Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The Sad, Awful Truth, of Which the Law School Scam is a Part

Why we must keep up the message, while understanding that it has to get worse before it gets better.  We are clearly at the "bloat" stage, and further pressure from all fronts will prompt collapse.  It is unfortunate that we inherit a task that seemingly has nothing but a Pyrrhic victory at its end, but sadly, there is no other choice.  It certainly makes me wary, and I grimly wonder what part of what machine I will unwittingly become, before they come after me in turn with torches and pitchforks.  Is there another way?

Without further ado, I yield the floor to Charles Hugh Smith:


There are two problems with the vast, sprawling legacy systems we've inherited from the past: they're dysfunctional and cannot be fixed/reformed. The list of dysfunctional legacy systems that cannot be truly reformed is long: Social Security, with its illusory Trust Funds and unsustainable one-to-two ratio of beneficiaries to full-time workers; Medicare, 40% fraud and ineffective/needless care; the healthcare system (if you dare even call the mess a system), 40% paper shuffling and 25% defensive medicine and profiteering; weapons procurement--the system works great if you like cost overruns and programs that take decades to actually produce a weapon; higher education--costs have skyrocketed 700% while studies (Academically Adrift) have found that fully a third of all college graduates learned little of value in their four years; the financial system--now that we've given the Federal Reserve oversight over Too Big To Fail Bank practices, do you really think we'll ever get rid of TBTF banks?


One place to start an investigation of any legacy system is to ask: how would we design a replacement system from scratch? The gulf between a practical, efficient replacement system and the broken legacy system is a measure of the legacy system's dysfunction.

We all know why legacy systems cannot be reformed or replaced: each has a veritable army of constituents and vested interests. Every single person drawing a check or payment from the legacy system fears reform of any kind, as each fears that their place at the feeding trough might be threatened.

As a result, reform is necessarily superficial, a simulacrum of real reform that satisfies the PR need to "fix the system" but actually hardens the system against future reform by adding layers of complexity that act as defensive complexity moats.

There is a fundamental asymmetry between those threatened by reform and the reformers. The reformers are trying to save the system from eventual collapse, but the benefits of their efforts often fall to the cohort of young people who have not yet become voters or entered the workforce; these citizens don't exist politically.

Meanwhile, those drawing paychecks, benefits or payments from the legacy system will fight with every fiber of their being to protect every cent of "their fair share." (Needless to say, every share is fair and deserved.) Those resisting reform are fighting to the death, so to speak, while the reformers have no equivalent motivation or political persuasion.

Corporations threatened by reform launch a ceaseless lobbying/PR attack on the reform, either watering it down, eviscerating the regulatory structure or co-opting the reformers into accepting a superficial reform rather than walk away with nothing.

Legacy systems have hardened into bureaucracies whose primary purpose is defending the fiefdom's budget and power from any threat. I prepared this chart to illustrate the life-cycle of bureaucracy:




As revenue flatlines and pressure for real reform mounts, the embattled institutions find that propaganda and facsimiles of reform are cheaper "solutions" than real reform. This is the key driver behind the flood of propaganda and all the phony "reforms" laid out in thousands of pages of befuddling bureaucratic self-preservation.

Real reform would mean powerful constituencies would have to take real reductions in staffing, power, benefits and in their share of the national income. Rather than reveal this double-bind--reform is impossible but the Status Quo is unsustainable--the legacy system deploys its gargantuan resources to laying down a smoke-screen of bogus reforms and ginned-up statistics.

America's legacy systems are like stars about to go super-nova. They have increased in size to the point where their stupendous mass guarantees that once their energy source (as measured in fossil fuels and money) falls below a certain threshold, the institution will collapse inward on itself. 

83 comments:

  1. The higher education industrial complex has been bloated for a while. For instance, in the digital age, univer$ity administrators feel the need to construct massive new buildings, suite-style dorms, and "state of the art" libraries. This is so wasteful, but the pigs know that they are not really accountable to anyone. Plus, they want to add their own monument, in the hopes of creating a legacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Law libraries are monuments to bloated law school spending. In the age of digital archives, law libraries exist solely for "prestige" and to make a school seem more legitimate. I have never seen a student or faculty member research anything in books in the law library, especially since we all have access to Westlaw, Lexis, and Bloomberg.

      Our head law librarian makes over $170K to send out emails when the law library gets the latest movies for students to check out.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but are they good movies?

      Delete
    3. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/lies_damned_lies_and_university_lies.html

      Delete
    4. Some humor 'cause quite a few of us ain't gettin' any:


      Asiana Airlines just released the names of the crew in the B-777 accident in SFO.

      Pilot-in-Command: Captain Sum Ting Wong
      Line Check Airman: Captain Wi Tu Lo
      First 'Relief' Officer: Ho Lee Fuk
      2nd Backup Officer: Bang Ding Ow

      Delete
  2. "The benefits of [reformers'] efforts often fall to the cohort of young people who have not yet become voters or entered the workforce."

    No politician who tries to end the student loan gravy train will get re-elected. Professors, admins, bankers, test-prep tutors, and so many more will be angry that their liveliehood is threatened. Students will think they have been denied opportunities (when in reality they have been saved from indentured servitude). Community organizers will think minorities and the poor have been harmed.

