Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

What was the difference between your average preptest score and the real LSAT?

>+5
 18 (22.5%)
+3 tor 4
 4 (5%)
+1 or 2
 8 (10%)
0
 9 (11.3%)
- 1 or 2
 2 (2.5%)
- 3 to 4
 13 (16.3%)
>-5
 14 (17.5%)
I didn't take any practice tests.
 12 (15%)

Total Members Voted: 68

Author Topic: Do You Think The Congressional Page Program Should Be Terminated?  (Read 39906 times)

Flatbush

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: How Much For Acropolis?
« Reply #180 on: February 26, 2012, 04:20:57 PM »

Ah Acropolis! Such a great place to visit! I've been only once in Greece (my brother used to live there) and I surely did take advantage to visit it! I can safely say that Athens is famous mostly because of Acropolis and its ancient history! When I immigrated to the US (my brother got me and several others to the US on special C visas :) all the people at my work was jealous I had been in Athens!


By now Greece is for sale. Including its famous Acropolis.



Finland wants collateral (the Acropolis?) to support a second bailout.

http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com/2011/07/finland-eyes-acropolis-as-greek-debt.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255449/Greece-debt-crisis-German-MPs-suggest-Greek-Islands-Acropolis-sale.html


I don't think the Constitution of any European country would allow the actual sale of a part of its territories ...


Awesome, manual - and believe me, I'm not trying to steal the spotlight, I just wanna make a comment on the Greek debt thing.

Now, Question/Answer, are you kidding me with that Constitution thing?? Ex-Communist countries used to say to Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany, I believe it was called, before the Berlin wall fell) "We can not accept your investments, because it's against our principles!

When it comes to money, that Constitution you mention becomes a toilet paper to wipe the d i c k! Don't you see that Greece is becoming a b i t c h to European Union, to each and every @ # ! * i n g country in Western Europe! Not to mention that FMN female private part!

bologna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Pederasty as an Institution, in Ancient Greece
« Reply #181 on: March 04, 2012, 05:03:26 PM »
Quote

Nietzsche described Jews as the truly great haters in world history.

Human history would be altogether too stupid a thing without the spirit that the impotent Jew priests have introduced into it — let us take at once the most notable example. All that has been done on earth against "the noble," "the powerful," "the masters," "the rulers," fades into nothing compared with what the Jews have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies' values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge. For this alone was appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply repressed [Zurückgetretensten] priestly vengefulness. It was the Jews who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying "the wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone — and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed, and damned!" ... One knows who inherited this Jewish revaluation ... In connection with the tremendous and immeasurably fateful initiative provided by the Jews through this most fundamental of all declarations of war - with the Jews there began the slave revolt in morality: that revolt which has a history of 2000 (two thousand) years behind it and which we no longer see because it — has been victorious.

    You do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required 2000 years to achieve victory? — There is nothing to wonder at in that: all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred — the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before — there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love —and from what other trunk could it have grown?

    This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners — was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and by-path to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? [...] Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? [...] Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man? [...]

    Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome." Rome felt that the Jews were something contrary to nature itself, something like its monstrous polar opposite. In Rome the Jew was considered "guilty of hatred again the entire human race." And that view may be correct, to the extent we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. The Romans were the strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who'd lived on earth up until then — or even than any people who'd ever been dreamed up. By contrast, the Jews were 'par excellence' that priestly people of resentment who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Well, people have become merely tame or want to become tame — in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (before Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet worker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). [...] It's true that in the Renaissance there was a brilliant, incredible re-awakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who'd woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called "the church." But immediately Judea triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of resentment, which we call the Reformation [...]

    In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which we had in Europe, in 17th and 18th century France, broke apart under the instinct of popular resentment — never on earth has there ever been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It's true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendor before the eyes and the conscience of humanity — and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old lie, to the slogan of resentment about the privileged rights of the majority, in opposition to that will for a low condition, abasement, equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind — in opposition to all that there rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privileged rights of the few! [...]


I am not quite clear as to how he (Nietzsche) goes about equating the French Revolution's Illuminism with Jewish values/religion - someone?


There's a post on the other board by cigalliere, [From Dawn to Decadence] related to this - here it is:

Quote
It has been argued that the overthrown of the French nobility was, in fact, lamentable, since the aristocracy was learned, pursued high intellectual interests and culture. It was the poor, the peasants that gained the most, simply because they went from having absolutely no rights, to having more some rights. That in itself was a huge step for them. The story of the French Revolution's is the violent attack on the French nobility - the most dazzling and sophisticated elite in the eighteenth century European world. Or, as some would say, the triumph of mediocrity over the gifted fellow.

bfi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Think The Congressional Page Program Should Be Terminated?
« Reply #182 on: March 05, 2012, 04:43:10 PM »
Quote
Quote
Quote

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.


So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal


Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!


For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.


