaptable (and thus could be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They were the perfect hated father figure and parricide was in fashion.

[...]




http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002012.msg5399693#msg5399693
Title: Re: Join PAD Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: b e ç k a on March 21, 2012, 01:57:20 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote

Delusional Disorder is indeed horrible - I remember some years ago when my neighbor, a twenty-nine-years old male, approached the authorities (the police) and asked them for protection; he told them his life was in danger because of a group of individuals who were following and harassing him on a daily basis for over a year or so. His wife told the police no actual threat had been made by anyone. He was functioning rather satisfactorily in work and his social relations and did not appear to have any other complaints. The police believed him initially and had several people watch him for a time period, only to discover that no one was, in actuality, following the guy. He was referred for psychiatric evaluation and found to suffer from delusional disorder.


Hello zanna - here it is an interesting post on paranoia (delusional disorders)

Quote

[...]

A complex and pervasive issue for many paranoid people is the combination of sexual identity confusion, longings for same-sex closeness, and associated preoccupations with homosexuality. A connection between paranoia and homosexual preoccupations has been frequently noted by clinicians and has been confirmed by some empirical studies. Paranoid people, even the minority of them who have acted on homoerotic feelings, may regard the idea of same-sex attraction as upsetting to a degree that is scarcely imaginable to the non-paranoid. As the brief triumph of Nazism demonstrates, when paranoid trends are shared by a whole culture or subculture, the most horrific possibilities arise. The paranoid preoccupation with homosexuality has sometimes been explained as reflecting "unconscious homosexual impulses." This locution is misleading, in that it is not usually genital urges that stimulate homophobia; it is loneliness and the wish for a soulmate. Because as children we were comfortable with peers of the same sex before we became comfortable with opposite-sex peers, and because people of the same sex are more like us than people of the opposite sex, when we are withdrawn from everyone, we are attracted to someone of the same sex. Unfortunately, the patient becomes aware of this attraction, misinterprets it as homosexuality, and this sets off the defenses. In other words, at the core of the self-experience of paranoid poeple is a profound emotional isolation and need for a "consensual validation" from a "chum."





Lovdie - great that you've pointed us out to "boci"s post relating to the subject matter, but I am afraid s/he's putting it a bit mildly - the connection thing between the two, I mean - not sure where s/he's found the source/reference?
Title: Re: A Little Thing Called Gay
Post by: b e ç k a on March 21, 2012, 02:01:45 PM
Quote

bhut_jolokia, as you even say, many white-collar guys (and gals like yourself)  would show up in places where you'd not expect a lot of other white-collar people to be - however, I wanted to make an observation, which I think, is critical and unique to gay men specifically:
[...]

We like to think this is America, the land of the milk and the honey, where people are not afraid to stand up for who they really are. That we can say what we want (remember the First Amendment?!), and choose our sexual partners in quantities and qualities that we see fit. But that's just not true - it's the inherent American hypocrisy type of thing that makes people think it's this way, when in actuality, it's that much different!

Excuse my level of detail now, but are you aware of the straight/married men's paranoia? The kind of unhealthy paranoia that white-collar "straight" guys entertain, because of the way the society they're part of, expects them to be and behave?! These "straight" men will NEVER, EVER have a photo online. They talk for hours online, needing to be convinced, only to NEVER show up to meet anyone in person. They will play e-mail games wherein they'll send 15 messages back and forth and mysteriously STOP responding the moment they're asked to put up or shut up (they choose "shut up"). "Straight" men make a big deal out of telling you about their wives and girlfriends and how they are able to "get away" with it, which is what they actually do not.

They try to make you understand that they seek only "discrete" encounters and feel it necessary to ramble on for a good 45 minutes feeling you out to see if you have hidden cameras in your house and if you are taking down their license plate number, being afraid that you might be able to find out their personal information and rush over to his house when he's at work and his wife is home raising the babies to tell her all about his secret "life."

You've got to love how these "straight" men orgasm in less than 60 seconds, the minute they LOOK at a penis in real life. That sure is HOT! You've got to love how straight men tell you they have "no experience" and have only "sucked one cock." You've to actually look at these men, who are not sure who or what they are, and who are lacking in any sort of self-confidence whatsoever, pretending to be one thing and actually being something else.


