Fed. Public Defender

[UnbiasedObserver]

Jalex is a good guy, so I also want to know why she's irritated.  Also, his question is legitimate. 

[Miss P]

Almost everyone works in public interest jobs first summer, especially in this economy; you won't get pigeonholed for doing so.  You just need to do something law-related and to be able to talk about what you did in an intelligent way. 

I guess I can see why the thread made Dash irritable.  Some of us really want to be public defenders (indeed, I recently interviewed for a post-grad position at a federal defender office), and jalex's question implies that it is undesirable as a long-term plan.  I also imagine that there were other applicants who have already committed themselves to indigent defense (like armyjag) who were passed over for jalex, who doesn't express any such interest. But I don't know jalex and I wouldn't be so quick to judge; the question may have just been hasty and poorly worded.  Dash's MMV.
 

[armyjag]

I'm not sure why you'd think I was passed over.  I was the one who couldn't believe my luck that they picked me up and are paying me in this economy. 

Even if you don't think you're committed to the idea, I think it's great to either learn about the field, develop some practical skills, or realize it's not your thing and avoid hurting people when the load's on your shoulders.  I dare even say that perhaps you don't always even want the self-selected in there during 1L summer...share the wealth.

[Miss P]

I'm not sure why you'd think I was passed over.

I didn't say that you were passed over; you just told us that you were working in a federal defender office this summer. (I'm not daft!) I meant that other students like you -- people who are really interested in indigent defense -- may have been passed over.  That's all.  FWIW, I agree that 1L summer is a good time to experiment and that working in a public defender office is a great way to develop a lot of practical skills and knowledge that will translate to other fields.  I still think that students who do think they want to be public defenders should get priority in hiring.

[armyjag]

Sorry...I'm going cross-eyed from conditions and promises.  I really just want to do crim work so I will never have to utter "quasi-contract" again in my life, unless it's in reference to a hit or something. 

[dashrashi]

I'm not a 1L, for the record, armyjag.

And it just makes me irritable
1) because I don't like seeing public interest jobs as waystations on the road to big cushy (yet rapidly eroding!) firm life, and I resent it when others do; and
2a) because I feel irritable at the thought that a law firm would even think to look askance at someone for doing indigent defense
   -(mostly because hating on indigent defense is bull culture-wars "red-state" nonsense, and law firms are supposed to be full of jerkoff out-of-touch elites and their arugula, i.e. not haters of indigent-defense)
   -(also it would be extremely f-ing irritating if a firm were to look askance at indigent defense when its own white collar practice ACTUALLY defends the criminals who are preying on our society in the MOST harmful [big-picture] way and with the LEAST excuse); or
2b) that a 1L planning on working in this arena even for a summer would think that a law firm would think that, and have the chance to exhibit that attitude (the worried, I-shouldn't-even-be-associating-with-you thing) to clients, who need empathy and human understanding more than most legal clients.

And now 3) because people are so touchy sometimes.

[UnbiasedObserver]

And it just makes me irritable
1) because I don't like seeing public interest jobs as waystations on the road to big cushy (yet rapidly eroding!) firm life, and I resent it when others do; and

He never stated that he saw it as a stepping stone.  You've mischaracterized what he stated.  He didn't ask if it would help him; he asked if it would hurt him.  There's a distinction there, and it's important.

2a) because I feel irritable at the thought that a law firm would even think to look askance at someone for doing indigent defense
   -(mostly because hating on indigent defense is bull culture-wars "red-state" nonsense, and law firms are supposed to be full of jerkoff out-of-touch elites and their arugula, i.e. not haters of indigent-defense)
   -(also it would be extremely f-ing irritating if a firm were to look askance at indigent defense when its own white collar practice ACTUALLY defends the criminals who are preying on our society in the MOST harmful [big-picture] way and with the LEAST excuse); or

I agree to a large extent, if I understand you correctly, but that could arguably be the way it is.  Should it matter?  I don't necessarily think so.  Jalex is trying to be a realist and keep his options open though, so it's a legitimate question.

