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.

Messages - hammer101

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 52
21
Affirmative Action / Re: I consider myself black but is AA meant for me?
« on: August 10, 2005, 11:59:16 AM »
I don't think it has, actually, which is why I don't support it. I think shortly after it was implemented it moved a very small number of minorities into elite positions in our society, but I think today's AA recipients are overwhelmingly the descendents of those people. So I'm not convinced it's moving us toward diversity at all...Rather, I think the long term effect will be more stratification in minority communities and the creation of a permanent, AA-engineered minority upper middle class.

What do you mean by "stratification in minority communities"? And what's wrong with a permanent minority upper middle class? I don't deny that AA primarily aids elite people of color integrate elite white institutions. No doubt it does. AA is not a revolutionary measure. But it's still better than nothing.

I should have clarified that. Actually, instead of "permanent" I should have used the word "fixed." That's what I mean by stratification -- i.e., that AA is helping ensure class positions in minority communities become fixed and is basically creating an AA aristocracy. A permanent minority upper middle class is a great thing, but a modern day aristocracy? Not so much...

I reach this conclusion for (mostly) 2 reasons:

1) The standard of living for poorer minorities is getting worse, not better, making it that much more difficult for them to move up in the world;

2) AA makes no pretention of even reaching out to disadvantaged minorities. As you said, it helps elite minorites become a part of elite white institutions.

So, here's my way of looking at it: If you're "elite," you do not need assistance by definition. From my perspective, there's really no other conclusion I can reach. Also, if the only justification for contiuning a policy is "it's better than nothing," that policy is ready for the ash heap.

I say this not to berate you or start a fight, but rather to show how we're looking at the same facts and reaching vastly different conclusions.

22
LSAT horror stories / Re: What is a really great LSAT prep book?
« on: August 09, 2005, 07:48:06 PM »
Kaplan's LSAT 180 is pretty good too.

23
Studying for the LSAT / Re: anyone try kaplan?
« on: August 09, 2005, 07:46:36 PM »

thanks for the advice!
i guess i'll decide when i see where my score is at around september. did you get in to your school dodgerlaw?

Did I get into my dream school? No. Not even close. My numbers are roughly 2.5ish, low-160ish. Those numbers were not going to get me into Harvard or Berkeley.  :( However, I did get accepted into a number of schools, the highest-ranking one being Denver with $8,000/yr scholarship. I chose another school where I am getting a 60% scholarship. It is a place I am very excited to attend.

PM me if you want more detail as I try to maintain a certain amount of anonymity on the open boards.

Dodger,
Sounds like we're in similar situations. I didn't get into my first choice and opted for a slightly lower-ranked school offering me a decent merit aid package.

24
Affirmative Action / Re: I consider myself black but is AA meant for me?
« on: August 09, 2005, 07:18:27 PM »
...is AA about mending an historical injustice? Is it about diversity? Is it a form of reparations for the descendents of African slaves? Is it just for anyone who is black?

I think AA has helped us move towards that over the past 25 years, and as long as it continues to do so, I'll support it.

I don't think it has, actually, which is why I don't support it. I think shortly after it was implemented it moved a very small number of minorities into elite positions in our society, but I think today's AA recipients are overwhelmingly the descendents of those people. So I'm not convinced it's moving us toward diversity at all...Rather, I think the long term effect will be more stratification in minority communities and the creation of a permanent, AA-engineered minority upper middle class.

25
Studying for the LSAT / Re: anyone try kaplan?
« on: August 09, 2005, 05:13:29 PM »
My experience. Kaplan helped me significantly with Games, an area in which I was weak. They did not help me, and may even have hurt me, with Reading Comp and Logical Reasoning, areas in which I was pretty strong.

My experience was similar. My diagnostic was horrible because my performance on the games was abysmal. My performance on LR and RC was pretty strong, but if those were my weaknesses, I don't think Kaplan would've helped me much. The games section is the most coachable one, so that's where I noticed a real improvement. But in general I didn't find their tips on LR and RC to be that helpful.