    It would be great for the next generation if we could radically curtail or stop government-backed student lending. Unfortunately, it will never happen until the system collapses. So for now, I guess we have to put up with a system that takes from poor students and taxpayers and gives to rich, hypocritical, liberal academics in the name of social justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have talked rather gently to rather mild-mannered professors about the hypocrisy of taking from the mostly poor to subsidize the mostly rich (even in the scholarship game) and they get very testy and self-righteous.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I think you're absolutely correct that federal "lending" will not end until the system collapses. How and when it collapses and what that means for debtors remain up in the air...

      The system = the solvency of the federal government. The rot in Dept of Ed lending is papered over with IBR, deferments, etc. for now.

      Is the Dept of Ed lending operation even running in the black presently? If it is, that cannot continue for long; not at the rate at which they allow tuition to inflate each year by raising eligibility amounts - and not if the default / delinquency rate keeps rising. What a bunch of retards they are, shitting where they eat!

      If the Dept of Ed can't self-fund, they'll have to dip into the federal budget which is already underwater 1T to 1.5T per year...floated only by Federal Reserve money printing and bond buying...

      The system - expressed as the behavior of the Dept of Ed - will not end or change until the United States sovereign debt collapses; that is, until we can no longer debt-finance its deficits and operations. Until that time, I see no reason to believe they will curtail their practices.

      Been watching the 10-year treasury yields spike the last couple of weeks. Every 100 basis point move up (1%) equates to an annual, additional 100 billion dollars in interest on the debt. All that at a hint that the Fed Reserve will start to cease to facilitate debt-financing of federal deficits.

      How long do we have before our government has to allow de-leveraging? Will we be included in that debt write off?

      Delete
    3. There's another aspect of our problem, which is (tah-dah!) no jobs to pay off these loans, regardless of the rates.

      It's not just that legal employers don't need as many lawyers, which they don't because business is so wary. A bad system is getting worse, with us getting squeezed the most.

      Even if a firm does want to hire, just like every other business they're calculating ever higher and uncertain costs:


      "Edmund F. Haislmaier, who is part of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, has worked on health care policy for over twenty years. He warns that there are a number of unintended consequences to [ObamaCare]. For example, in June, part-time jobs were at an all-time record high while full-time jobs were down. Overall, in 2013, only 130,000 full-time jobs have been added while adding a whooping 557,000 part-time jobs. Haislmaier thinks that employers will adjust to this law in ways that make their net cost-neutral. They will offer insurance with higher deductibles, offer less coverage, or force employees to get insurance through the government exchanges, as well as going the other route by having fewer employees or more part-time employees."

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/the_impending_train_wreck_of_obamacare.html#ixzz2YukCyVqG

      Delete
    4. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/education_bubble_has_burst.html

      Delete
    5. debt works by extracting at compound interest. The main part of the loan could be paid many times over, but one must still keep paying. Even if a few people default per one pay-out, that could be enough to keep the DoE going. It currently is running huge surpluses with the student loan money. I think the private banks got out of the business because returns were higher with fradulent financial instruments it creates...

      Delete
  3. The rentier class will stop at nothing to preserve the status quo, what's new. That's why there is no need negotiate or make deals with the rentiers, they must be forced/coerced into accepting reform. Any deal made with them will only make their position more legitimate. They have been using those deal-making tactics for decades. It has gotten to the point that you just can't make anymore deals, this cow has been milked dry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reform is so 2001. There's nothing to reform now as far as law school is concerned. It must and will collapse under its own weight.

      This cow was been milked dry and is now barren. It was one of the middle class Sacred Cows-- Law School.

      Let's see what kind of hamburger it makes.

      Delete
  4. 6:19 describes the challenge very well. The academic industrial complex has since the late 70's raised prices to capture federal subsidies made available to it. The subsidies carry with them considerable risk, especially as the academic industrial complex continues to raise its prices, but the risks are not on the institutions, which are, as 6:19, overwhelming liberal, and which are frankly insensitive to the plight of young people. Indeed, what are the chances that this problem created by liberals who have rent sought and spent other people's money be fixed by liberals? It won't. People must literally drop out of the academic industrial complex, hardly an easy thing to do given the historical value of education. But the value is no longer there, that is for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the biggest problems is that both major political philosophies have been twisted to support the entrenched academic industrial complex, even though they should both be against it.

      The ideas of the right are used to convince prospective students that anyone can succeed if they just try hard enough. With that in their minds, students who have no business in law school borrow tons of money and ruin themselves trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

      The ideas of the left are used to convince the public that it is the duty of society (the government) to help the poor and downtrodden achieve greatness. Thus the federal government loans tons of money to students who have no business being in law school. These students are ruined, they can't pay off their loans, and the taxpayers pick up the tab.

      All along the way, bankers and academics get fat off the taxpayers and the students whose lives they ruin. The conservatives among them should decry the huge distortion of market forces by government intervention. The liberals among them should decry the systematic impoverishment of the poor for the benefit of the rich. But, alas, the money is too good so all but a few keep their mouths shut.

