Law School Discussion

My Yale 250 - Have at it

redemption

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #50 on: January 01, 2006, 10:19:01 AM »
Have you read any Martha Nussbaum

She was our keynote speaker at graduation. Amazing, considering how unknown my UG is...

maggs

My favorite piece of writing by Martha is the public spanking that she delivered to Judith Butler in TNR... I have a link to that somewhere

http://www.md.ucl.ac.be/ebim/scientif/Recherche/GenreBioethique/Nussbaum_NRO.htm


Burhop

  • ****
  • 175
  • Editor and freelance Writer
    • View Profile
    • I Edit Stuff.
Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2006, 01:59:43 PM »

Have you read any Martha Nussbaum

She was our keynote speaker at graduation. Amazing, considering how unknown my UG is...

maggs

Ummmm...very jealous! So jealous. I guess we've got a US senator this year, although I don't know if I'll be around for graduation.

dani

redemption

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2006, 02:49:21 PM »
redemption, i know you said your avatar was a picture of someone else, but every time i look at it i am reminded of michael jackson

You are imaginative. I see that too, now

magnumalv

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #53 on: January 02, 2006, 03:18:30 PM »
btw, what did you end up using for your 250?

maggs

jb1246a

  • ****
  • 200
  • pandatar
    • View Profile
Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #54 on: January 02, 2006, 04:08:06 PM »
Haha, it's fun to bash Thomas Friedman, isn't it? The only real problem I have with your piece is with some of the content. How was the dawn of the 20th cent. characterized by "Liberal triumphalism"? I'm not an authority on the subject, and I haven't read Fukuyama's book, but wasn't the establishment of the GATT/Bretton Woods system after the two world wars intended to end the realist/zero sum game atmosphere of international relations that was thought to have instigated the two world wars? That system was meant to build the international liberal/neoliberal economic regime that we have today, right? So what I gather from your piece is that the League of Nations is somehow analogous to the WTO or the UN in terms of globalization and international law. I don't think that's a particularly apt comparison, but that's just my personal opinion. Also, I don't understand the description of international law as "stripped of politics, history and culture." Maybe it's my background in world-systems perspective that confused me, but that line seems unjustified. It feels like you throw around the term "international law" in a way that is a bit reductionist. I'm not sure if the adcomms will feel this way, but that's just my .02 from a layperson's POV. Your piece is definitely thought-provoking, though! Good luck.   

Burhop

  • ****
  • 175
  • Editor and freelance Writer
    • View Profile
    • I Edit Stuff.
Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #55 on: January 02, 2006, 04:45:53 PM »
heh...the "golly-gee-whizness" of Friedman makes me snort derisively, mirthfully, epic-ally. I hadn't even thought of Fukuyama! man, I thought that guy was a tool--his bioethics stuff had me scrambling up the wall, in any case.

heh...look at all the stuff this 250 spawned--fairly remarkable, really!

dani, feeling ad hominem at the mo'
(Oohh, I just remembered how hopped-up I got at Peter Singer...)

redemption

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #56 on: January 02, 2006, 06:01:51 PM »
You're hanging with us plenty now, though. What's that all about? Lonely?

Burhop

  • ****
  • 175
  • Editor and freelance Writer
    • View Profile
    • I Edit Stuff.
Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #57 on: January 02, 2006, 06:17:09 PM »
I know, right? C'mon, Kato da naysayer, join in--we'll let you play. Otherwise we'll be reduced to flinging bits o' chalk in yor direction & whispering about the state of your socks.

jb1246a

  • ****
  • 200
  • pandatar
    • View Profile
Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #58 on: January 02, 2006, 06:30:19 PM »
who the hell talks about this crap for fun?

what a bunch of nerds; i am way too cool to hang out with any of you

i will be hanging out by myself next fall -- don't want to bring myself down to your level


if this is johnny, you are the most unintellectual smart person i've ever met. you know you're a nerd at heart, even if you refuse to read books.

redemption

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #59 on: January 02, 2006, 07:33:51 PM »
Haha, it's fun to bash Thomas Friedman, isn't it? The only real problem I have with your piece is with some of the content.

How was the dawn of the 20th cent. characterized by "Liberal triumphalism"? I'm not an authority on the subject, and I haven't read Fukuyama's book, but wasn't the establishment of the GATT/Bretton Woods system after the two world wars intended to end the realist/zero sum game atmosphere of international relations that was thought to have instigated the two world wars? That system was meant to build the international liberal/neoliberal economic regime that we have today, right? So what I gather from your piece is that the League of Nations is somehow analogous to the WTO or the UN in terms of globalization and international law. I don't think that's a particularly apt comparison, but that's just my personal opinion.

Also, I don't understand the description of international law as "stripped of politics, history and culture." Maybe it's my background in world-systems perspective that confused me, but that line seems unjustified. It feels like you throw around the term "international law" in a way that is a bit reductionist. I'm not sure if the adcomms will feel this way, but that's just my .02 from a layperson's POV. Your piece is definitely thought-provoking, though! Good luck.   

Thanks for the questions, & comments.

Wrt your first point: at the dawn of the twentieth century, the western powers (sometimes called the great powers) were at peace; the balance of power was stable. Smart people believed that international law was going to be ascendant (they were true Kantians) and to prove their faith they established a number of important institutions, like the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, and many others. They even developed heir own prohibitions on WMD - it was called the "Laws and Customs of War on Land". It was supposed to ban chemical weapons etc, which, for anyone who has read Wilfred Own's poem "Dulce et Decorum est" about the experience of mustard gas attacks in the trenches of WWI fifteen years later, is a very funny, very absurd realization..

In any case, in the dawn of the twentieth century you had an explosion of international law. The best people worked on it - straight from Princeton and Oxford and the Sorbonne. Well-meaning people, well-trained lawyers who, over a few martinis and an urbane interest in making the world a better place, decided why not? Let's make some laws. So they did.

At the same time, the world then - before WWI was abuzz wth talk of globalization. Transatlantic steamships, telegraph, etc made giddy commentators (the Friedmans of their day) say "gee! the world is flat and everyone will be inter-connected and international trade imperatives will make the world safe".

Finally, the third leg of this stool (sorry): there was a belief then that domestic reform movements (for universal suffrage, for better working conditions, etc) could be seamlessly translated into the interntional law arena.

These three things constitute Liberal triumphalism. Do they sound familiar? Of course: that's us now.

Your second point: GATT/WTO/UN etc.

Really! Does anyone believe that there's a structural or behavioral diff between League of Nations and the UN? I'd be interested to know what that is/those are. Back in the day at least, they called it like it was: when they saw that the League was a sham, they folded it... We are more passive-aggressive: we appoint Kofi Annan and John Bolton so that it can slowly die from ignominy and mal-accomplishment.

WTO is different. Money is involved, not genocide - so it works. Laws get enforced.

Sorry for the long-ass post.