Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - amarain

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
General Off-Topic Board / Poor Cindy Sheehan
« on: August 30, 2005, 06:35:17 PM »
I'm completely against the war and my heart absolutely breaks for her and her situation, but I think she's gone off the deep end, protesting the Blue Angels.

Can't guarantee that I'll be fast or fantastic, but I will read it. Send me a PM.

Law School Admissions / Did you get in without a diversity essay?
« on: August 30, 2005, 06:13:39 PM »
I'm looking at NYU's application, which says:
Optional: New York University School of Law seeks to enroll a student body from a broad spectrum of society, including members of groups underrepresented in the profession. Please indicate here any such groups in which you would include yourself:                                                                 
You are encouraged to attach a brief statement describing aspects of this identity that are relevant to your application.

For me, the answer is honestly no. I don't think that lower-middle class white women from Ivy League schools are particularly underrepresented in law. But is it going to look bad if I don't come up with some sort of answer to this? I feel like anything I come up with would be a stretch and come off sounding insincere.

Anyone know of people accepted who did not fill it out?

I think this pretty much sums it up:

Next Monday marks the 60th anniversary of America's victory in World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, America and its allies needed just three years and nine months to win the bloodiest war and defeat the gravest threat to freedom in human history.

What of our time? Nearly four years have passed since the Sept. 11 attacks—and we've not only yet to win the war on terror; we can't even decide what to call it.

What happened? In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, every American felt the same surge of patriotic anger their grandparents had felt 60 years earlier on Dec. 7. We were ready for four years of Liberty Bonds and Victory Gardens. Instead, over the last four years, our biggest collective sacrifice has been watching reality shows on television.

Sixty years ago, FDR summoned all Americans to do their part for the war effort. This year, the Bush White House summoned a Duke expert on wartime public opinion. The administration concluded that the way to maintain public support for a war is to keep telling the people we're winning. So much for that theory.

FDR and Harry Truman had a better way to maintain popular support for a war: actually winning it. That's a novel concept for Americans under the age of 50, who've been conditioned to believe that wars are won in an instant (like Grenada and the Gulf War), or drag on until the American people lose interest (like Vietnam and Iraq).

Thirty Days: Democrats sometimes criticize President Bush for being obsessed with the war on terror. His real problem is just the opposite: He's not obsessed enough. Bush is making history in August 2005 exactly the same way he did in August 2001: by taking a month off for vacation.

Unfortunately, the enemy is not on holiday. You won't see Osama bin Laden clearing brush outside his cave on the Pakistan border.

FDR worked himself to death during World War II. Woodrow Wilson did the same in World War I. George Bush is in no such danger.

If winning the war against radical totalitarianism were Bush's single-minded obsession, he'd listen to John McCain: Stop Washington from spending like drunken sailors, ask every American to give something back, and hire a defense secretary who stands up for his troops instead of blaming them.

It's no surprise that a national tragedy like September 11 would make the President feel a divine calling. It's harder to understand why, when the moment cries out for another FDR, Bush thought God was calling him to be Calvin Coolidge. ...

Here's part of an interview with the mother of the soldier who was killed in Iraq and who is now camping out outside Bush's ranch. Here's her account of meeting with the President shortly after losing her son:

SHEEHAN: I met with him, I think, about June 17th last year. It was about two and a half months after Casey had died. And it was me...

BLITZER: Was that a private meeting, just you and the president?

SHEEHAN: It was me and my family, my other three children and my husband.

BLITZER: What did you say... SHEEHAN: And we met with about 15 other -- about 15 other families were there also. But we got to -- he came in individually and met with each one of us individually.

BLITZER: And so, what did you say to him then?

SHEEHAN: It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, "So who are we honoring here?" He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him "him" or "he." He called him "your loved one."

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

Assuming this is true, it certainly confirms my suspicions about Bush: that he's an insensitive a-hole who couldn't care less about anyone but himself.

General Off-Topic Board / What is the point of marriage?
« on: June 28, 2005, 11:39:00 AM »
Why get married? What are the benefits and drawbacks of making it official? Why are men so scared of it, even if they're already in a serious, monogamous relationship? What's the point of having that piece of paper in modern society? Does that piece of paper mean anything by itself?

OK, discuss.

I think this is horrible. A huge step backward for the rights of private citizens.

General Off-Topic Board / Oprah turned away at Hermes
« on: June 23, 2005, 05:37:00 AM »
This wins my "give me a break" award of the week.

"Luxury store Hermes on Wednesday apologized to Oprah Winfrey for turning her away last week, saying that its Paris store was closed to set up for a public relations event when the talk show host stopped by."

My favorite part:

"Harpo Productions spokeswoman Michelle McIntyre said Winfrey "will discuss her 'crash moment' when her show returns from hiatus in September."

"Crash" is a film dealing with race relations. The phrase "crash moment" refers to situations where a party feels discriminated against on the basis of skin color."

Oh yes, how difficult it must be to be a black woman like Oprah and have to face the daily racism of luxury stores not cancelling their events and opening up the store for your private shopping...  ::)

General Off-Topic Board / Terror skills "not FBI priority"
« on: June 22, 2005, 06:45:21 PM »
Can someone please explain this to me?.

Now, I don't know about this particular case - maybe there were good reasons for this guy not to get promoted. But for the FBI director to flat out say that "leadership skills" (whatever that means!) are more important than actual counterterrorism and Middle Eastern knowledge is astounding.

"Mr Mueller also testified that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks he did not instruct his managers to ensure that agents with the most experience of counter-terrorism were put to work on the war on terror. "


Incidentally...why couldn't I find this story on CNN? Even Fox News reported it

From the Fox story (which, surprisingly, is even more damning!):

Mueller described his top anti-terror managers' knowledge of dealing with foreign governments, Middle East history, international terrorism and al-Qaida this way: "Helpful, not essential."


Law School Admissions / Feb 05' LSAT takers - fee waivers?
« on: June 16, 2005, 12:49:37 PM »
Anyone else take the LSAT in Feb '05 for admission in Fall of '06? I JUST realized today that my profile says 'entering in 2005' when I'm actually entering in 2006. Which might explain why I've only gotten fee waivers to apply this fall. But I'm still hoping to get some for next fall too, but I'm afraid I might fall through the cracks because schools will assume I've already entered. Anyone in this position?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10