      Delete
    2. "The ideas of the right are used to convince prospective students that anyone can succeed if they just try hard enough. With that in their minds, students who have no business in law school borrow tons of money and ruin themselves trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps."


      The Right does have the bootstraps mentality, but any SUCCESSFUL right-winger would demand not just "hard work" but also going in with one's eyes open. That's the essence of self-reliance, caveat emptor, and all that.

      So it's not the Right that has pushed this bizarre mentality. Ten years ago every student I knew read EVERY book on law school out there. There were only a handful. Now there are lots of them, but I know of students who've read NONE of them. And they're PROUD of it!

      Some of these books are very much part of the law school scam. But not all of them. If our dear student had just fucking read the books, or gone to the trouble of actually reading a blog such as this, they might not be in this trouble.

      Delete
  5. Tends to make one cynical about government intervention in free markets in an attempt to "fix" a problem or "help" people.

    I don't consider myself conservative, but one characteristic of liberals is that they care far more about the good intentions behind such interventions, as opposed to the actual harmful results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true. What's worse is that true free markets haven't existed for some time because of even more interference. It's a form of crony capitalism. Not as bad as Russia, but that's not saying much. So when things don't work, blame the capitalists and bring on more government!

      Delete
  6. Too fat to live is the law of nature. Too big to fail is the breath of politicians.

    Bid Ed --and law school especially--- simply got far too fat to live. Its corpulent, bedsore-covered body now lies shitting on itself on its deathbed.

    Any jobs available to the grads are largely unrelated to the teaching and in any event don't begin to pay enough money to retire the debt incurred in getting the sheepskin. Tuition levels didn't matter when there was a paying job at the other end. But that's no more. The gas is out of this bag.

    Worse yet, in fact worst of all, law school's morbid obesity helped destroy the legal profession by bloating it, too.

    The law schools that are now 'cutting back' their enrollments and/or talking about right-sizing are like the plantation owners of 1860 giving 'their' slaves an 8-hour workday and comfortable chains in hopes of eliminating rising anti-slavery sentiments. Reforming or reducing the size of law school is now a lost cause. The law school Cafe should be dispensing Guyana Punch to euthanize those unfortunate souls whose lives have been wasted by this travesty. Reform should have been on the menu in 1990.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/which_law_schools_were_most_likely_to_yank_merit-based_scholarships/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

      Delete
  7. Its not just the liberals. Its our entire society. The purpose of the loans was with good intent, but it was Congress who made the loans non-dischargeable because of the lobbying by banks based on anecdotal evidence of students taking advantage. You think the conservatives could give a rat's rear end about whether the poor are educated or that they are borrowing themselves into indentured servitude? These are people who cheer on the uninsured dying because of lack of health care. There is plenty of evil among the conservative sect. So don't blame liberals. Blame the banks. They are the ones who have ruined our society and brought on the latest depression.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would rather blame the liberals.

      Delete
    2. Meh. I'm getting to the point where it's not liberal or conservative, but a banking problem. They worship the dollar. The dollar has no morality, no values, no nothing. Only the most extreme conservatives or liberals truly can't see the good that lies in most of us. Average conservatives see that students are drowning in debt and we need to shut off the loans. Average liberals see the rampant greediness of professors. Only the fringes (who define the arguments these days) can't see the other side of the coin.

      We need to shut the banks down. We need to shut Sallie Mae and friends out of this fucking system, with their heartless and chaotic destruction of our way of life just so they can make a fucking dollar.

      People hate lawyers? We need to change the debate - people should hate bankers, given the past and present horrors they are inflicting on us all.

      Delete
    3. No, it really IS the Liberals.

      Do you honestly think the economy (and pretty much everything else) wouldn't be doing MUCH better now if Romney were at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

      . . . from a former big-L Liberal.


      Delete
    4. The system actually used to work pretty well. Tuition was just a few thousand dollars, mostly covered by small grants, now-modest loans of no more than $7,500/year, and part-time jobs. Most law students could work part time in years 2-3, and maybe full-time at least one summer. There was debt, but it wasn't anything like now.

      The Feds took over the loan biz, the law schools saw a good thing, the ABA kept upping the ante, other schools jumped in, what's not to like?

      Delete
    5. @520,

      No. It wouldn't be any better with Romney. Ideologically speaking, the man is a clone of Obama. Or of John Kerry, to be more precise.

      America is in DIRE need of a second party. I proudly "threw my vote away" last year by voting against Romney AND Obama.

      - from a current big-C Conservative

      Delete
    6. 5:20, you are deeply stupid. Tell us what Romney would have done in the last 5 months that would have amounted to jack s**t for wage slave America. Even one thing, I'd love to hear it.
      I despise Obama for his Clintonesque willingness to sell out any principle and tell any lie now that he's in the seat of power, but to think that Mitt Romney or the modern Republican party generally has any policy interest in the non-wealthy is insane. Everything they're up to in North Carolina right now says they loathe working people. The contempt isn't even cloaked at all, it's right there on the surface.

      Delete
    7. "These are people who cheer on the uninsured dying because of lack of health care."


      Lie much?

