And it's not even like when w-lfs-n edits our posts! This is perfectly acceptable!
Wait, w-lfs-n edits our posts? And I never even noticed...
I never Ben w-lfs-n is awesome noticed either.
1. Thou shalt not fuck with my document.
2. If thou fuckest with my document, thou shalt mark thy changes clearly, and thou shalt be prepared to justify them.
3. Unless thou art the boss of me.
That is all.
#4 is super.
No one ever edits my wiki. Then again, maybe people don't want to go to "law school advice wiki" and get like 20 posts saying DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
Hey, McCain set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq! It's 2013.
So you can all vote for him now.
Heck, why not. He'll only be 84 then; maybe his cyrogenic brain-in-a-vat can run for President.
It's 2013, if the magic Iraqi democracy ponies have arrived. I still haven't seen him explain what happens if they forget to turn left at Albuquerque.
Since the world's ending in 2012, withdrawing from Iraq in 2013 sounds just about right on schedule.
Conveniently, if he's elected, he'll be campaigning for reëlection in 2012, and will probably tell us not to change horses or some shit.
Of course you shouldn't change horses if the horses are freedom ponies.
OH, come on. It's funnier than that. The Guardian quotes him as saying
The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced."
And the fact that the room in which he said it was not overwhelmed with spontaneous tear-filled hysterical laughter tells us all we need to know about the American media; and, for that matter, about the absence of the Holy Spirit from these deliberations, since only an outburst of full-on charismatic lunacy could do them justice.
OH, come on. It's funnier than that. The Guardian quotes him as saying
The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced."
And the fact that the room in which he said it was not overwhelmed with spontaneous tear-filled hysterical laughter tells us all we need to know about the American media; and, for that matter, about the absence of the Holy Spirit from these deliberations, since only an outburst of full-on charismatic lunacy could do them justice.
No one ever edits my wiki.
If I were to, I would consider including this essay by Nicholas Johnson, former clerk to Justice Black, FCC Chairman, and professor at University of Iowa College of Law. It would seem to fit, and I doubt that he would mind(IIRC he's a creative commons adherent). I only suggest it because it shares the title of your posts and I was reminded of having to read it when I took his Law of Electronic Media course.
Is doing stuff in a wiki all that different than doing stuff in a google doc where everyone can make changes?
12: John McCain: flip-flopper.
John McCain, a flip-flopper.
John Kerry, the flip-flopper.
Technically, McCain is not a flip-flopper. He said we should not set a date for withdrawal from Iraq in the absence of achieving our goals. His 2013 figure is not a deadline for unconditional withdrawal, but his view of when our goals will be achieved.
17 -- Smart fellow. Incoming associates ought to read that, especially the part about getting fired if you give me stuff with typos.
his view of when our goals will be achieved.
What are our goals again?
What are our goals again?
Those big white sticks at each end of the field.
What are our goals again?
Proving the DFHs wrong.
A much less important goal is that we want people in the Middle East to reject violence as a way of solving problems. If we kill enough of them, they'll get it.
20: then there's the tax cut thing, where he's changed his mind, what, three times this decade?
Yeah but he's too old to remember what his view used to be, so its ok.
Sweet, this is topical: McCain flip-flop of the day.
I actually think "flip-flopper" isn't nearly a strong enough term for McCain. He tells people whatever he thinks they want to hear at the present moment, regardless of whether it makes him look like a hypocrite, flip-flopper, liar, or just completely out of touch with the world around him. Presumably because he is all of those things.
21: Are you kidding me? We will almost surely never work together, Napi. I think I can say with some certainty that I have never given a partner a draft that is completely free of typos. It is a running joke with the partner I have worked with most often that I throw half a dozen typos into every draft just to test whether he is truly reviewing my work. (This is the joke, in part, because-with rare exceptions-he almost never has any suggestions other than correcting the typos.) Personally, I'd far rather see partners and associates alike spending their energy worrying about clarity of writing, soundness of analysis, and completeness of research than getting all worked up over a trivial typographical error.
Or shorter: the senior partner in the excerpt linked in 17 who threw a tantrum over a typo is a self-important jackass.
ooohhhh Di just called Napi a jackass!
Don't you spell check?
Napi:
I have a case in an appellate court where the other side has the following heading: RES JUDICATA?
27: BUT NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN WAS AN APPEASER! HE WAS AN APPEASER , TWEETY, AN APPEASER!!!
DON"T YOU UNDERSTAND?! IT"S ALL ABOUT APPEASEMENT, ABOUT NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, THE APPEASER! HE WAS AN APPEASER (sob) I TELL YOU, AN APPEASER! HE WAS HE WAS HE WAS ... he was...
Further to 29/the post:
My first job as a real lawyer was for a judge whose red pen legendary. He edited the hell out of my initial drafts. My ordinary resistance to seeing my writing altered was mitigated by (1) his name, not mine, went on the final work product; (2) he was a phenomenal writer whose alterations invariably made the work better.
Nevertheless, it was a personal quest to get just one draft past him without a drop of red ink. Just one. The final decision I drafted for him, I pored over religiously. I had worked for him long enough to be able to hit the precise tone he would want and to articulate the exact analysis he would apply. I spell-checked, proof-read, put it aside and come back to it. When I was confident it was flawless, I handed it over.
He came into my office the next day, chagrined. "You were soooo close! But I really think it's better if you add a comma in the second paragraph on page 3." Like young Icarus, I had flown so close to the sun! But alas, my wings had melted and I crashed back to earth.
wasnt there an article about how Bush was more like Neville C., not like Winston C.?
