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 9 ... 52
31
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Excerpt: Julie ferns PS
« on: August 08, 2005, 07:15:42 PM »
hand? ha!

not be ashamed.  it natural urge.  just clean up well.

Learned Hand was a famous Supreme Court Justice.  Goddamn it your stupidity is infuriating. F-CK!!!!

Hand was a federal circuit court judge (2nd maybe?) but definitely wasn't on the supreme court.

32
Minority Topics / Re: Homosexual PS
« on: July 30, 2005, 09:45:27 PM »
I don't see how it could hurt, but I don't think you'll score any minority points by writing about it. Why? Because gays and lesbians aren't exactly underrepresented in most law student bodies (at least the top schools).

Two of my gay friends wrote about homosexuality in their PS's and saw disparate results. One is a rising 2L at Harvard and the other is going to Miami next month. I didn't read my HLS friend's PS but it might have been decisive, given that at HYS you need some other edge in addition to great numbers. My buddy at Miami was pretty frustrated with how his applications fared, but that had much more to do with his LSAT score than how his PS was perceived.

33
Personal Statement / Re: Since everyone seems so helpful...
« on: July 30, 2005, 09:36:51 PM »
PM it to me if you're still looking for feedback.

34
Well in that case, let your boss know about it. In the long run, you're doing her a favor -- I mean, if you let it slide, she's gonna be in for some really nasty surprises when she finally gets a job in the real world...she needs to know this kinda stuff doesn't slide. Think of it as tough love.  ;)

35
First, have a conversation with her about it, then decide from there whether to discuss it with the managing partner. If she has a flippant attitude about it, absoultely -- rat her out. But I think undergrad interns deserve a little bit of slack (I worked with a lot of ugrad interns and saw varying results when I gave them tasks...so I understand where you're coming from). But definitely talk to the girl first and let her know how you feel...that way she at least doesn't feel blindsided.

36
BP -- sounds like an interesting read. I might have to pick that up.

And I agree -- it pretty much applies to any political party attempting to gain power.

Forget this new book and just read the original:

"The Prince" Nicolo Machiavelli and "Discourses on Levy" Nicolo Machiavelli.

I haven't gotten around to Discourses yet, though I have read The Prince. Amazing how applicable it still is, in some ways...

37
BP -- sounds like an interesting read. I might have to pick that up.

And I agree -- it pretty much applies to any political party attempting to gain power.

38
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Bush to attack IRAN with NUKES!!
« on: July 28, 2005, 01:18:27 PM »
One word: lebensraum

Who needs lebensraum today? Maybe that applies to China, though they have a fair amount of sparsely-populated areas they could start moving people into (like what they've been doing in Xinjiang lately). And India, but who will the Indians occupy?

39
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Bush to attack IRAN with NUKES!!
« on: July 28, 2005, 12:21:55 PM »
Quote

Many scholars/politicians/historians of the era also made the same sort of technology/globalism arguments against the possibility of war, so the point still stands that the arguments are fundamentally similar. And yes Europe had been warring for years but Europe's economies and societies had become so intertwined many thought war was impossible. You didn't even need a passport to travel anywhere in Europe save Russia. Again, read the history. Technology and globalism (the two reasons you cited to prevent a major war), sure haven't prevented them in the past.
Quote

well, i want you to take a look at how many countries with McDs in them have had a war against one another.  The answer is zero.  How many McD type places were present in europe at the time in question?  You're talking about a time before corporations became empires.  its apples and oranges really.

The McDonalds peace theory? :)

While those sorts of international corporations didn't exist at the time, the level of integration of European countries at the time was more extensive than many realize and roughly comparable to the early days of the EC. I don't the the lack or presence of international corporations really helps or hurts the analogy significantly.

But back to the McD's point (and I'm not being sarcastic because you're making a valid point): I would argue it's more because those countries simply haven't had any reason to go to war, rather than the presence of international corporations preventing war. Just because a test case doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't happen. I'd say the same thing about democratic peace theory, which the Bush administration strongly embraces.

You do have a point that major war today comes with many more risks than in the past...but for a different reason than those cited -- nuclear weapons. But even nuclear deterrence has its limits, I think. I have little doubt that China would invade Taiwan if it had the chance (the CCP's entire legitimacy is staked on reunification). I think that overwhelming national interest will override any consideration for the cost of war. That's probably the most likely scenario for a major war in the future, because the United States -- whether in Democratic or Republican hands -- wouldn't abandon Taiwan (unless there's a tectonic shift in American politics).

40
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Bush to attack IRAN with NUKES!!
« on: July 28, 2005, 12:00:46 PM »


its doubtful there will ever be another major ground war.  maybe tiny little scuffles, but nothing warranting a large standing army.

bullhonkery.   ;)

Well, think about it.  When is there ever going to be a major ground war?  The only reason we would need a large standing army is if china or India turned volatile.  With globalization siezing control, i doubt this is a likely scenario.

Europe's economies and society were more integrated on the eve of World War I than at any point in history; throughout the teens and 20s, China and Japan had extensive trade relations -- again, more so than at any point in modern history. So, by your logic, I suppose World War I and Japan's brutal war against China should not have happened.

Read your history dude. Many, many people thought EVERY major war was impossible for just the reasons you cited.

 you forget that europe had been warring for the better part of several centuries before the major world wars and were fighting bitterly during the colonial era over land masses.  Those days are done.  Read your history dude.

Many scholars/politicians/historians of the era also made the same sort of technology/globalism arguments against the possibility of war, so the point still stands that the arguments are fundamentally similar. And yes Europe had been warring for years but Europe's economies and societies had become so intertwined many thought war was impossible. You didn't even need a passport to travel anywhere in Europe save Russia. Again, read the history. Technology and globalism (the two reasons you cited to prevent a major war), sure haven't prevented them in the past.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 52