bl1y

Reposted Stolen from Flashpointblog.com:

Long time readers will know that I have always made my voting preferences and rationale known. Very often I am genuinely uncommitted to any particular candidate until late into the campaign. Campaigns are processes of discovery. It is our chance as voters to see where candidates claim to stand on issues, where they have stood in the past, and how they respond to the rigors of often contentious and personal battles. In the campaign for Alabama’s 5th Congressional District I have had the chance to evaluate all of the announced candidates and despite rumors that one or two others may enter this race my mind is made up. I will be voting for Mo Brooks.

My decision comes down to one word: trust. Far too often we’ve all been burned by voting for a politician only to see him (or her) change once he tasted the nectar of power. I consider trust – the knowledge that the person you vote for today will be the same person voting for you tomorrow – to be the number one quality to look for in a politician. And I have considerable faith in Brooks.

Mo is unashamed and unwavering in expressing his conservative beliefs. I’ve had the opportunity to see him engage and inform others in an array of venues, some friendly and some not, and regardless of who he is talking to his message is the same. He is a strident defender of and advocate for the free enterprise system that has made America great. His proven record on protecting taxpayers speaks for itself and serves as an indicator on how he will vote in the future. He was one of the very few public officials to oppose Bob Riley’s failed billion dollar “Amendment 1″ tax increase, going against the leader of his own party to fight an unnecessary increase in taxes.  In other words, you can rely on Brooks doing the right thing for you even when the right thing is perceived as politically unpopular.

In addition to ironclad conservative credentials Mo has critical experience in governance that will serve the 5th district well starting with his first day on the job. He has been a state legislator, district attorney, and county commissioner. He understands the mechanics of government and will be able to leverage that knowledge to tend to the interests of our district. And as a long time resident of Huntsville he knows the district and its needs well.

The more I contemplated the current field of candidates and the rumored candidates who may jump in the more I realized that there was no way I could vote for anyone other than Mo Brooks.

As for the other two announced candidates, they are simply polar opposites. Les Phillip is an honorable man who has served our country with distinction and I expect would do so again if elected. I’ve had the chance to talk to him and listen to him and find myself unable to say anything negative about him. His one shortcoming as a candidate is only that he lacks the record voters can judge. At best, Les will be as reliable as Mo. At worst, he may be more erratic in his voting. Same upside, but Brooks has less downside. As some Brooks supporters say, “Why settle for Les when you can have Mo?” Should Phillip be the GOP nominee, though, I will have no problem supporting him fully. Parker Griffith, however, is not an honorable man and has placed his own ambition ahead of the needs of the district. He will tell people anything in exchange for a vote and simply cannot be trusted. If he is the GOP nominee I will undervote this race in the general election before I vote for him.

Let me also speak to a couple of the frequent criticisms I have heard about Brooks. One that I’ve heard from some on the right side of the aisle is that he is a career politician. True, he has been in public office for many years. But I fail to see how that in any way disqualifies him considering that career has been spent fighting for conservative principles. He hasn’t been a political weather vane, pointing whichever way the wind blows in order to stay in office.  He hasn’t backed down from or allowed his political adversaries to run him over. I’ll take a politician who has spent a career conducting himself in a manner I generally agree with anytime.

The second, and more prevalent, criticism I’ve heard about Brooks is that he can be too polarizing for this district. It is fair to say that Brooks differs considerably from, say, Bud Cramer in terms of style. Mo speaks his mind. I don’t think he would disagree with that, but he maintains that he keeps the rhetoric on a policy level, not a personal one and that he has proven himself to be capable of working with Democrats. In the Alabama legislature I believe he was one of about a dozen Republicans in the 105 member house and on the Madison County Commission Democrats hold a 4-3 advantage, but those situations haven’t rendered him ineffective.

I look forward to watching this Republican primary play out. I feel confident that Parker Griffith will be exposed as the political opportunist that he is. I am equally confident that as Republican voters look for a conservative they can count on to represent this district that they will turn to Mo Brooks.