Charging your opponents with appeasement and likening them to Neville Chamberlain in the Knesset is a brutal blow.Neville Chamberlain may have been an appeaser, but he sure as fuck was never in the Knesset.
30: Spell-check does not catch all typographical errors, just spelling errors.
And I'm pretty confident that Napi has never flung a document at an associate and berated the associate for the audacity of not having achieved perfection. But if he has, then I suppose I am calling him a jackass.
Principally, do not, as a matter of principle, rely on spell check when drafting anything for your principal.
34: wasnt there an article about how Bush was more like Neville C., not like Winston C.?
Yes, you are probably thinking of this one:
"Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W"
George W. Bush always wanted to be like a wartime British prime minister. He is. But it's not the one he had in mind.
27: While we can all salute John McCain's many, many, many years of service to his country, we must still ask ourselves whether we want someone who has apparently forgotten some of his recent political positions to have his finger on the button. What if he forgets that the Soviet Union fell? That happened almost 17 years ago, not just 2 years ago like his statement in favor of Hamas. We could be halfway to Armageddon before President McCain remember that we like the Russkies now.
This is a funny video of Kevin James getting caught not knowing what he is talking about.
The best part starts around 4:45
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=b7140d70-b2c9-4197-86ea-82447222aff4
39: hasn't he already argued for not liking the russians again?
41: See, that's what I'm talking about! He probably has no idea who the current Czar is.
yes, yes. 32 had it first. It is still worth watching for the shaming.
44: I think that's been linked here more'n a couple times.
39 - I don't think it's that he's old. My amateur psychoanalysis is that McCain is simultaneously not a particularly deep thinker and convinced, down to the bone, of his own moral righteousness. I've kind of thought this since McCain had his disgraceful freakout when Obama got to the Senate and tried to appropriate his signature issue of campaign finance reform. (Note that McCain has basically ignored his own CFR legislation this year — but he knows what he's doing is the right thing!) Lying about meeting with telecom lobbyist? No, no, he just put those aside because they weren't like weak people meeting with lobbyists. Cutting deals with Arizona real estate developers? Down the memory hole! He wasn't in the least influenced by the sacks of campaign cash they offered. Obama calls for meetings with the Iranians? He's weak and Chamberlain-esque, not like me!
You can see how this confidence, in the company of war heroism and less obviously unkeeled moral instincts, would be impressive to reporters, although I think that ablative coating is slowly disintegrating. Also, you can see why McCain and that preening moralist Joe Lieberman are so buddy-buddy.
44: Yes it is. Though as someone pointed out somewhere, it is surreal to see Chris Matthews asking someone why they are yelling.
My amateur psychoanalysis is that McCain is simultaneously not a particularly deep thinker and convinced, down to the bone, of his own moral righteousness.
I agree completely with Snarkout.
I agree completely with Snarkout.
Now I know how Heebie feels all the time.
49: Check out that booty on snarkout -- woo hoo!
46: I think you have it pretty well nailed. There is no there there for anything other than his "reputation", being a bud, and the war stuff. I think that, like Bush, he genuinely does not know about, nor give a fuck about anything substantive. And the Dems should go right at the perceived strength of straight talk and reputation. (And to their credit, I think they are trying to do just that*.)
*Thos not named Hillary Clinton, although she has joined in a bit here in the last few days. But highlights how damaging and infuriating her earlier placement above Obama in terms of qualifications was.
You can see how this confidence, in the company of war heroism and less obviously unkeeled moral instincts, would be impressive to reporters
I really think telling people what they want to hear is an important part of it, though. He agrees with whatever people say, but he does it with unshakeable faith in his own moral certainty, which masks the fact that he's just parroting whatever you're saying to him.
Mm, delicious ablative coating.
My amateur psychoanalysis is that McCain is simultaneously not a particularly deep thinker and convinced, down to the bone, of his own moral righteousness.
Indeed, I think this is constitutive of McCain's appeal and 'maverick' image. Who cares if he's consistent? A good man isn't going to let a little thing like that get in the way of what he Knows To Be Right.
I really don't think the McCain-has-no-consistent-policy-position idea is going to matter jackshit to anyone who doesn't already fancy themselves a policy wonk or an amateur policy wonk.
I really don't think the McCain-has-no-consistent-policy-position idea is going to matter jackshit to anyone who doesn't already fancy themselves a policy wonk or an amateur policy wonk.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but it seems to me that it strikes at the core of his Principled Maverick image. If you could demonstrate that he changes his positions willy-nilly and/or convince people that he just spouts off random shit to please those about him, that would hurt him enormously. He's not really running on anything other than his image.
Just as Rove (with press help) destroyed Boy Scout Gore by tarring him as Lying Al, so must Dems destroy Principled Maverick McCain by tarring him as Finger in the Wind John (with the added benefit that it's accurate).
The biggest problem is that it's a bit late, and of course they won't have accomplices at the NYT and WaPo. But in this terrible year for Republicans, all you need to do is prevent Independents from voting for McCain out of a misplaced sense of respect. A small hit in perceptions of his principledness will have big impacts, especially in a lot of the states that Obama is supposed to be bringing into contention - if you can convince Mountain Westerners that McCain isn't a maverick, but just another Washington Republican (who'll say anything), then they'll be a lot more likely to go with Obama, who's viewed fairly favorably out there (I'm given to understand).
Oddly, the article linked in 27 says McCain is the "presumptive" nominee. I know it's not official until the convention, but that just seems odd.
OK, Snarkout wins. Close the thread.