Not only that, mauchly, but str8 men are so scared of being outed that they will do totally stupid things when caught doing this kind of thing - the local paper reported some time ago that the police arrested a man who's approaching gay men cruising in public bathrooms asking them for money pretending to be undercover store's security staff - he had scored many many times, although he never ever showed a bagde to the gay men he conned!


I was reading the other day the girl (Julie, I believe) who's asking in what country are you living - in America, honey, in America - where stuff like this, e.g., happens all the time, to many more people you'd like to believe to!

Here it is an interesting post by "applewasp" along the same lines:

Quote
Quote

Take Hitler: They say there is insufficient evidence that Hitler was an overt homosexual. But it seemed clear he had latent homosexual tendencies, and that he worried a lot about them. He was terribly concerned, for example, lest he give the impression of showing feminine traits - which, indeed, he did. A colleague of the himself-homosexual English diplomat and historian Sir Harold Nicolson, spoke of Hitler as being "the most profoundly feminine man that he had ever met, and that there were moments when he became almost effeminate."

Hitler also revealed fears of homosexuality by protesting so much that he had no feminine characteristics whatsoever. He was totally masculine - tough, hard, cold, ruthless, brutal. His tendency to think in terms of disjunctive stereotypes about men and women (strong, iron-willed, effective males vs. weak, emotional, incompetent female) is in itself revealing. Such thinking demonstrates a strong conflict and confusion between masculine and feminine natures. To him, sexual differences appeared as exaggerated and mutually exclusive opposites, as roles to be played, rather as natural attributes of human personality. In Hitler's case, as in Himmler's, the fantasized tough male role developed into sadism, murder and destruction.

The question of Hitler's latent homosexuality can also be approached indirectly. It can be stated with some confidence that Hitler must have had latent homosexual tendencies because he showed clear indications of paranoia. This does not mean that all homosexuals are paranoid, but it does mean that all paranoids have fears of homosexuality. The direct connection between homosexuality and paranoia was first noticed by Freud, who concluded that paranoia "invariably arises from an attempt to subdue an unduly powerful homosexual wish."

There is a terrifically strong need to deny homosexuality; the very thought of sexual contact with another man is "completely intolerable." Moreover, the need felt by a paranoid for approval is especially acute; his megalomania is in itself an expression of his need for proof that he is important. There is a high incidence of constipation in paranoid individuals. All paranoids have strong anal components, problems with order and cleanliness, and obsessions with purity and vice, as well as impurity and infections of others. Anal sadistic fantasies are directed towards the father, because he is seen as the rival for the mother's love; the intensity of the drive to be loved is supported mainly "by the intense need to neutralize and erotisize a tremendous hate." When the unconscious hate is so great, the attempt to erotisize it fails, and the individual turns to sadism.

While homosexual feeling and paranoid delusions may be in bitter conflict, both are, in a sense, dependent on each other and are defenses against one another. Thus, it seems quite possible that Hitler developed paranoid delusions, in part, to fight his homosexual feelings. As long as he persecuted and attacked homosexuals, he felt he was successfully combating his own inadmissible inclinations toward homosexuality.


Does the latter mean that, Hitler called, for instance, Jews homosexuals (allegedly undermining the manliness and and fighting spirit of the German people) in part to fight his unacceptable homosexual feelings? Or, that he judged so many other people as being inferior, lacking that perceived German "manliness" and "fighting spirit," as it was the case with Communists, liberals, gypsies, homosexuals, victims of warfare, etc?!

Distancing now a bit from the homosexual part of the equation, to fully address the paranoia one, we would have to add that when concocting the Jews conspiracy he mixed antisemitism and stereotypes of the Jews as Communists, as subversives and all kinds of other things - as a means to an end. Jews became a scapegoat for Germany's economic problems - enough to remind people of that conspiracy of "Jewish bankers" (Remember Fräulein Kost's line from "Cabaret," when asking, "If all the Jews are bankers, then how can they be Communists, too?")

A distinctive feature of Hitler's antisemitism was that it was formulated as conspiracy theory. For many, especially in Bavaria, this went hand in hand with the 'stab-in-the-back' theory, that is, with the view that Germany had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been brought down by liberal, socialist and Communist subversives on the home front. In other words, it was claimed that "the Jews had caused Germany's defeat in World War 1." Potentially, this made antisemitism explosive in Germany.