2b) that a 1L planning on working in this arena even for a summer would think that a law firm would think that, and have the chance to exhibit that attitude (the worried, I-shouldn't-even-be-associating-with-you thing) to clients, who need empathy and human understanding more than most legal clients.

I think you're pushing it a little with this comment.  Jalex is an awesome guy and I doubt he would do that. 

And now 3) because people are so touchy sometimes.

Dash, are you really serious by this comment?  Or are you just trying to be ironic?  You of all people are calling others "touchy?"    (And I don't mean to offend you by typing that, so please don't be offended.)

[dashrashi]

And it just makes me irritable
1) because I don't like seeing public interest jobs as waystations on the road to big cushy (yet rapidly eroding!) firm life, and I resent it when others do; and

He never stated that he saw it as a stepping stone.  You've mischaracterized what he stated.  He didn't ask if it would help him; he asked if it would hurt him.  There's a distinction there, and it's important.

2a) because I feel irritable at the thought that a law firm would even think to look askance at someone for doing indigent defense
   -(mostly because hating on indigent defense is bull culture-wars "red-state" nonsense, and law firms are supposed to be full of jerkoff out-of-touch elites and their arugula, i.e. not haters of indigent-defense)
   -(also it would be extremely f-ing irritating if a firm were to look askance at indigent defense when its own white collar practice ACTUALLY defends the criminals who are preying on our society in the MOST harmful [big-picture] way and with the LEAST excuse); or

I agree to a large extent, if I understand you correctly, but that could arguably be the way it is.  Should it matter?  I don't necessarily think so.  Jalex is trying to be a realist and keep his options open though, so it's a legitimate question.

2b) that a 1L planning on working in this arena even for a summer would think that a law firm would think that, and have the chance to exhibit that attitude (the worried, I-shouldn't-even-be-associating-with-you thing) to clients, who need empathy and human understanding more than most legal clients.

I think you're pushing it a little with this comment.  Jalex is an awesome guy and I doubt he would do that. 

And now 3) because people are so touchy sometimes.

Dash, are you really serious by this comment?  Or are you just trying to be ironic?  You of all people are calling others "touchy?"    (And I don't mean to offend you by typing that, so please don't be offended.)

READING COMP.

"waystation" =/= "stepping stone."

But please do school me on important distinctions some more, since you're so clearly the maestro.

"this thread makes me feel irritable" =/= "jalex makes me feel irritable" =/= "I hate jalex." =/= "Jalex's question was illegitimate."

What were you saying again about important distinctions?

This thread (read: not jalex necessarily, since apparently "plain meaning" as a mode of interpretation hasn't made its way to you yet) made me irritable because it raised the specter of all the things I just detailed I found irritating.

But hell, I'll add one more:
People who purport to understand important distinctions whilst themselves, in the very same line of text, conflating two different concepts, and then using that erroneous conflation as the basis of an "argument" to rebut an "argument" I never even made.

[UnbiasedObserver]

First, why are you always so irritable?  I don't dislike you, but you can be a little absurd at times. 

READING COMP.

"waystation" =/= "stepping stone."

This is true but I'm making an inference based on your posting history and your comments.  I know there's a difference.  However, based on your attitude, it seems (or seemed) that you meant that.

And before you rant and rave some more that, "That's not fair that you're making that assumption," you seem to be making an assumption that jalex
solely sees his job as a waystation.  Otherwise, why make the comment that someone being at a PI job irritates you?  Maybe jalex, like others, is considering if it's right for him.  There's nothing wrong with that.

And you're going to retort that you're not saying that jalex is doing that, but that it reminded you of these people?  So what?  Why make such a cryptic comment at first, when people are going to make rational assumptions about what you meant?     

You are very harsh on people on this discussion forum, Dash.  You're not the only person who has good motives in the world.  Sometimes I honestly think
that you feel this way. 

Also, there's no need to act as if I'm stupid.  It really is sad when someone has to resort to those tactics.