Today it was reported by AbovetheLaw.com that two associates in Winsteads already deferred incoming class had their offers revoked a mere two days before they were scheduled to start.  An entirely classless act that most definitely deserves mention on their Wikipedia page.

And, while I was at it, I decided to hit up Nixon Peabody as well, since they did a similar move in December, deferring most of their incoming associates indefinitely and telling them only 20 days before their start date.

Bar applications.

After going through the Sisyphean nightmare that is law school, and then spending money to have another company prepare you for the bar, you have to go through one of the most obnoxious administrative processes ever: applying to the bar.

This is something a lot of non-lawyers don’t even know about.  Passing the bar exam does not mean you can practice law.  You still have to get admitted to your state’s bar.  Having gone through this once already and being admitted in New York, I thought this would be easy a second time around.  Not so.

In Alabama you have to complete your application to the bar before you can even take the test, which is particularly ridiculous because Alabama has one of the earliest application deadlines (in other states, there’s just a deadline for the exam, and rolling admissions for being admitted).

The application involves a lot of stuff you’d expect, like where you went to school, prior legal jobs, that sort of thing.  But then there’s a lot of obnoxious stuff too.  In Alabama you have to provide a list of every place you’ve lived since you were 18; I had 6.  You have to list every job you’ve had since you were 16; I had 7; plus, you have to provide information for what you were doing for any period when not employed.  So, if like most students, all you had were summer jobs, you have a ton of unemployment periods.

And finally, the worst part, you need to get character references.  In NY you needed two people who have known you for at least 3 years and were not currently applying to the bar (no quid pro quo with your classmates); they prefer one of the people to be an attorney.  That’s not too terrible.

In Alabama you need 3 attorneys who have been admitted to the bar for at least 5 years.  If you don’t come from an upper class family and didn’t get a good summer job, I don’t know how anyone does this.  I e-mailed a few of the partners I did some work for at my old job, but only 2 of the 3 replied.  What the hell?

Luckily, last night I was stuffing envelopes at the home of the House candidate I’m volunteering for, and was talking with someone else about bar admissions and mentioned the obnoxious character references rule when the candidate offered to write me a letter.  I’ve known him only about a week, but Alabama doesn’t ask for a minimum time on the relationship.  He’s a pretty prominent attorney here and a county commissioner, so hopefully his recommendation will go a long way.

And finally, just for Ss&Gs, gratuitous hottie:

Looks like it’s time for yet another associate to sue their firm for discrimination.  This time Kamisha Menns, a black Jamaican woman, is suing after being fired from Howrey.  From her complaint, here’s the basic plot:

Menns was working in DC at Freshfields, completely happy and satisfied with her job.  Her complaint actually says she was happy and not looking to change firms.

Menns met a partner from Howrey while at an anti-trust conference who began recruiting her to work at Howrey.  She put in an application to work at Howrey’s Belgium office, was flown in for interviews with twelve different attorneys there.

Howrey then offered Menns a job in Belgium, along with a higher salary, moving expenses, and 10,000 Euro (~14,000 USD) signing bonus.

A bunch of shit that’s in dispute happened, Menns filed a complaint with Howrey’s main office, and then Howrey was fired, a mere 5 months after she was hired.

Menn’s argument is basically that she kept getting work away despite getting good reviews, and the firing was in retaliation for complaining about possible discrimination.  Unfortunately for her, her own account her hiring are pretty strong evidence that there wasn’t any prejudice against her.  You don’t go to that sort of effort to recruit a black women if you’re a bigot.

My guess about what happened is she interviewed really well but turned out to be a substandard lawyer.  The positive reviews were likely the result of people simply being polite and not wanting to insult her.  Attorneys don’t get bad reviews until a firm has decided to build a case for their dismissal.  Otherwise, lawyers being completely spineless wimps, everyone gets a good review.

And if I’m wrong, and she really was discriminated against, just think about what exactly that would mean.  Howrey actively recruited her when she wasn’t looking for a new job.  Did they really go to great lengths hire her for the sole purpose of just firing her a few months later and leaving her stranded in a foreign country with poor job prospects?  If so, is that the type of firm you want to get into a legal battle with?  This isn’t Jim v. Dwight level office pranks.  If Menns’s accusations are true, she should get the hell away from there, quick.

