Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - 2Lacoste

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
41
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Ask a Puerto Rican
« on: May 17, 2006, 01:03:23 PM »
¡Pregúnteme!


But I won't answer -- cuz as the Knight-Rider car so eloquently stated, "Puerto Ricans are lazy, Michael."

42
Black Law Student Discussion Board / globalization sucks ass
« on: May 11, 2006, 04:46:40 PM »
So I come to a new American bistro here in Harlem a couple of blocks from school.  Rumor has it they have Hefe-Weizen on tap.  I get here and the Indian owner takes ten minutes to get to me with only two other customers.  I ask for the Hefe-Weizen.  Five minutes late I notice the Mexican employee struggling to work the tap for a German Pilsner.  Full of foam, he brings me the pilsner.  I tell him I wanted hefe-weizen.  He doesn't understand.  I get up and point to the beer on the tap.  He insists that he poured that.  But this is a pilsner, I know my beers.   Someone needs to set Jose here straight sooner than later.  I explain that this is not hefe-weizen, hefe-weizen has a fruitier base and is often served with a slice of lemon.  He says okay and walks away.  He then returns with a plate of chopped up lime.  "lemon," he says.

f-ing globalization.

43
I wonder if this applies to Ivy Leauge Black men who use their schools to get them easy ass?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Do loose chicks sink dicks?

College men offered sex on a plate are reportedly having trouble getting hard. Do men really need to chase women down to get it up?

By Rebecca Traister

May 11, 2006 | There was a story in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601206_pf.html) on Sunday about a problem apparently facing a lot of men on college campuses: They're having a hard time getting hard. This isn't the first time I've heard reports of this in recent years, mostly from young women who assume, as I have assumed, that it's one of the costs of living in a world with antidepressants. Those sexual side effects are no joke. Then, of course, there is the rise in campus binge drinking, which has, since time began, sometimes resulted in a condition popularly known as "beer male private part."

It's a really valid and compelling issue. The fact that young guys are having a rough time with erectile dysfunction is well worth investigating and I was happy to see a long reported piece about it in the Post. But imagine my surprise at learning that antidepressants, alcohol and stress aren't the real story here. (They get mentioned several paragraphs into the piece, along with explanations like anxiety, recreational drug use and overconsumption of Red Bull, so as not to rob the piece of its backlash-y punch.) No, according to the Washington Post, the factor that's making boys go limp is ... (drum roll) ... women who want to have sex with them! That's right, folks. Apparently nothing can make a dude lose a stiffie like the feeling that a girl is horny. You following? No, me neither. But here's how the story, by Laura Sessions Stepp, lays it out.

First, she writes about Adam Skrodzki, a senior at the University of Maryland who, along with his fellow on-the-record interviewees, gets a big medal for bravery in the service of ethical journalism for allowing his name to be used in this piece. Anyway, Adam "bench-presses a respectable 280 pounds. He fights fires in Howard County as a volunteer and plans to join the Secret Service in the fall. In short, he's a man's man." And therefore, we are supposed to infer, he's used to getting man's-man-quality boners. (Guys who, say, play first viola in the university orchestra and volunteer at the local ASPCA wouldn't be interesting in a story about hard-ons because they probably don't get them anyway.)

In any case, Adam continued to think of himself as a "man's man" until last fall when he "hooked up with a sophomore -- at her urging." Cue "Psycho" music: Eeek! Eeek! Eeek! See, the sophomore wanted him, he wasn't into her, so she offered to be his "friend with benefits," which is cool because that means sex with no emotional responsibility and he really didn't see anything wrong with that. But then, the first time they tried to do it, he couldn't get it up.

Now, I read Adam's story and I think: Hey, maybe Adam is just a really great guy! The kind of guy who actually wants to have sex with someone he really likes and is attracted to. Clearly he wasn't so interested in this sophomore, and so his body didn't respond to her. I don't see this as a disaster so much as a positive indicator of a healthy attitude about sex. I get that men and women often enjoy sex with people they despise or are indifferent to, but wouldn't the world be a generally more cheerful place if our bodies nudged us toward those we found physically and emotionally alluring to begin with?

But the Washington Post sees it differently. It turns out that Adam is "far from alone." In fact, Stepp continues, "for a sizable number of young men, the fact that they can get sex whenever they want may have created a situation where, in fact, they're unable to have sex." That's right. "According to surveys, young women are now as likely as young men to have sex and by countless reports are also as likely to initiate sex, taking away from males the age-old, erotic power of the chase." Countless reports! Sizable numbers! Call the police! Vague and unquantifiable numbers of women want biggish amounts of sex!

