Rethinking Law School

After reading this explanation on the Texas Democratic Primary/Caucus, I've begun to think that if I can't understand this, maybe I'm not cut out for law school.

So Democrats can vote twice in Texas? And, if you are one of the super-delegates residing in Texas, you can vote 3 times (with the 3rd super-delegate vote weighted much more).

Makes perfect sense.

Double Post Thursday!

To make up for my lack of posting and because this really irks me I'm doing my first annual double-post Thursday. Look for my next one in 2009!

There is a lot of complaining on both sides about the lack of content regarding real issues coming from the candidates. While these complaints are certainly justified, can we take aim at the media for a while?

Candidates live & die by their image, not their take on issues. As much as I would like this not to be true, it is. Where do candidates get their image from....the media.

During the Republican debate a week ago, the moderators went down the line asking a different question to each candidate. Mostly Iraq and illegal immigration stuff. They get to dear old Ron Paul.

Congressman Paul, many of your supporters call themselves 9/11 Truthers. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy?

What does this have to do with anything? Does Mit Romney have to answer for those in his religion (and undoubtedly support him) who live on compounds and believe in plural marriages? What about the bands of ultra-conservative militia types who support the other candidates...are we going to dig those up and find who they endorse so we can confront the candidates with this?

I turned off the last Democratic debate in Las Vegas, not because of the candidates, but because of the schlock coming from the moderators.

A question to the white male Senator Edwards:

Why should I, as a progressive woman, not resent being forced to choose between the first viable female candidate and the first viable African American candidate? What is a white male to do running against these historic candidacies?

This was followed by a bunch of questions about Hillary's New Hampshire tearfest (a la Tom Hanks - "There's no crying in politics!), and the apparent tag team Hillary bashing by Edwards and Obama.

I think Fox, MSNBC and everyone else are trying to dump Kucinich and Ron Paul from these debates because they actually think for themselves, are not tools of some right- or left-wing agenda, and in turn, get in the way of the media's manipulation of the images of the remaining 'electable' candidates.

I'll end with some uplifting news - it looks like there is a strong chance our next President has taken Public Speaking 101...much to the chagrin of daily calendar makers and stand-up comedians.

Day 5:

Happy Halloween! I wore my traditional Jack o' Lantern t-shirt to work today to liven things up a bit. Since my deadline for submitting my law school applications is quickly approaching (read: tomorrow), I am gearing up to finish my personal statement tonight. There are a few auxillary essays to write still, but those should be much easier as the scope is more defined ("Why our school?").

Listening to news clips of the recent debates has really depressed me, not because of the mudslinging and name calling, that has always existed, but because of the intelligence level of the statements being made. Compared to speeches and debates of the past, candidates speak to the nation as if we were 3rd graders. Spend two minutes reading transcripts (I couldn't bare to read much more) of the recent Democratic and Republican debates and you get this sense. Compare that to the Lincoln-Douglas debates or even the more recent Kennedy-Nixon debates and today's candidates look like they were picked straight from some community college debate club (no offense to community colleges).

My favorite excerpt from Barack Obama:

"Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets over- hyped. In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is, I'm Rocky in this situation."

Do people really hear this and say - "What a way to start off a debate! Wow, this guy referred to a movie I like. He must be like me. He would be a great president. "

I want someone who is not like me to be president. They should be smarter, more well read, have an exceptional memory, be emotionally balanced, and thorough knowledge in economics. It wouldn't hurt if they were fluent in other languages as well. Those people do exist. How about someone with extensive knowledge of other religions? That could be handy.

While I've opted not to comment on the current administration, we can learn from their failures; the ability to surround yourself with only the highest qualified appointees & advisers is the most underrated skill. Warren G. Harding lingers near the top of many 'Worst Presidents Ever' lists and he wasn't that bad of a guy, it was the people around him. Sound familiar? On the other hand, Herb Alpert was certainly not the best trumpet player ever, but he was the most successful (monetarily speaking) because he had business smarts and surrounded himself with the best musicians in the world.

Either later today or tomorrow I'll post my solution to the endless election process.