PS: Menns is suing for $30 million dollars.  What a fucking joke.

If there’s beef, cock it and dump it, the drama really means nothin’
To me I’ll ride by and blow ya brains out (brains out)
There’s no time to cock it, no way you can stop it
When niggas run up on you wit’ them thangs out (thangs out)
I do what I gotta do I don’t care I if get caught
The DA can play this motherfuckin’ tape in court
I’ll kill you – I ain’t playin’, hear what I’m sayin’, homie I ain’t playin’
Catch you slippin’, I’ma kill you – I ain’t playin’, hear what I’m sayin’
Homie I ain’t playin’

That’s right.  Reason #23 not to go to law school: You’re gonna get shot.

As of about noon today, Northwestern Law school is under lock down and swarming with cops after a man with a gun was spotted on campus.

Sadly, law students and guns go together far too often.

Just recently, a Temple law student decided to take a gun with him out to a club, got into an altercation on the street outside and ended up shooting someone five times.  Another Philadelphian, a U. Penn law student was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison after shooting up the door of his neighbors’ apartment.

On January 6th, a gunman took fire at a Las Vegas court house.

The man who shot up LA Fitness last summer worked as an attorney at K&L Gates.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Lawyers are usually depressed, neurotic, stuck in thankless, high-stress jobs, up to their eye-balls in debt, and saturated with drugs and alcohol.  And, apparently, they’re also packing heat.

If you go to law school, the odds that you will shoot someone or be shot yourself go way up.  But, don’t expect that to be in their recruiting materials.

To the students at Northwestern, I sincerely hope you’re all okay, and sorry you didn’t get into Chicago.

Salaries to be named at a later time.

A bit of a shocking trend has started in Texas, as firms are giving students offers to start work upon graduation, but without specifying what the salary for the position will be.  At least nine of the largest firms in Texas have made such offers, and students are expected to make a decision whether to accept months before they will have any idea how much the job pays.

Many of the more profitable firms across the country have already given their associates 10% pay cuts (or 15-20% if you count cuts in bonuses as well), and it’s unclear how this will translate to large firms in secondary markets.  I suspect it will be in the 10-15% range, but only time will tell.  This is particularly rough on students who are planning to move (either to the city where they’re working, or just out of their law school dorm) and have to create a budget based on an unknown salary.

But, despite having no idea what they’ll be getting paid, acceptance rates at these firms are up.  That’s just how bad the economy is.  Law students are even more eager to accept their job offers now, despite having no idea what they’ll be getting paid.

Had my second night of volunteering on the local House race, this time stuffing envelopes to send to the VIP people on our donor list.  This is some sincerely dull work, but I don’t really mind, being a lawyer has made me used to doing tedious, boring work, but at least this might actually accomplish something.

Anyways, it was all going fine, just minding my business, folding paper and putting it in envelopes until someone decided it’d be nice to turn on the TV for a little entertainment.  And by “entertainment” people down here mean “Fox News.”

I think pretty much all TV news/commentary stations are shallow, biased, and worthless, but Fox News, God bless their profitable souls, is worse than the others.  It’s not the content or the awful hosts though, it’s that they don’t understand how televisions work.  How can you have such a profitable, dominant TV station without understanding the technology behind the medium?

If I have trouble hearing you, I’ll adjust the volume.  I don’t need you to yell everything.

Okay?  Thanks.

As you may already be aware, The Deep End on ABC aired to almost universally bad reviews.  But, Natalie Holder-Winfield, a “diversity lawyer” (whatever that means, I think she just tells you to hire blacks to avoid law suits) has managed to complain about the one thing the show got right: diversity.

“While I can toss out most of the show’s antics as hyperbole — for starters, no partner would allow a first year associate to go within 20 feet of a client–the show is 100% correct when it comes to life at a firm for blacks and Latinos. For the most part, we do not exist.