Perhaps (and I realize this is pie-in-the-sky thinking here) the leveling of the sexual marketplace Stepp writes about, in which women and men enjoy and pursue sex with comparable vigor, could be good for both sexes. First, it could deflate some of the frequently unearned but long-held stereotypes about guys who'll have sex with anything that moves, who consider each conquest a notch on their bedpost, who are more turned on by the pursuit than by the physical pleasure of union. Perhaps, if sex with women is something that they didn't have to finagle and tease and chase their way into, if it was just a fun activity that two people who liked each other chose to engage in and that often felt really great, everyone would have a better time.

Bzzzzz! Apparently that answer was incorrect. According to Stepp, we're not looking at the maturation and increasing sophistication of the socio-sexual dynamic here. We're looking at the loss of manhood in its purest form. Guys who can't get woodies for any old girl on the block are a poignant representation of the crumbling power of the erect phallus, which is, after all, as Stepp writes, "in the minds of many males, the sign of authority and dominance, perhaps the last such symbol in a society slogging its way toward gender equality." Wow. Stepp isn't doing the men she's writing about any favors in treating their condition not as a treatable health problem related to stress or their recreational habits, but as an actual loss of their masculinity, the ultimate cost of gender equality.

The Post does go on to chronicle a whole batch of other reasons for why the tools might not work. In addition to the antidepressants and drug use and heavy drinking and anxiety and caffeine consumption, there's also the fact that once it happens once (due to nervousness or a bad mood or beer male private part or whatever) the anxiety about it happening again can naturally become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One of Stepp's subjects, George Washington University sophomore Peter Schneider, had an arousal problem with a girlfriend he'd been sleeping with for several weeks. Turns out, he'd been "smoking cigarettes and marijuana, popping Adderall in order to work through the night to finish his econ papers. He was drinking a lot and not getting any regular exercise." Hey, Scooby, I think we may have gotten to the bottom of that particular mystery! Another kid, G.W. senior James Daley, was with a girl who gave him a hard time the first time he couldn't perform. Understandably, he then experienced a couple of repeat non-performances. Now, he tells Stepp, he's worried that he's just headed downhill, that he's used up all his manly mojo.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that massive consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, drugs and caffeine takes a toll on a human body. And this is a generation of kids that has been pushed to achieve -- through hyper-scheduled play dates and after-school activities and college-prep courses -- to the point where "performance anxiety" is a whole new ballgame. And I'm perfectly willing to believe that a sexual economy where female desire is allowed to match male desire could lead to a changed playing field on which the boys were less motivated by the sense that sex is the equivalent of a touchdown, scored by pushing your way through the opposing team's defense.

But why, when there are all these perfectly reasonable explanations -- explanations that, not for nothing, could turn out to be productive if we reacted to them by educating boys about the effects of recreational substance use, or developing and prescribing pills with fewer sexual side effects, or encouraging guys to get used to a sex life in which they're on equal footing with their partners -- do we have to immediately start in on the ghoulish, desire-sapping, sexless succubus of women's liberation?

Stepp writes, "One can argue that a young woman speaking her mind is a sign of equality" -- um, yes, one can argue that. But human sexuality prof Sawyer, the father of four daughters, says that, "for some guys, it has come at a price. It's turned into ED in men you normally wouldn't think would have ED." Are we straight on that? Women speak their minds; men don't want to have sex with them anymore.

It all falls into the John Tierney school of thought that says that all these overachieving college girls are going to end up single. All the libidinous ones are going to go sexless as well. Why don't we just buckle up our chastity belts and give those boys something to focus on unlocking already? Because lord knows, our eager, aroused bodies are totally harshing their hard-ons!

44
From a woman's point of view.  In the April edition of GQ:

THE ELEPHANT IN THE BEDROOM
Ten (and a half) reasons why Republicans—yes, Republicans—are the best party in bed By Anonymous

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’d think Democrats would be better in the sack, because they’re usually, well…better human beings in general. Plus, they’re so em-oh-tional and sen-sitive and they genuinely care about your day. And how you feel. And how you felt yesterday. “Is there anything you need?” they whimper. Oh, shutthefuckup! This is sex we’re talking about! After numerous years of intensive research on both sides of the aisle—and sometimes in the aisle—I am here to report that Republican men (except the closet cases) are infinitely better to have sex with. Here’s why.