Hahaha - you're so funny, kaps, I know what ya mean! ;)

Romina

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile

garçon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Think The Congressional Page Program Should Be Terminated?
« Reply #184 on: March 11, 2012, 09:43:31 PM »

Since Madonna essentially based her career riffing off this archetype, it seems only natural. People claim that the word "virgin" in antiquity did not necessarily mean that someone never had sex. It meant instead that a woman was "without" man, which could also mean that she was an independent property owner. Some such women in classical cultures were also sacred prostitutes... or so the story goes. They acted as incarnations of the goddess. A parallel tradition exists still today in some sects of Hinduism with the devadasis. Plus there is that whole psychological trend in the modern culture called the "Virgin/Whore complex" which Madonna played to a tee.


Don't forget that it wasn't her midriff that freaked out folks and inspired girls to start chopping shirts into halter tops; it was the power of her sexuality, and her belief in it, the way she acknowledged it and controlled it, the way she self-consciously toyed with it. Madonna embraced and mocked the virgin/whore complex, ironically flaunted her body as a self-sold commodity and challenged the male gaze all the way to the bank. She proved that there were non-academic, street-savvy ways to express yourself and find empowerment. Madonna was a symbol of unrepressed female creativity and power — sexy, seductive, serious, and strong.


But of course, lochies, that's what spellit was saying, you did not have to repeat it once again! :)


The thing that I like about her is the "non-academic, street-savvy way" to find empowerment - because you can see from the thread that the practice is all-too-common in office buildings - D.C. ones as well - with all the pages debated about here a lil' bit!

Merci

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Messenger of Life
« Reply #185 on: March 12, 2012, 04:38:44 PM »
Quote

Quote
Quote

Natalia is so funny throughout the entire movie - here it is another one:

Sally: I saw a film the other day about syphilis. Ugh! It was too awful. I couldn't let a man touch me for a week. Is it true you can get it from kissing?
Fritz: Oh, yes. And your king, Henry VIII, got it from Cardinal Wolsey whispering in his ear.
Natalia: That is not, I believe, founded in fact. But from kissing, most decidedly; and from towels, and from cups.
Sally: And of course screwing.
Natalia: Screw-ing, please?
Sally: Oh, uh...
[thinking]
Sally: fornication.
Natalia: For-ni-ca-tion?
Sally: Oh, uh, Bri, darling, what is the German word?
Brian Roberts: I don't remember.
Sally: [thinking] Oh... um... oh yes!
Brian Roberts: Oh, no...
Sally: Bumsen!
Natalia: [appalled] Oh.
Brian Roberts: That would be the one German word you pronounce perfectly.
Sally: Well, I ought to. I spent the entire afternoon bumsening like mad with this ghastly old producer who promised to get me a contract.
[pause]
Sally: Gin, Miss Landauer?


God Bless Sally!


I find it a bit unusual that major producers would go to a place like KitKat (but apparently they did), so that Sally could hope to get a big movie contract just like that, by means of just a @ # ! * - or "bumsening" as she calls it - I guess, it's more like "wishful thinking" on her part! Maybe just one more sex act for her?!


Flatbush - Sally's character in Cabaret is not so much about demonstrating how one @ # ! * s her way up the social ladder - it is more of a statement on sexual fulfillment, the little things in life we tend not to place value on, until they're not any more available to us.

Remember, the story takes place in Berlin, just before the Nazis would come in power and do what they did, with everything and everyone.

l i n o l e u m

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
G A Y - C L O S E T
« Reply #186 on: March 13, 2012, 07:21:25 PM »

[...]

So, there you have it - the degrees of the closet - or "outness" - if you like. It is controversial whether outing a gay person is beneficial to the society and/or that person himself. Personally I think it does not make sense to out plain folk people, while it does to out public figures/people in authority.

Usually, the outed gay individual would go after a journalist and his newspaper who outed him. But even such lawsuits have proved unsuccessful in the long run. Here it is the Cruise's case with South Park:


The relevant "South Park" episode -- entitled "Trapped in the Closet" -- self-consciously skirts the outermost edges of the First Amendment's protection for parody. A court would probably deem it constitutionally protected, but only barely. Defamation requires a "statement of fact" -- and for this reason, most parody, because of its fictional nature, falls outside defamation law by definition.

But this is the rare parody that, fairly read, does make a statement of fact. In the episode, the animated version of Cruise literally goes into a closet, and won't come out. Other characters beg him to "come out of the closet," including the animated version of his ex-wife, Nicole Kidman. The Kidman character promises Cruise that if he comes out of the closet, neither she nor "Katie" will judge him. But the Cruise character claims he isn't "in the closet," even though he plainly is. No one could miss that the episode's creators are taking a stance and making a statement -- that the real Cruise is gay and hiding it.

The use of the euphemism "in the closet" -- used to refer to someone who is homosexual but who has not admitted his or her homosexuality to friends, family, or the public -- is transparent. Interestingly, the episode itself indicates that its creators know well that they may be defaming Cruise, and they know of his litigious history. The joke disclaimer preceding the episode announces that "All characters and events on this show -- even those based on real persons -- are entirely fictional."