      Delete
    8. The problems with law school can be laid at the feet of liberals. Higher ed as a whole is more complicated. But as we saw on the campaign trial, Romney was easily bought off with some donations from for-profit colleges. No mainstream conservative is going to touch the student loan system no matter how much it might offend their principles.

      Delete
    9. "5:20, you are deeply stupid. Tell us what Romney would have done in the last 5 months that would have amounted to jack s**t for wage slave America. Even one thing, I'd love to hear it."


      Why, thank you!

      Oh, you wanted an answer?!

      Love him or hate hime, Romney/Thurston Howell III knows MONEY.

      Those who know money know how to make money. Lots of it. Massive fucking piles of it. And they know how to take those massive piles and make even more piles. So many piles they have to take a dump in front of each one just to keep score.

      Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they don't give a flying fuck about anyone else. (Not true, as I've worked with wealthy clients for years.) But let's assume this for kicks. Nasty, horrid, in-bred, cloven-footed capitalists, right?

      So how how could they POSSIBLY benefit "wage slave" America?

      Umm. By making money?

      Are you really this stupid?

      No need to answer that.

      Are you, as someone who works for another person (whether as an associate or solo or for some corporation or even for the government), are you better off if your boss is losing money? Or if your budget is getting cut?

      This is the sort of grand ignorance verging on Down's-level stupidity that is why this country is going down the toilet.

      Americans are wealthy because of principles laid down by individuals who would now be seen as outrageously "conservative." And don't even bring up the three-fifths rule, which almost no one gets right. Just about everyone who lived in this country for most of the past 237 years would be seen as somehow defectively conservative.

      What values? Ask your grandparent whether they would have taken welfare. Go ahead. Ask. Most would probably rather have a hand cut off.

      Ask them if they would have cheated on taxes, or spent more than five minutes complaining about healthcare. Ask if they didn't REGULARLY help out a homeless person. My mother told me about hobos who daily came by her parents' farm. The visitors were ALWAYS fed. This was "God-fearing" middle America. Many hobos would offer to work in thanks and "compensation." Occasionally they might actually do so.

      The joke is that Romney isn't all that conservative. He was the governor of possibly THE most left-wing state in the nation, for Christ's sake. Okay, there is Vermont. In any reasonable scale, Romney is center-right. Rick Santorum, now THAT's a far-right candidate.

      To say that Obama is "Clintonesque" is a joke. Clinton was successful, to the extent that he was successful, because he was NOT an ideologue. He was perfectly fine "triangulating" issue this and issue that. Remember Gingrich and the Contract with America? Coincidence?

      Obama? Really?

      By the way, the 2008 bust is brought to us courtesy of Jimmy "I will never lie to you" Carter and the CRA, or Community "Reinvestment" Act, helped by Barney Frank, Chuck Dodd, and Bill "Ah feeel yah pain" Clinton, and many others, and including conservatives (Bush 43 and the "ownership society"). It was politicians who set this in motion, just as they have in student loans, because they just couldn't keep their hands off. Why oh why can't they just fuck their interns rather than the nation?

      Delete
    10. "The problems with law school can be laid at the feet of liberals. Higher ed as a whole is more complicated. But as we saw on the campaign trial, Romney was easily bought off with some donations from for-profit colleges. No mainstream conservative is going to touch the student loan system no matter how much it might offend their principles."


      It's not just "for-profit" schools. Why does everyone blame them first? Are THEY causing this mess? At least they PAY taxes, not suck them, and at least they're focused on actual skills. Unlike law schools. Whether they should exist is another question, but we should damned sure be asking about "non"-profit schools first.

      How were Obama and Harvard "Faux-cahontas" Warren NOT bought off . . . ?

      Delete
    11. "...Romney. Ideologically speaking, the man is a clone of Obama. Or of John Kerry, to be more precise."

      Not a chance. True, Romney is "conservative-lite," but even roughly equivalent to Obama/Kerry? Seriously?

      Damn.

      Also, Romney has more brains in his pinky than either Obama OR Kerry (or both of them, come to think of it), even if they also borrowed some brains from their staff.


      "America is in DIRE need of a second party."

      Agreed.


      "I proudly "threw my vote away" last year by voting against Romney AND Obama."

      Then you should be really proud that you're stupid. Later would you like to go to the zoo and get an ice-cream cone? There are BIG bears there! No, they won't hurt you. They're in cages! I promise! Yes, we can go! Yes, we can!

      Delete
    12. "Blame the banks. They are the ones who have ruined our society and brought on the latest depression."


      Nope. The banks' job is to make as MUCH MONEY for their shareholders as they can. Good for them. Make a big steaming pile!

      In a true capitalist system, they can only do this IF they serve their customers. Lower rates, faster service, free blowjobs, whatever.

      As soon as they stop doing a better job, keeping their customers happy, then they FAIL. That is why capitalism works. That is why we have houses and cars and food and electricity and cell phones that go Ring Ring.

      But, I know!, let's ADD a dollop of government regulation, and, since that's clearly not good enough, tell the banks to fuck off and take over the entire subsidized student-loan business, then encourage a massive and unsustainable private-loan business which we will FORCE on everyone with our bad policies, and watch everything turn to crap.