1. NO CONSCIENCE!
A Republican man will never whine in the middle of the night—let alone in the middle of screwing you—about the girlfriend/wife/whatever he is “devastating” by sleeping with you. He just does it. It’s all about him—he needs to be the best you ever had, and that can be a good thing if your getting off is contingent on his. He doesn’t even stay for breakfast. (Though if you do make him breakfast, he is eternally grateful and will go down on you for another several hours.) One word: pancakes!

2. NO TEARS!
A Republican man will never, ever cry. Not on election night (no matter what happens). Not when you’re breaking up with him (what, you think he cared?). Not even when he’s having “a problem I’ve never had before, really, I’m not kidding, I swear.”

3. A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE
I’ve dated Democrats whose nights have been ruined (forever!) due to some stupid-ass comment by Bill Frist on Hardball. I’ve watched them go all mopey, argue with the TV…and then their little weenies disappear. Not so with GOPers. Republicans, particularly when naked, do not want to sit around and talk about Social Security privatization. Or Iraq, for chrissake. Or why (oh, boo hoo, get over it!) Kerry lost. They don’t even want to sit around naked and talk about George W. Bush. They just want you to sit on them.

4. A SENSE OF HUMOR
Republicans are happy to watch Jon Stewart with you. They think he’s a riot. They don’t parse every word he says in an effort to figure out if “The Huffington Post” will approve. They just laugh, pour another cocktail, and decide upon which couch they will @#!* your brains out after the show.

5. FOREPLAY
Democrats often need something incredibly erotic—like Meet the Press—to get revved up, particularly on a Sunday morning (there are only so many sections of The New York Times). Republicans, on the other hand, don’t even need Fox News to get it up. They understand that foreplay is about sex. And lots of it. Democrats are too busy checking if the condoms you keep in the jar by the bed are good for the environment. And by the time they figure that out, we’ve all lost our erections.

6. SIZE
It is absolutely, positively, 100 percent true that Republicans have bigger dicks. Just ask Lynne Cheney. (male private part is the Liam Neeson of Washington!)

7. EFFICIENCY
Republicans are much more likely to whip their dicks out during the cab ride back from dinner. (This is not an urban myth.) They are also more inclined to get started in the elevator, pin you against a wall, do you on the kitchen sink, wherever. Democrats bring jammies, spend at least twenty minutes prior to “sex time” doing God knows f-ing what in the bathroom, and then emerge with a big grin that says: “After all I did for you supporting equal pay and abortion rights, the least you could do is make love to me.” Democrats always think you owe them. Republicans, because they’ve never done a goddamn thing for you, have no such delusions.

8. LARGESSE
Republicans have great taste in restaurants and will never make the wussiest of pre-date proposals: “You pick.” They understand that a woman wants a guy who knows how to pick a restaurant by himself. And who doesn’t feel the need to tell you what Zagat said about it before you get there. A Republican also knows how to order wine without getting all prissy about it, never dissects the bill (they don’t even look at it!), and will never, ever—ever—say, “Well, yes, I think that’s fair; your half comes to $39.25, but you had one more drink than I did,” if you offer to pay. They won’t let you think about offering to pay. This is so sexy! The best part: There’s never any guilt involved; we all know they got their tax break.

9. WOOING TECHNIQUES
Republicans will never send you group e-mails that consist of the entire text of Al Gore’s last speech (that was “woefully underreported” but “I knew you’d want to read it in its entirety”). Or the sign-up sheet for Democracy in Action, or whatever the hell those weirdos from the Howard Dean campaign are up to now. Or forms to send your congressperson because something terrible is happening to some woman you don’t know in Niger. (And you’d better send it to a hundred more friends or her labia will be removed tonight!!!) Nah. Republicans send e-mails that say: “I can’t wait to eat your female private part.”

10. NIGHTSTAND READING
You will never hear a Republican say, “Let’s just cuddle and read The New Yorker tonight.” They understand you do not want reading materials in bed. You want a man.

10.5. THE BIG CAVEAT
Yes, Republicans are the better lay—but only the Republicans you’ve never heard of. The more prominent they are, the less fuckable they are. The opposite is true of Democrats. Think about it. Is there any woman on the face of the earth who wouldn’t @#!* Bill Clinton? (Didn’t think so.) But with a gun to your head, could you even think of doing Santorum? DeLay? Lott? Yuck, yuck, yuck! Okay, with a gun to our head, we might do W. And Cheney. Definitely Cheney. As long as we’re blindfolded. (But that’s okay. Republicans are into that, too.)