You know very well that I'm not trying to make you look stupid.  You got what, a 176 on your LSAT and go to Harvard, right?  So obviously that's not my goal.  And we've discussed things in other threads, and I've been nothing but civil to you.  But you'll harp on this, because it'll make you look as if you're not going emotionally overboard about this, when it's entirely not the case. 

But please do school me on important distinctions some more, since you're so clearly the maestro.

"this thread makes me feel irritable" =/= "jalex makes me feel irritable" =/= "I hate jalex." =/= "Jalex's question was illegitimate."

What were you saying again about important distinctions?

This thread (read: not jalex necessarily, since apparently "plain meaning" as a mode of interpretation hasn't made its way to you yet) made me irritable because it raised the specter of all the things I just detailed I found irritating.

I figured that I can make assumptions as you and everyone else does.  Isn't that fair? 

And, again, you're really going to tell all of us that your first cryptic comment wouldn't lead people to think that jalex's post, and jalex himself, irritated you?  Please Dash.  Don't play stupid.  That's fairly "plain" to many of us.  But I'm sorry, our lowly 160s make us stupid.  Should we grovel?   
 

But hell, I'll add one more:
People who purport to understand important distinctions whilst themselves, in the very same line of text, conflating two different concepts, and then using that erroneous conflation as the basis of an "argument" to rebut an "argument" I never even made.

I really hope you're not like this in real life.  You're going to lead a very sad, lonely life.  (And yes, this is obviously an assumption.)

[dashrashi]

Oh my god.

Please don't put your inferiority-whatever onto me. It's a pet peeve. I don't look down on anyone for whatever their academics happen to be, nor have I ever done so--and you're not going to find evidence to the contrary. Similar pet peeve: the "you're a nasty bitter person whom no one will ever love" thing that, gosh darn it, only seems to be lobbed at women. What. Are. The. Odds. So you're already operating at a deficit here.

For the record, I didn't mean to be cryptic, in that I meant to come back to the thread, but I don't have laptop-allowing classes on Thursdays and Fridays and yesterday was the second seder so I hadn't been on the internet again, basically, until this afternoon.

And I very carefully framed my initial post to be very clear that the general attitude that something like the OP espouses tends to make me irritable. Not that it's necessarily objectionable, but that it often invokes things that make me not firedupaboutinjustice! or extremelyangry! but, simply, irritable. Less than enthused.

You had absolutely no reason to assume that when I said waystation, what I somehow really meant but only you could divine was "stepping stone." They mean different things, as you so adeptly pointed out. I'd prefer that somebody saw PI as a stepping stone, in fact, because it would imply that at least there was a PART of them that wanted to be there, and that would be the attitude that clients interacted with, as opposed to a I-don't-even-want-to-be-here thing that would more likely be the norm when a PI position is a waystation, because that's a much more harmful attitude for the clients. So, whatever you think you're inferring "based on [my] posting history and [my] comments" somehow managed to be incorrect. Shocker.

I did not assume that jalex solely sees his job as a waystation. But I think one can infer that he at least in part sees his job as a waystation, which makes it more probable than it would be otherwise (i.e. without that information) that he does see it solely as a waystation. Furthermore, I did not impugn jalex. I specifically said that THIS THREAD makes me IRRITABLE because it brings up attitudes and ideas that I find irritating. I did not say that jalex is a corporate whore. I don't think jalex is a corporate whore. I don't know jalex. But the general possibility of people seeing PI as a waystation is irritating to me for the reasons Miss P mentioned as well as the ones I detailed above.

One more time: I never said that "someone being at a PI job irritates [me.]" I said that the question/discussion raised in this thread, about whether PI (specifically indigent defense) would harm someone in the Great Law Firm Job Hunt, brings up attitudes and ideas that I find irritating.

I don't know what the laugh-y face is about. I don't know what assumption of yours you're analogizing to one of mine, or why that would be funny.

But gotta say: Looooove the "rant and rave" bit, as well as the "sad dad" routine. I'm sure you use that when you're talking to men all the time. Amiriteorwhat?

You've outed yourself. Congratulations.