      Then, I know!, let's just blame the banks!

      Delete
    13. Oops, I posted this in the wrong thread.

      Re Romney/Obama:

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/07/12/barack-hollywood-obama-how-media-sold-president-populist-not-elitist

      Delete
    14. @954,

      You are obviously very gullible. Why don't you actually try explaining the supposed differences between Romney and Obama, if they're so obvious? The only difference that I can discern is that Romney favors the fake window-dressing "reforms" that make up the subject matter of Charles Hugh Smith's article.

      Right?

      I don't share your pseudoreligious faith in the diabolical brilliance of Shitt Romney. Where's your evidence on that one? The fact that he was admitted to Harvard by trading on his father's name? Or perhaps the money he made in a ribbon-cutting no-work "job" at Bain Capital?

      That stupid dingleberry SNEERED at the base. He arrogantly guaranteed everyone that the right would be magically FORCED to turn out and vote for him on election day. Well, they didn't, and this stupid liberal man still hasn't figured it out yet.

      I still regret holding my nose and voting for McCain in '08. I will never regret voting for a third party in '12.

      The high priests of the Republican Party were warned that their voters didn't want Romney. They laughed the warnings off, and said "Vote for Obama if you don't like it, haha!" And they have learned NOTHING. They will double down again, and 2016's nominee will probably be Bernie Sanders, or perhaps even McCain himself again.

      If they ever wise up and nominate an actual ALTERNATIVE to Obama/Hillary, I'll come back.

      Delete
    15. Re Clinton/Obama:

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/if_obama_were_a_cookie.html

      Delete
    16. 2:34:

      I'm actually closer to your side than you might think, but it was still a bone-headed move. A third-party simply hands the keys to the other side. One can shout to the heavens, but that's the effect.

      I would reverse the order, by the way: Romney would have been a excellent President. Not pure, but so what? Find someone better for 2020. At worst you have, what, eight years of not-bad policies and generally much better picks?

      McCain, not so much. HE was the bad choice. And here's the very sharp point: Obama will go down as an unmitigated disaster. Domestic policy, foreign policy, budget policy, rule of law, national security, you name it.

      Is there room for improvement? You bet. Is this simply sycophancy for Mittens? Not really. One can think he traded on his family name, but it's simply not right to dismiss his intelligence or his qualities. Anyone who's been involved in venture capital at that level is very, very sharp. And they nearly all have ivy degrees. And all indications are that he is actually a decent guy, as we saw in his refusal to take his gloves off. Of course, the media were ready to cry foul (or racism) at the drop of a hat. So it was hardly a fair fight.

      I wouldn't disagree that the GOP hasn't been stupid, not least in allowing the Dems to get away with rhetorical murder. But is this not letting the good be the enemy of the perfect? Clinton would be better than O. Hell, CARTER would too.

      And, yes, if Hillary gets in, we deserve what we get.

      And we students are at the very bottom of this very stinky pile.

      Delete
    17. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/07/14/cornel-west-most-liberals-are-morally-bankrupt

      Delete
    18. Reagan created this mess in California when he took away college funding and substituted with this loan trap. Before then, schools had low tuition, deans were temporary academics doing clerical work before they returned to research. This is how it's done in every other country--we are the conservative abberation...

      Delete
  8. breakup of the federal union is the only cure for this sick nation. Let all power but the military go back to the states. Or simply declare the constitution void and go back to the articles of confederation. Put me and 4 like-minded citizens on the supreme ct and it will happen.

    The larger the nation, the more factions, the more factions, the less unity, the less unity, the fewer common shared interests, which means it is harder to elect and hold accountable politicians who can represent the shared interests of the populace. If the majority has little control, the rich have lots of control.

    Break up the union and let the healing begin....


    Also consider, in addition to the large size of this nation, the racial and cultural diversity therein, which generates even more factions. Diversity is strength...for the rich, but weakness for the majority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Er, yeah. I think you're on the wrong blog!

      What are you asking for? All the black go to their "state" or new country, leaving you (white? just guessing, but probably correct) to your own white state where everyone is Christian? And fuck the Mexicans and Muslims?

      Break up of the federal union. Sure. Then you can happily live in New Alabama where gays are illegal and you can lynch the fags and where everyone goes to church and worships that motherfucker you call Jesus, and you're free to hate everyone who isn't just like you and your pa and granddaddy and those fuckers who make up your disgusting hate-filled family lineage.

      Fuck off. You're just a racist. You hate gays. Grow up and realize that there's so much amazing in this world beyond your fucking bible.

      Speaking of which, I need to take a shit. And I'm thinking I'll grace my asshole with a few pages of Genesis.

      Delete
    2. Not defending the poster, who's a bit off, but who said anything about "black" [sic] or "gays" or anyone else?

      Maybe it's you who is racist?

      Delete
    3. He did mention it. Look at the code words "racial and cultural diversity" in the last paragraph.

      I've studied this extensively, Calls from groups suggesting that small government is the way to go are generally just cultural and racial hate groups tailoring their message. They don't want small government for any reason other than returning to the days when their state can legislate against minorities without interference from outside. They are almost always white, southern and conservative, and they are pushing for their "traditional" values (racism and anti-gay). But they know they can't say that explicitly today, so their message turns into "less government" or "lower taxes" (which is the same as telling the Feds - i.e. outsiders - that they can't come in and stop them being racists.)