Scenes like the one where Dylan, the first year associate who is described as a Boy Scout, is tapped for mentorship, help explain why associates of color only account for 15% of law firm associates. Rowdy Kaiser, a partner who drives a smoking Porsche, actually appoints himself as Dylan’s “secret mentor.” And, he lives up to his promise. Behind the scenes, he coaches Dylan and even helps him to navigate a difficult case where the firm would have lost a potential client if Dylan made one false move.

However, there are rarely secret mentors for associates of color. Many of the associates of color I interviewed for my book, Recruiting & Retaining a Diverse Workforce: New Rules for a New Generation were treated like outsiders. They were not invited to social functions with partners and they certainly were not tapped for secret mentoring. Yet, study after study shows the importance of mentoring in any profession.

Now, technically, the show has two black people: Susan Oppenheim (a named partner in the firm) and Malcolm Bennet (a first year associate).

Yet, when Susan is introduced to Malcolm, she literally closes the door in his face. She disregards him and is more concerned with the firm’s politics, i.e., how he was hired, rather than eying him as her secret mentee.

The white associates in the show were given so much access and support. While they commiserated about the same old things that annoy all associates, they could at least dream about a future at the firm. They were a part of the firm.”

I can’t say for sure that I follow Ms. Holder-Winfield’s complaint.  Is it that the show doesn’t have enough black people, or that real law firms don’t?  Well, she can’t just be complaining about firms not having enough black people, because she otherwise wouldn’t need to talk so much about the show.  So, I guess her complaint is that the show is too accurate in this regard.

What’s worse about her complaint, aside from being confusing, is that she acknowledges that there are indeed black people working at the firm.  So far the show has 9 main characters, 3 partners, 5 associates, and 1 paralegal.  Of those 9, one partner and one associate are black.  I’ll let you do some thinking about what percentage of the United States is black.  Blacks are 12.4% of the population, but 22% of the people working at the firm; 25% of the attorneys.  They’re overrepresented by a factor of 100%!  And Holder-Winfield is complaining about discrimination by the firm?  What a jackass.

Just to make Holder-Winfield’s comments even more ridiculous is that she completely misrepresents how the white characters are treated:

Dylan (white) is intentionally given a start date 10 days late to put him into a reputational hole that he’ll now have to dig his way out of.

Addy (white) is given assignments by two different partners that, due to time constraints, cannot both be complete.  She is shut down when trying to explain this and is berated when she finds a solution by getting help from a fellow associate.

Beth (white) is talked down to by her lawyer-father for not being aggressive enough to survive in the legal world, and is then passive-aggressively taunted by a client when she allows her convictions to collapse.

Doesn’t really seem like the whites were given as much access and support as Holder-Winfield imagines they are.  Not only that, but law firms aren’t as all-white as she imagines.  At my firm there were 7 starting corporate associates.  3 were white, 3 were hispanic, and 1 was some sort of ambiguous Near-East/Indian blend.  One of the 3 white people was a French national, and I think counts for some diversity points.

But I digress.  What’s really obnoxious about Holder-Winfield is that she thinks partners ought to select their mentees based on race.  She wanted Susan to mentor Malcolm simply because they’re both black.  At that point in the show, Addy has been working for Susan and just proven herself to be very intelligent and capable.  Susan selects her to second chair an important trial.  So, it looks like Susan has just chosen a mentor based on the content of her character, but Holder-Winfield wants Susan to throw that away and choose Malcolm based solely on the color of his skin.

Ms. Holder-Winfield, you are what is wrong with this country.  And, just to counteract how incredibly wrong you are, here’s something that’s incredibly right (though so very far from earning diversity points):

PS: Malcolm already has a partner in his corner.  One of the (white) partners goes against established firm hiring procedures to bring in a hand-selected associate.  I guess he technically doesn’t have a secret mentor, but isn’t a public mentor, going to bat for you on your very first day of work a whole lot better?

Here it is,the third and final installment T.G.I. Friday’s frozen food reviews.  [Read the first and second entries.]  This time we’re taking a look at three different chicken products, Honey BBQ Chicken Wings, Buffalo Chicken Wings, and Buffalo Popcorn Chicken.  Again, all the products are roughly the same size by weight, so the stats are for an entire small box, not per serving.  The popcorn chicken comes with a side of buffalo sauce (in addition to the buffalo seasoning already on the chicken); so the popcorn chicken will be listed both with and without the sauce.