*The author wishes to remain anonymous for fear of cutting off her supply.

45
Finally secured my summer internship (Department of Justice), housing arrangement (GWU Dorms), and vacation plans (Iowa, Indiana, South Carolina, and cruise).

What are my fellow 0Ls doing this summer?  Current students -- where will y'all be?

lacoste

46
The more I read about Booker, the more I like him (putting aside my natural rivalry with Yale Law and Rhodes people).  He wiped the floor with the opposition in Newark.  Good model for aspiring politicians on the board:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10man.html

Cory Anthony Booker: On a Path That Could Have No Limits

By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: May 10, 2006

Democrats compare him to Barack Obama, the charismatic United States senator from Illinois, or Harold Ford Jr., the Tennessee congressman.

Ronald L. Rice, the former deputy mayor of Newark, had only weeks to put together a campaign that struggled to raise money and compete.

Young, black, Ivy League-educated and pragmatic, Cory Anthony Booker is part of an emerging generation of politicians who came up after the major battles of the civil rights movement and say they have outgrown its approach.

But while Mr. Booker, 37, clearly sees himself as a next-generation leader who will fight for ideas and people, not ideology or party, he has chosen a position that has long been the first stop of his elders: big-city mayor.

Unlike Mr. Ford, who was sworn into Congress at the age of 26, Mr. Booker will become a manager — "chief executive of a major city," said Ellis Cose, an author and columnist who often writes about race.

That decision could make or break a career that his friends and supporters said could have no limits.

"These other guys, at the end of the day, don't really have to run anything," Mr. Cose said. "He's going to have to run something, and he's never really run anything of any substance or size before. He can fail."

Mr. Booker, whose major management experience is with his own campaign, has acknowledged the challenge before him. But he said there is a logic and inevitability to his decision to take on the entrenched political establishment to run a struggling, poor, largely black city.

In a recent interview, Mr. Booker said he moved into Newark in 1995 — the summer before his second year at Yale Law School — because he saw it as a place where he could make a difference. He has spoken often, and passionately, about cities, saying they are "the last frontier to make real the promise of America."

He insists that he will make Newark a national model of urban governing by employing a mix of discipline and openness to new ideas.

"I'm a big believer that we need to raise people's expectations in this city," he said in one recent interview.

His urban zeal was developed in adulthood. He grew up in Harrington Park, N.J., a wealthy, mostly white suburb 20 miles north of Newark. Mr. Booker, the youngest of two sons born to parents who were among the first African-American executives at I.B.M., was known in high school for getting good grades and starring on the football team, and for his love of science fiction, including "Star Trek."

Chris Magarro, a childhood friend who is now a major campaign contributor, described Mr. Booker as a habitually social overachiever who sometimes put people off with his eagerness to please.

"He's not like anybody you'll meet," Mr. Magarro said. "It would be very hard to figure that he's that genuine." But, he added, "he really is just that nice."

His earnestness can at times be confounding. Upbeat, chatty and competitive, he drops quotations into conversations like a professor seeking tenure. Even when campaigning, he occasionally corrects people over minor mistakes.

In 2002, his sunny optimism, out-of-town roots and multiple degrees — from Stanford, Oxford and Yale Law — were turned against him when he tried to make the leap from Newark's Municipal Council to mayor.

His decision to take on Sharpe James, a canny, up-from-the-streets political brawler who had never lost an election, could have ended his political career. It was an ugly campaign. The mayor, seeing an opening in Mr. Booker's out-of-town support and his willingness to embrace such nontraditional urban ideas as school vouchers, falsely said that Mr. Booker was white, Jewish, gay and a Republican.

In the end, the voters decided to go with what they knew. Mr. Booker lost by six percentage points.

Over the next four years, he split time between a nonprofit he founded, Newark Now; a downtown law firm where he was a partner; and efforts to quietly win over the city's skeptics, one by one, with an eye toward a second campaign for mayor.

"In many ways, he went underground, below the radar," said Carl Sharif, his campaign manager. "He was talking to a lot of people, just not in public."

His effort was helped by Mr. James's decision not to seek a sixth term and by the belated, underfunded campaign of his leading opponent, State Senator Ronald L. Rice.