      Delete
    4. ^ Hooray! It looks like OTLSS has acquired a wound-up, FIERCE Civil Rights Roach. So tell me, Fierce Civil Rights Roach, is America going to have to choose either Soviet-style Communism or "racial hate groups?"

      Go pester your boyfriend for sex, you dingleberry. Your "comments" don't even relate to law school.

      Delete
    5. Let's not devolve our analysis of the scam into the left-right discussion that permeates everything these days.

      Law school scammers (deans, law profs, lenders, lobbyists, legislators) come from across the political spectrum. The liberal scammers are hypocrites for basically taking from the poor masses and giving to the rich elite. The conservative scammers are hypocrites for using big government and taxpayer money to overpower market forces.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous wrote:
      "What are you asking for? All the black go to their "state" or new country, leaving you (white? just guessing, but probably correct) to your own white state where everyone is Christian? And fuck the Mexicans and Muslims?"


      ==============

      my reply:
      I am asking for democracy and for americans to be able to live in a nation where they have more control over their own gov't. A nation where social capital and cohesion and democracy are high. In such nations, e.g., sweden, austria, denmark, etc, small and cohesive, the people can unite and resist to a great degree the depredations of those at the top. Here in the USA cohesion and unity are so low that we cannot control our own govt. And you see the results, one of which is a higher education industry that preys on naive youth.

      ==================


      you wrote:
      "Break up of the federal union. Sure. Then you can happily live in New Alabama where gays are illegal and you can lynch the fags and where everyone goes to church and worships that motherfucker you call Jesus, and you're free to hate everyone who isn't just like you and your pa and granddaddy and those fuckers who make up your disgusting hate-filled family lineage."
      ==============
      my reply:

      Where americans could have the power to make their nation the way they want it. Not the way the rich want it.


      Anonymous wrote:
      "Fuck off. You're just a racist. You hate gays. Grow up and realize that there's so much amazing in this world beyond your fucking bible."
      ==========

      my reply:
      Your mind has been captured by the memes of Capital. Poor thing.

      I exist outside of the paradigms installed in your mind by years of indoctrination. I am not a liberal or conservative or libertarian or paleocon or anarchist etc. I am new. I create my own politics.


      Delete
    7. "I've studied this extensively...."

      In college? If so, the response is: "No you haven't."


      "Calls from groups suggesting that small government is the way to go are generally just cultural and racial hate groups tailoring their message. They don't want small government for any reason other than returning to the days when their state can legislate against minorities without interference from outside. They are almost always white, southern and conservative, and they are pushing for their "traditional" values (racism and anti-gay). But they know they can't say that explicitly today, so their message turns into "less government" or "lower taxes" (which is the same as telling the Feds - i.e. outsiders - that they can't come in and stop them being racists.)"

      I'm Jewish, and I'm damned glad this country is, almost-still-sort of, Christian. I'm homosexual, and am glad there is such a thing as "normal" hetero: It doesn't threaten me at all that my parents are straight, my "best friends" are straight . . . good God, do we really have to write this out? I am perfectly fine to be an outlier, as long as we live and let live.

      What you don't seem to get is that it is conservatives who are "Live and let live." It is the Left that is intent on controlling every aspect of our lives, including education. The ABA is practically an arm of the progressive wing of the Democratic Machine.

      As soon as the power center changes, and it will, then it's MY life they'll want to control--and the LEFT will have usurped enough power for the eventual Adolf (a leftist, as in "National SOCIALIST") to fuck us all.

      Get it?

      Delete
    8. "Law school scammers (deans, law profs, lenders, lobbyists, legislators) come from across the political spectrum. The liberal scammers are hypocrites for basically taking from the poor masses and giving to the rich elite."

      No way. EVERYONE in any way connected with law school is Left. Not just "Left," but really, really FAR left. There are almost no conservatives, and almost no middle-of-the-roaders, in law schools anywhere, at any level. Certainly not tenured. There might be ONE token "conservative" professor, maybe. Most are hard-left radical pieces of shit who take it as their life's mission to convert their students to The Way of the Enlightened Left.


      "The conservative scammers are hypocrites for using big government and taxpayer money to overpower market forces."

      Not true. Conservatives have written for decades about REAL capitalism and CRONY capitalism. It is conservatives and only conservatives who are critical of the latter for reasons of the effect on all of the 99%. The ironies! Romney is castigated for being an evil rich guy who "doesn't care," and unlike his opponent, he actually added value to the nation. Aside, of course, from his color. Liberal fuck-offs hate capitalism and capitalists and anyone who works their ass off and anyone who creates anything of value and anyone who is of any value.

      So, sure, go to law school and pay up at the cashier. But after you graduate? Fuck off, fuck you, and go fuck yourself. Welcome to the world of The Left, 'cause you will almost never hear a conservative swear. They're actually pretty nice people, and far more considerate and informed, unlike the fucked-up assholes in NYC, LA, Boston, and everywhere else Leftist parasites congregate.