27
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Ok i'm officially done with Quizno's
« on: August 09, 2005, 04:12:30 PM »
i don't like quizno's at all.

but i love me some potbelly's!

I'll second potbelly's! Great sandwiches at a resonable price. Although they're expensive, corner bakery and au bon pain are pretty good sandwich joints too if you have one close to you.

28
it appears?  or it's been factually proven that Bush lied Tex?  i think you were correct when you used the former.  you can't base a point on conjecture.

c'mon man. I'll call a rotten egg a rotten egg when we all know it is: Clinton was a scumbag who scammed in business deals (whitewater), scammed girls in the whitehouse, and may have even wagged the dog a bit with his sudden need to get tough on terrorists and shoot a bunch of missiles conveniently during the middle of the Lewinsky affair.

We all know it now. Something very fishy was going on in the white house during the decision to go to war in Iraq. There was clearly a lot of dishonesty and underhandedness (valery plaime, etc. etc.). If each side is unwilling to criticize its own when its side is clearly being an ass, we're never going to get anywhere.

Tex,
Sorry I'm jumping into this discussion a little late, but I find the implications of your arguments interesting. I've read many posts in the "bush lied" vein on this board and I generally don't reply to them because they're so asinine they don't deserve a response.

Yours are well-reasoned and have led to a pretty interesting discussion I'd like to continue.

While the administration clearly had its sights set on saddam, that doesn't mean it necessarily lied to marshal support for the war. My personal view (and yes I'm a Republican, but I had deep reservations about the war when it began and was hoping the administration would hold off for at least a few months) is not that they lied, but rather argued ineptly (and on extremely narrow grounds) for the war. You imply their discussion of saddam's potential nuclear capacity was a gimmick which failed, leading them to "lower the bar" to WMDs in general -- but perhaps it's something far less sinister like, say, a poorly-organized PR campaign for selling the war to the American people? Also, I'm an avid newspaper reader and I think you're overhyping the amount of attention the administration paid to saddam's potential nuclear capacity. I just don't recall that much discussion of the issue.

But as to the larger WMDs issue -- virtually no one questioned saddam's possession of stockpiles, including saddam himself. In interviews since his capture, saddam's foreign minister tariq aziz said his boss purposefully exaggerated his military capacity (including possession of WMDs) to project strength in the region. saddam was much weaker than almost everyone supposed.
And if you look at German/French/Russian arguments against the war prior to the invasion, almost all take his possession of WMDs for granted. So, one could make a clear case for a preventive war (not so much a preemptive one), in that saddam could present a much graver threat in the future. This is what actually made me most nervous about invading Iraq. Preventive wars don't have such a good track record in history (e.g., Germany in WWI) and I wasn't sure we should go down that path.

So one could make a case -- on the available evidence at the time -- that saddam could threaten US interests in the future. Looking back at statements from administration figures (then and now), it seems clear that's what they had in mind. But, in selling the war to us, they chose to focus only on a few elements of this broader concern, some of which turned out to to be products of faulty intelligence. Those individual reasons cited -- nuclear capacity, WMDs, threat to US interests, liberating the Iraqis, etc -- are part and parcel of the broader rationale for invasion. You treat them as if they're each separate justifications, which I think distorts what was really going on.

29
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Excerpt: Julie ferns PS
« on: August 08, 2005, 07:32:35 PM »
Oh I didn't want to argue anyway and don't want anything to do with your dispute with Julie.  ;)

I dunno, I appreciate it when people correct me....I hate having the wrong info. So I wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything. :)

30
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Ok i'm officially done with Quizno's
« on: August 08, 2005, 07:19:33 PM »
I agree with bruin. Have you tried the spicy monterrey club or chicken carbonara? GREAT sandwiches ;D

But another good chain is Panera Bread (if you have one in your city).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 52