Round One: Bad Nutrition

Calories

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: 400

Buffalo Chicken Wings: 360

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: 480 / 690

Fat

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: 22g

Buffalo Chicken Wings: 22g

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: 21g / 25g

Carbs

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: 20g

Buffalo Chicken Wings: 8g

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: 45g / 90g

Sodium

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: 1100mg

Buffalo Chicken Wings: 2060mg

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: 2010mg / 4090mg

Round Two: Good Nutrition

Protein

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: 28g

Buffalo Chicken Wings: 30g

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: 27g / 27g

Calcium

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: 8%

Buffalo Chicken Wings: 4%

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: 0% / 0%

Vitamin A

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: 4%

Buffalo Chicken Wings: 16%

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: 12% / 24%

Iron

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: 8%

Buffalo Chicken Wings: 8%

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: 6%

Round Three: Cost

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: $2.98

Buffalo Chicken Wings: $2.98

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: $2.98

Round Four: Convenience

Honey BBQ and Buffalo Chicken Wings: The wings had the same cooking instructions.  They could be, theoretically, microwaved, and while I am favoring convenience in products, wings are just something that really need to be baked.  They bake at 450F for 9 minutes, need to be flipped, and then baked for another 8 minutes.

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: These also had both baking and microwave instructions, but I went with the microwave on this one, at a quick 2:30.  Trouble with these is the extra sauce packet, which cannot be microwaved.  You thaw it by setting it in a pot of hot water for about 8 minutes.

Round Five: The Main Event – How Was It

Honey BBQ Chicken Wings: Bad choice in sauce.  Barbeque is sweet enough as it is, no need for anything to ever be honey barbeque.  It wasn’t gross, just too sweet to be good.  The texture of the meat was fine, but baking it did not produce anything resembling a crispy skin.  The wings are too drenched in sauce to crisp up at all, but pretty much what you find in all second rate wings.  B-

Buffalo Chicken Wings: This sauce was actually pretty decent.  If you’re looking for something really spicy, this won’t be it, but I think that’s a good thing.  Too many wings go for heat over taste.  Buffalo describes a specific type of mild-medium hot sauce, and they produced that flavor pretty well.  And, despite not being as drenched in sauce as the barbeque wings, the skin on these still didn’t crisp up in the oven.  You’d be much better off buying the wings cooked by your local grocery store.  B

Buffalo Popcorn Chicken: The processing, freezing, and microwaving really took a toll on the texture of the nuggets.  These probably would have benefited from baking (where as the wings would have been the same out of the microwave).  Otherwise though, they were pretty decent.  They got the same good buffalo flavor as the wings, and weren’t too hot.  As for the extra sauce…completely unnecessary.  It tastes exactly the same as the chicken.  B+

Results

Since the Buffalo Popcorn Chicken was ultimately eaten without the extra sauce, those numbers will not be considered in the results, except to say right now that 4090mg of sodium is INSANE.

Bad Nutrition

Worst Bad Nutrition: Mozzarella Sticks, not even close.  770 calories, 35g of fat, 63g carbs, and 1330mg sodium to boot.  I feel sick just thinking about it.

Best Bad Nutrition: Potato Skins?  None of these was remotely good for you, but the Potato Skins seem like they’ll kill you the slowest.

Good Nutrition

Worst Good Nutrition: Potato Skins?  Again, a tough thing to judge.  This one just ranks so much lower than everything else for protein that it’s the only thing to stand out.

Best Good Nutrition: Mozzarella Sticks just barely beats out Chicken Quesadillas.  Everything competing was high protein, but these two also packed in a lot of calcium.

Cost

Those of you who’ve been keeping up will have spotted this already: a 7 way tie!  Everyone one of these products came in at just $2.98 (which is why I was willing to buy so many).