      Delete
    9. What a hateful rant from reply #1. You ought to moderate that filth off this blog. So utterly profane and hateful, but its welcomed by 'tolerant' mods apparently.

      Delete
    10. "so their message turns into "less government" or "lower taxes" (which is the same as telling the Feds - i.e. outsiders - that they can't come in and stop them being racists.)

      Blah, blah, blah...."



      Pop quiz:

      1. Who was against slavery?

      Correct answer: The Republican Party, founded in 1854 with the express purpose of ending slavery and led by its first national leader, Abraham Lincoln, who won only because the Democratic Party was badly split between the pro-slavery South and a queasy North.


      2. Who was FOR slavery?

      Hint: Not the Republicans.


      3. Who tried to heal the nation by helping former slaves while not trampling too badly on the former rebels?

      Correct answer: The Republicans, via "Reconstruction," a policy abandoned in the Compromise of 1877, a nasty affair following a very nasty election by very, very corrupt people (i.e., Democrats!).

      But of course this is too easy, right? Perhaps only half-credit for this?


      4. Who started the evil Jim Crow laws that denied civil rights, which had been at least partially effective under Reconstruction?

      Hint: Not the Republicans.


      5. Who was Bull Connor, and what did he do?

      Hint: Read your damned history, and be sure you take note of his party affiliation.

      Hint 2: He wasn't a Republican.


      6. What did a leading Democratic president say about blacks:

      Try: "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

      —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One


      Bonus credit: 7. Anything else?

      Sure. Two points for: "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

      --LBJ again.

      http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40889


      8. Who destroyed the Black Family?

      FDR, LBJ, and Liberals all. See the Moynihan Report (after Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the sociologist and then senator from Massachusetts): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

      PS: That report was in 1965. Compared to today, African-American families were then practically Father Knows Best (an old show with very traditional mother-father-children roles). Would you believe that African-Americans were then married at a slightly HIGHER rate than whites? Read Thomas Sowell. No, read him anyway.

      Delete
    11. 12:17 - pop quiz for you:

      Which party today would be most like the republicans of the Lincoln era?

      Hint - it's not the republicans!

      Democrats have blown this as much as the republicans. Both are to blame. And part of their control is getting us to fight republican v democrat, rather than analyzing the policies of our own parties.

      The politics in this country are embarrassing.

      Delete
    12. "Democrats have blown this as much as the republicans. Both are to blame. And part of their control is getting us to fight republican v democrat, rather than analyzing the policies of our own parties.

      The politics in this country are embarrassing."

      Yes, and yes.


      "Which party today would be most like the republicans of the Lincoln era?

      Hint - it's not the republicans!"


      Nice try, but nope, not even close.

      There are multiple strands within the Republican Party: Libertarians, Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives. This is why we see frequent splits within the party.

      The Democratic Party has a different view: If anything has gone wrong in the world, it's probably America's fault, and if there are any white males involved, then case closed! Hispanic "white" Americans? Close enough! Individual people are practically drooling idiots who can barely wipe their bottoms without help, so clearly we need to help them.

      The only split we usually see within the Democratic Party is that between center-left and far-left (and dingbat left). Among these lovely groups are avowed racists and eugenicists like Woodrow Wilson, leader of the "progressive" movement of the era.

      The Republican side has been consistent: No slavery, no discrimination. Now? Well, the same.

      Which part of "no" is confusing?

      The Democratic side has also been consistent, sort of. Fuck slaves. Wait, what?! That no longer flies? Damn. Okay, we gotta' fuck somebody. Hey, I know! How about evil whites, and evil males, and especially evil white males! Surely they've done bad things, right?

      That's progress! I know, let's call ourselves progressives! And when we ruin that label, we'll change it. I know, let's change it to, say, "Liberal." Yes, we're bound to fuck that up too, but when that happens, let's change it again! Maybe back to Progressive? No, they won't remember. They're too stupid, we'll help them forget the history of the pathetic and often nasty characters actually in the progressive movement, and besides, we can create shows, maybe about "reality," and they can focus on some twits called the Kardashians. I know, it seems far-fetched, but I'm sure we can manage it.

      Go, Jacobins!


      "The politics in this country are embarrassing."

      Yes, they are.

      Delete
    13. Anyone care for race-based education?

      Anyone care to guess who's on which side?


      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/07/12/here-we-go-alabama-to-implement-racebased-standards-in-public-schools-n1639326

      Delete
    14. If you're interested in a true diversity of views:

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/07/12/barack-hollywood-obama-how-media-sold-president-populist-not-elitist

      Delete
    15. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/07/12/barack-obamas-lawlessness/#more-829125

      Delete
    16. @July 12, 2013 at 12:17 AM

      Here is a pop quiz for you.

      1. Where did all the southern Democrats go after Harry Truman's fair deal proposal and the signing of the civil rights act?

      (Answer: they all became Republicans)

      2. Which political party came up with the Southern Strategy?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

      (Hint, it wasn't the Democrats).

      3. Which Presidential Candidate gave as one of his first speeches on the campaign trail as the nominee a states rights speech a few miles away from a town famous for the murders of civil rights workers?