At the end of the episode, the Cruise character threatens to bring a suit (not on the gay issue, but in defense of Scientology) "in England" -- which lacks a formal equivalent of the First Amendment. And all the credits at the end use the pseudonyms "John Smith" and "Jane Smith." Since the episode does indeed make a "statement of fact," the parody exception to defamation law won't save "South Park." Thus, the creators' only weapon against a possible suit by Cruise is a First Amendment defense. Fortunately for them, the Supreme Court has interpreted the defense very broadly.

[...] It's one thing to co-opt part of a song, or use a trademark, in a parody: Without using part of the original, the parody won't work at all; no one will know what its target is. But it's another thing to embed what would otherwise be a defamatory statement in a work of fiction: This is defamation in satire's clothing, and it's only in order to protect true satire that that the Constitution has been held to also protect this lesser creature. Generally, courts don't want to get into the business of picking out nuggets of fact from an otherwise fictional account. The upshot, though -- and courts know this, and accept this cost in the service of free speech -- is that parody and satire inevitably may become a refuge for rogues who seek to defame without liability. That seems to me to be just what's happening with respect to the "South Park" episode.


I'm not sure I understand the "statement of fact" thing stressed upon by the lawyer here - SP maintains that the whole thing is a parody, characters are all fictional - everything seems OK, with the FA protection in mind.


It's quite clear in what meaning she's using the term "statement of fact" - that relating to First Amendment law, entitatitivity - wow, you appear to have chosen quite a difficult username!
Senator Geary - Was there always a buffer involved?
Willi Cici - A what?
Senator Geary - A buffer. Someone in between you and your possible superiors who passed on to you the actual order to kill someone.
Willi Cici - Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers!

Lefka

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re:
« Reply #187 on: March 16, 2012, 05:14:08 PM »
Quote
Quote

Quote
Quote


To be sure, Marcuse worked with Freud's Eros only, disregarding Thanatos - as far as engaging in war and being aggressive "consciously," there's nothing strange or unusual about it (think soldiers in war) - what was being discussed here, I believe, was whether Thanatos is to be called an "instinct" or not ..


So if I get this right, this means killing others (murder) in order not to kill ourselves (suicide) in order to keep up with lack of life meaning and the conscious awareness of our deaths?

And that the deaths of the "other" serves to establish a symbolic immortality buffer for one of the parties? Kind of like the child that is forced to concede its physicality and "trade it in" for a symbolic sense of self (i.e., self-esteem)?

I researched a bit where does all this TMT thing comes from - it looks like from existential philosophers like Sartre, Camus and the like. Now, I have not read Sartre/Camus - I simply came upon a piece quoted by one of your fellow posters on this board. Take a look at it and draw your own judgment, as to whether such a piece deserves being printed (in book form) or not - maybe it's just me, but I find it very odd to read about a guy who "feels his mouth full of his tongue" - I am sure he's missing something - and truth-be-told, in the "hood" where I live, he'd get that right advice off-prompt, if yanno what I mean!

Quote

Existence is undoubtedly problematic and disturbing. In one weekend strip, in Sartre's "Peanuts," Schulz succinctly describes the horror of discovering one's own existence in the world:

Quote
Linus: I'm aware of my tongue ... It's an awful feeling! Every now and then I become aware that I have a tongue inside my mouth, and then it starts to feel lumped up ... I can't help it ... I can't put it out of my mind ... I keep thinking about where my tongue would be if I weren't thinking about it, and then I can feel it sort of pressing against my teeth ...


Sartre devoted an entire book to this experience – his 1938 novel "Nausea" in which his character Roquentin is alarmed to discover his own actuality. But Linus sums the point up very well in a few frames.



malachovsky, I understand your approach and sense of practicality you're bringing here - but if you stay alone and do not socialize with other people - as it is the case with lonely people like philosophers - it's not surprising that similar thoughts will come to your mind.

Now, it's never occurred to me, but I am sure it has to other people - Sartre, being on the record, on this kind of thing.


[...]


Flatbush - you've got to be kidding me!

b e ç k a

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Over-Accumulation of Power
« Reply #188 on: March 21, 2012, 04:26:15 PM »


Well, it's on the people's (individuals') best interest to watch for the amount of consent it's giving its government, and especially that the latter is not abusing that power.

Curtailing their citizens' rights, for instance, overtly or covertly, by resorting to illegal tactics/strategies can result in "unintended and additional" consent being given, with the end result being over-accumulation of power.

To top it all off, the history has shown that people are kind of confused as to how they are to organize themselves, with the State having become the norm by now as the adequate form of modern social organization. So, in all likelihood, people are prone to giving that "consent" to be ruled to just everybody out there who happens to have the courage/attitude to go ahead and rule others the way they will - with all this meaning that, once in power, these guys won't care too much as to how their actions will be judged, feeling all-too-justified in what they do!


Here it is an interesting post on the other thread, bolo!


Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, applewasp, what I have heard is this:

"Money is like a big giant d i c k. The fact that they'll give you some is only going to make you have more and more of it inside you."


No doubt about it, two feasts, sexual repression comes into play because of the economic factor.


So basically sexual repression is effectuated for economic purposes?


For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.