Now, having won over many of the skeptics, Mr. Booker is poised to take over the poor struggling city of 280,000, with its failing schools, rising gun violence, annual budget of more than $600 million and ossified bureaucracy loyal to Mayor James.

David Paterson, the New York state senator who is running for lieutenant governor and who recently became friendly with Mr. Booker, said he believed that Mr. Booker was capable and authentic.

"He's what the people who were running things really wanted to produce," Mr. Paterson said. "Young black scholars who had great opportunity, had great cachet, had relationships outside the community and cared enough to come back to the community."

And yet, as a manager he is still an unknown.

"After all that's been written and said about him, there's still the unanswered question: What is his leadership ability?" said the Rev. Reginald T. Jackson, executive director of the Black Ministers' Council of New Jersey. "We're about to find out. And in fact, he's about to find out, too."

Josh Benson contributed reporting for this article.

47
I'd be pissed too if I were passed up for the High Court by a "conservative President" during my prime.

http://southcarolinaappellatelaw.blogspot.com/2006/05/judge-michael-luttig-rumored-to-have.html#links
\
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Judge Michael Luttig rumored to have resigned from the Fourth Circuit
According to my sources, Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig has delivered a letter to President Bush announcing his resignation from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Texas native has been a judge on the Fourth Circuit since being appointed by the first President Bush in 1991. He worked briefly as an assistant counsel in the administration of President Reagan and clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger and for Antonin Scalia.

UPDATE: Yes, it is true. In a press release issued just minutes ago, Luttig is headed for Boeing. As senior vice president and general counsel, he will report directly to Boeing's Chairman. He will also be a member of the company's Executive Council. (Hat tip to Howard Bashman for the press release).

My guess is that after having been passed on for SCOTUS by Dubya, the lure of dollars was too great forLuttig. Most of his employment experience has been in public service. It must be difficult for a judge to watch his clerks leave and immediately make more $$ than he does. In my opinion, the bench is much poorer without him. He was one of the greatest intellects on the federal bench and should have been elevated to SCOTUS.

UPDATE II: Here is a link to the letter of resignation. (Thanks, Howard).

48
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Shakira v. Any Chick
« on: May 09, 2006, 08:51:16 PM »
Shakira, hands down.  Sorry to all the sistas.




49
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512979

 Flynt Faces Rowdy Law Crowd
Hustler Magazine publisher draws hisses in speech on First Amendment rights
Published On Monday, April 24, 2006  12:52 AM
By PARAS D. BHAYANI
Crimson Staff Writer


At a speech on the First Amendment, Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler Magazine, made what seemed to be false assertions about the format of his presentation and his publishing of certain cartoons while drawing hisses from the crowd for using a racial epithet and describing women as “sex objects.”

In a talk before a crowd of 200 in Harvard Law School’s Ames Courtroom Friday, Flynt emphasized the need to “push the envelope” on the First Amendment, saying that he had spent his life fighting in “the trenches” and “had taken a bullet for free speech.”

“If you’re going to live in a free society, you have to tolerate certain things that you don’t like so that you can be free,” Flynt said.

The short speech was followed by a lively session in which students—who handed questions to a moderator—grilled Flynt on his refusal to debate critics and on the content of Hustler.

HUSTLING HARVARD?

In the first question after the speech, Flynt was asked why he declined to participate in a forum “where he would have to share the spotlight with his critics.”

Responding strongly, Flynt denied that he had ever turned down a debate, saying that he would “come back for a panel” if invited. The reason for the solo forum, he said, was that he is filming a documentary and his camera crew said a debate format would be unsuitable.

But this claim was refuted by documents obtained by The Crimson regarding the planning of Flynt’s visit. The documents illuminate communications from Flynt’s agent—not Flynt himself.

The saga of Flynt’s refusal to debate began when his agent, Kim Dower, contacted the American Constitution Society (ACS), the liberal law and policy group, and asked them to host his appearance at Harvard. Brianna J. MacDonald, the ACS publicity chair, wrote in an e-mail to Dower that her group was “hesitant” about inviting Flynt “without allowing for other voices added to the discussion to expand the debate.”

In her reply, Dower refused to change the format of the event, writing that it is “difficult for Mr. Flynt to work the debate/panel arrangement as his voice is weaker.” She did not mention the camera crew’s supposed concern that a debate would be difficult to film.

The ACS board then voted not to invite Flynt to Harvard. Instead they referred him to the Law School’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter which agreed to host his speech as a solo forum.