As we try to understand Holocaust, we'd have to also explain a bit the Darwinian biology of the time. There was a growing sense that there were those in society who were 'biologically' inferior and that for a 'fit' world to survive and thrive, those who were 'unfit' should be done away with. Instead of letting nature take its course, there was a unspoken sense that humans could take matters into their own hands. So when Hitler took power he started rounding all these people up. He used the Jews, Poles, gays, gypsies, Russians and mentally challenged people as slave labor and then started to annihilate them in gas chambers. He classed the above mentioned people as sub-human and basically in his Nazi world there was no place for the "sub-human", only the 'Aryans'.


http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002012.msg5398531#msg5398531
Title: Re: Join PADLegal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
Post by: b e ç k a on March 21, 2012, 02:06:51 PM
I can also see 'WTP" has made an interesting post on the other closed thread. Here it is, along with the link.

Quote
Quote

[...]

There are, however, other ways that similar types of defenses against the homosexual self-label can be articulated. These males to be "homophobic, gay-bashing hoodlums who pick up or are picked up by a gay male, have sex with him, and they exorcise their own homosexual guilt by assaulting and maybe killing him. The "exorcist syndrome" which is a version of the "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" nature manifested by people like Cardinal Spellman and Roy Cohn. The phenomena is also similar to a "split personality" situation. One of the personalities is "the grand inquisitor," as McCarthy and Cohn had become in a spectacular way, and it needs to punish the homosexual part of their 'personality'. This internal war is also projected outward causing these socially created monsters to harm other gay males by ruining their careers or, as other males will do, punishing them may include physical assaults and even murder.

[...]

Here's another parallel from poster maj:

Quote

[...] The "grandiosity gap" - the painful and narcissistically injurious gap between their grandiose fantasies and their dreary and humiliating reality - becomes emotionally insupportable. They decompensate and act out. [...] Unbeknownst to them, they seek self punishment. They are at heart suicidal. [...] This is called "projective identification". They attribute evil and corruption to their enemies and foes. These forms of paranoia are called projection and splitting. These are all primitive, infantile, and often persecutory, defence mechanisms.

When coupled with narcissism - the inability to empathize, the exploitativeness, the sense of entitlement, the rages, the dehumanization and devaluation of others - this mindset yields abysmal contempt for the narcissist's victims. The overriding emotion of terrorists and serial killers, the amalgam and culmination of their tortured psyche - is deep seated disdain for everything human, the flip side of envy. It is cognitive dissonance gone amok. [...] To justify this apparent contradiction, the mass murderer casts himself as an altruistic savior of a group of people "endangered" by his foes. [...]

[...] Their cosmic significance is daily sustained by newspaper headlines, ever increasing bounties, admiring copycats, successful acts of blackmail, the strength and size of their opponents, and the devastation of human life and property. Appeasement works only to aggravate their drives and strengthen their appetites by emboldening them and by raising the threshold of excitation and "narcissistic supply". Terrorists and killers are addicted to this drug of being acknowledged and reflected. They derive their sense of existence, parasitically, from the reactions of their (often captive) audience.

Erich Fromm suggested that both Hitler and Stalin were narcissistic mass murderers. Hitler and Nazism are often portrayed as an apocalyptic and seismic break with European history. Yet the truth is that they were the culmination and reification of European history in the 19th century. Europe's annals of colonialism have prepared it for the range of phenomena associated with the Nazi regime - from industrial murder to racial theories, from slave labor to the forcible annexation of territory. [...] Moreover, Nazi Germany innovated by applying prevailing racial theories (usually reserved to non-whites) to the white race itself. It started with the Jews - a non-controversial proposition - but then expanded them to include "east European" whites, such as the Poles and the Russians. Germany was not alone in its malignant nationalism. [...] Nazism - and Fascism - were world ideologies, adopted enthusiastically in places as diverse as Iraq, Egypt, Norway, Latin America, and Britain. At the end of the 1930's, liberal capitalism, communism, and fascism (and its mutations) were locked in mortal battle of ideologies. [...]

[...]

What was the role of the Jews in all this? [...] The Jews constituted a perfect, easily identifiable, reification of all that was "wrong" with Europe. They were an old nation, they were eerily disembodied (without a territory), they were cosmopolitan, they were part of the establishment, they were "decadent", they were hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, they were different, they were narcissistic (felt and acted as morally superior), they were everywhere, they were defenseless, they were credulous, they were adaptable (and thus could be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They were the perfect hated father figure and parricide was in fashion.

[...]




http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002012.msg5399693#msg5399693