Convenience

Least Convenient: Both of the Wings and the Mozzarella Sticks are pretty inconvenient.  All three bake, which slows the process down.  The Wings require being flipped halfway through, and the Mozzarella Sticks have a whole sauce thawing process.  Mozzarella Sticks are the least convenient, by a field goal.

Most Convenient: The two Quesadillas will split this victory with the Popcorn Chicken.  Sure, the Popcorn Chicken has a packet of sauce to thaw, but you’re better served throwing it away, making all three of these products about equally convenient.  (I still suggest baking the chicken.)

How Was It?

It Was the Worst: Mozzarella Sticks, without a doubt, hands down, one of the worst things I’ve ever eaten, and I’ve had horse.

It Was the Best: This isn’t much of a victory, since nothing stood out as great, but the Popcorn Chicken wins this one.

Final Verdict

What the hell, let’s give it to the Potato Skins.  If I went back and looked at all the data carefully, I might reach another result, but right now the Potato Skins are simply the only thing I could imagine buying again, and that basically makes it the white guy boxing against the black guy.  If you’re black, anything other than a knockout in the ring results in a loss.  Sorry, but there you have it, I’m a food racist.

This comment came in through the original site in response to Reason #11 and I thought I’d share it here for your amusement.  The writer purports to be a Cornell 2L, but his e-mail address was invalid, so who knows.  But, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.

Dear BL1Y,

Hey man grow a pair. That’s really all there’s to say about anything you’ve done with this blog. This isn’t Stuffwhitepeoplelike, which is–at the very least–witty and self-deprecating. You haven’t achieved that, and won’t, probably because you can’t. I get the whole “I’ve worked my ass off to get here and it’s disappointing” thing, but the anger of this blog isn’t constructive, it’s just your own desperate effort to channel a frustrating recognition into something else: you’re really, truly not as brilliant as you thought you were when you started law school. And that’s actually what’s got you so pissed right now. But it doesn’t excuse your desire to make your classmates out to look like something the cat drug in. If you had any capacity for self-reflection, at least you might have a marginal idea of how much nicer your life is than that of most everyone else on Earth. But you can’t see any of that. So instead of studying more to ensure that you get every ounce you can out of the terrific opportunity that is law school, or even asking one of those foreign students out to the bar after class to get a sense of who they are past the most cliched stereotyping (you’re probably too socially maladjusted for that anyway), you’ve just wasted your time writing this shit. Penning shit rants about how you probably won’t make 160k on the other side of graduation. Honestly though, making a ton of money is one thing you’ll never have to worry about. Because it’s obvious you’re a rotten person, and you’ll make a terrific lawyer.

Sincerely,

John H., Cornell 2L

Dear John,

Are you retarded, or just a law student?  Your reading comprehension skills are appalling.  It takes about two seconds on my blog to realize that I’m not a law student, I’ve graduated and then left legal practice.  And, since you’re bothering to write a response, I assume you’re vaguely familiar with the format I’m using here.  But, you seem to still think I should be studying more to get the most I can out of law school, while also acknowledging my dissatisfaction for work in the legal profession.  Were you perhaps drunk when you wrote your rant?

As for the suggestion that I hang out with more foreign students, again your reading comprehension skills have failed you.  I specifically mention that one of my friends from law school was from a third world African country.  My post wasn’t that long or hard to follow.  How the hell do you make it through an entire case?  I bet you have trouble following the flow of a syllabus.

And no, I’m not disappointed because I worked my ass off to become a lawyer.  I did no such thing.  I did the minimal amount of work necessary, drank like a fish, and graduated smack in the middle of my class.  I’m disappointed because the law school and the legal profession are jokes and a complete waste of time, money and talent.  Or in your case, just time and money.

Finally, not only am I not angry (bitter, sure; jaded, yeup; but not angry), but this blog actually is fairly constructive.  It provides me with a creative outlet while allowing me to hone my writing skills.  The internet provides far better feedback than the 3Ls who teach your legal writing class.  In the first two weeks my blog was up it got over 10,000 hits; I’d say it’s actually quite productive.

Sincerely,

BL1Y

PS: My condolences on not being accepted to Columbia.