Kevin M. LoVecchio, an ACS member and Flynt critic, said that since Flynt came to Harvard for filming purposes and had refused debate, he was “merely concerned with exploiting the Harvard Law School name.” The e-mail from Dower, the Flynt agent, to the ACS supports this assertion: she wrote that she was “trying to provide the filmmaker with a wonderful university to film at.”

But Sandra E. Pullman ’02, the president of the Harvard ACLU and a former Crimson arts editor, defended the decision to invite Flynt, saying that the documentary “is being composed by an outside film company, and he’s not making a dime from it.” She continued that Flynt had “expanded the reach of free speech [protections through] his precedent-setting defeat of Jerry Falwell.”

A CARTOON CONTROVERSY

To discredit Flynt before his arrival on campus, LoVecchio and Mary Anne A. Franks, who had originally been contacted to debate Flynt, created and distributed a pamphlet filled with some of the more offensive cartoon images that have appeared in Hustler.

According to descriptions by LoVecchio that were verified by The Crimson, one cartoon shows a girl with an overly large nose chasing a dollar bill attached to a length of string while a Nazi hides around a corner holding the other end of the string and a baseball bat. In another image, a man, genitals exposed, dangles a piece of steak before a seeing-eye dog to lure a young, blind girl.

Other images displayed in the pamphlet include women being put through meat grinders and a child being kidnapped.

When asked at the event about the images—and the ones that reference Nazis in particular—Flynt said that he could not recall the images under question. After The Crimson handed a copy of the pamphlet to the moderator who in turn showed it to Flynt, he studied it for a moment before saying, “I didn’t publish these.” As a couple students shouted “liar!” Flynt took another look at the images, and said, “Well, I don’t know.”

The Crimson verified that the images in question had in fact appeared in Hustler.

Flynt also gave his opinion at the event about a different cartoon controversy.

When a student asked if newspapers should publish the Danish cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammed, Flynt said that every newspaper in the nation should “publish the cartoons tomorrow,” and a “group of towel heads [had gotten] away with intimidating the whole world.” The use of the racial slur drew hisses—used at the Law School to signify disapproval—from some in the crowd.

THE WOMEN V. LARRY FLYNT

The anti-Flynt activists also organized a separate speaker event which took place before the main speech.

Professor Gail Dines of Wheelock College, a sociologist who has spent over a decade researching pornography, spoke about the history of the pornographic industry and the role that Flynt has played in its development.

Calling him “first and foremost a capitalist,” Dines said that Flynt’s “staff is intensely reactionary and intensely right wing.” She went on to argue that pornography is corrosive because it distorts women’s sexuality and turns them into sex objects.

When asked at his event if pornography is destructive, Flynt dismissed the idea out of hand, saying that “you can’t get a group of social scientists together who will argue that [pornography] is harmful,” and that such criticisms are made only by the Christian right. He drew hisses again by saying that women “are the sex objects and they’re not going to be able to change that.”


------------------------


I follow Kierkegaard on this subject; it seems that, "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."  I defend freedom of speech, but what are you contributing to society with such filth?

In the words of another great philosopher, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations."

Thoughts?

50
Sorry, have to vent.  Ignore or advise as you please...

Someone in a position to influence my Harvard aid package has made a decision that might leave me with absolutely no grant money whatsoever.  Their reasoning is that they are making their decision based strictly on the fact that they feel like making such a decision and are fully within their rights to do so.  They arguably are.  However this decision will make me a "Loans Only" candidate and force me to take out all $175,000 without any grants in order to go to my top choice schoo, Harvard.

In that case, I'd likely go to Stanford, a school which will not (I hope) be affected by their decision.  Stanford is a tremendous school and I'd be honored to go there, but it is not my top choice.  The decision-maker's rationale is A) You can suck it up and work in firms to pay that $175,000 and, B) If anything, just go to another school -- who cares where you'll be happy, it's still a top 10 school.

Am I being selfish or is the decision-maker in the wrong here?  Their decision will determine where I go to law school and they are making it, seemingly, with little regard as to my own feelings and desires.  Yyes, they have their own right to make a decision of this magnitude and that decision has to be respected.  But still, wouldn't it make sense to somehow take into consideration the fact that I'm not comfortable paying full price for HLS and that their decision will force me to go somewhere where I might be less happy?  I know the scenario is sketchy because I'm reluctant to provide too many details. 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9