1 0 . 6 . 0 6
Busy couple of weeks in the world and around town. Latest DC gossip is about the congressman who resigned after his online transgressions with 16 year old boys came out in the news. Kind of sad, a blatant abuse of position and power, even sicker is that the allegations go back as far as 1995, and through the impeachment hearings of a certain president who was having another scandal of his. Its also pretty fucking hypocritical that the party of supposed values is now forced to explain a statutory criminal in their leadership. Don’t get started on how the Democrats are just as bad. They’ve had their share of scandals, but as Bill Maher on CNN said it pretty well, the Dems aren’t the ones preaching from a high horse, trying to legislate morals into law.
Now it seems like the whole thing is becoming a big gay bashing event for the republicans, its almost as if they’re more offended that they had a mahu in their midst as opposed to a potential child-fucker. Thats sick if you ask me. all around sick. Of course adding to the irony was that he was some chair or high member of the commission for exploited and abused children. Did it ever occur to him that his nighttime excursions online might’ve been adding to the problem?
Another run into the Socratic method, and I’m still batting a pretty low average on performance in front of the crowd. If there is a consolation, I am actually getting this stuff down pretty well conceptually, its just that I’m not used to answering in citation (never was, maybe never will be). I got stumped on not citing the obvious - namely, the definition of what cause of action I was arguing. Kind of dumb, I figured that theres no need to state the obvious, but thats not that obvious after all. Irony is that the prof had earlier talked about how many of us the class could be really learning the law but not do well on any law exams since we haven’t mastered how to present an argument like a law student would, in legalese, in statute citation form.
This time I had actually read up and was prepared enough to give an answer, but I think more significant is that I’m getting a little numb on the anxiety of getting called on in class, it just doesn’t seem to rattle me like it used to. I don’t know if I’m starting to reject the method entirely given its shortcomings that I’ve been observing lately, or maybe I’m actually getting into the mode of things.
maybe a few more topics to at to that short list from September - there is a “right” answer that most profs are looking for, and by the time they’ve taught the staple classes to more than a few groups of 1L and 2Ls they expect people to get it a lot quicker than last year’s class did. There really isn’t any of the “there’s no such thing as a stupid answer/question/comment” in law school. if you dont’ answer right the first time around, the professor will look at you strangely and pause if they’re nice, maybe lightly scold you at your lack of depth in answering the question on the spot, or maybe even scream at you for a few minutes - it varies by school and class I’m sure.
Not a very relaxed or friendly environment for learning thats for sure. More like fire under the okole, which is good since it motivates you. I guess I don’t think it should be too friendly, but honestly after a couple of weeks of being on the edge of your seat, it gets kind of old.