      (Answer, Ronald Reagan)

      Delete
    17. @July 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM

      "The Republican side has been consistent: No slavery, no discrimination. Now? Well, the same."

      Nice try. Once again, see the Southern Strategy:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

      And more recently:

      Ohio's Columbus County GOP Chair openly admits to suppressing minority vote
      http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/187804/ohios-columbus-county-gop-chair-openly-admits-to-suppressing-minority-vote/

      "The Pennsylvania House majority leader says voter ID "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win" the presidency."
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60

      Delete
    18. @ 6:20 & 6:32 -

      This is essentially bullshit, and it's simply not worth getting into, but you're flat out wrong. The southern Democrats did leave the Democratic party, mostly because the Democrats did a 180. The leaders made a choice, abandoning a large chunk of blue-collar whites for inner-city blacks . . . but it was ALWAYS about favors. There's a long and mostly hidden-in-the-open history here, but you're obviously not interested.

      One fun fact, for anyone curious:

      Who was Robert Bryd? Was he in any groups that might be objectionable, say, the Ku Klux Klan? Was he not only in such a group, but a Kleagle, or grand pooh-bah? Did he ever renounce his views (as did the Democrats who switched to the Republicans, not one of which was a leader, and only one of which might conceivably have been a part of this "Southern Strategy")?

      Which party was he a member of?

      Anyone? Anyone?

      How about Paula Deen? Damned near tarred-and-feathered for comments a LONG TIME AGO:

      In a deposition given in a harassment lawsuit filed by a white ex-employee at a Deen family-owned restaurant, Deen admitted using the "n-word" in the past, during a private conversation: "When a black man burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head," she said, "I didn't feel real favorable to him." Deen says she didn't use the word during the holdup, but "probably" used it later, "in telling my husband."

      Okay, she loses her endorsements. Fair enough. That's show biz.

      But what about Alec Baldwin:

      Baldwin’s controversial tweets read, “[I’d] put my foot up your f**king ass, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much,” and “I’m gonna find you George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna f**k you…up.”

      The 55-year-old actor sent out the messages from his @ABFoundation Twitter account, according to screen grabs published online. Baldwin disabled the account following the rant but it has since been restored – minus the offensive tweets – and it seems business, for Baldwin is back to normal.


      So Baldwin is back in biz, regardless of a vicious WRITTEN homophobic attack RIGHT NOW, on OFFICIAL channels; whereas Deen, who was responding YEARS AGO to a real-life attack and confided something in private based on real events, is screwed.


      Leftists are so hypocritical they can't even SEE their double-standards.

      Still I must say, the invention of the "Southern Strategy" and pushing it onto hapless Republicans after the fact. Brilliant!

      Delete
    19. "...signing of the civil rights act"


      Read history much?

      Civil Rights (nearly always capitalized when referring to the Act of 1964) became law because of Republicans and ONLY because of Republicans:


      When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[10] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[11]

      The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[12]

      After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[13]

      On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[14]


      Vote by party and region:

      Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

      The original House version:
      Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
      Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
      Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
      Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

      Note that LBJ, possibly one of the most powerful members of Congress, was leaning HARD on his own side, the Democratic side.

      The Senate version:
      Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
      Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
      Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
      Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

      Delete
    20. RE: Voter ID requirements and "suppression":


      Let's suppose that requiring an ID is flat-out "suppression." Okay. Let's play.

      Am I "suppressed" if I go to a bank to cash a check and forget my ID?

      Am I "suppressed" if I'm too poor to have an ID?

      Do I have a right (as in a right to sue) if I don't get handed a free ID (which most states WILL provide to those who cannot afford it).

      Is it just too damned much trouble for me to take two hours out of my hectic weekend schedule to get my sorry ass to the DMV and wait in line (take a book!) to get the damned thing?

      Really?

      As far as I'm concerned, TWO forms of ID would be fair. And dip your finger in this bowl of blue ink while you're here. (What a great idea.)

      Any citizen who doesn't care enough to have ONE photo ID, well, maybe, just maybe, that's not someone who should be voting.

      Then again, anyone who watches TV for more than ten hours a week probably shouldn't be voting either.

      Maybe we can bring back the poll tests. Have you read at least one book in the past YEAR? Just one? About vampires maybe? Iron men? A graphic novel? A blog post?

      Can you hum "America the Beautiful"?

      Remember people, these voters are in charge of our financial safety net, which might be a wee bit more important, and iffy, given those loan balances. Say what?

      In the real world, ACTUAL voter fraud is found here:

      http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/30/poll-worker-who-voted-for-obama-multiple-times-convicted-of-voting-fraud-73217

      Delete
    21. civil rights laws and mass immigration are part of the same divide et impera strategy by the upper class. Remember the upper class BUYS labor. So they want cheap labor, more labor. The working class white majority wants to restrict labor, because the working class SELLS labor. And so the working class wants unity and cohesion. The more united, the better able a working class is to elect and hold accountable elected representatives. This is the essence of democracy. MOre unity==more democracy. Less unity==less democracy. Less democracy means the rich can exploit the populace, e.g., ripping off the populace for college, healthcare, etc.

      So civil rights, racial integration, mass immigration of nonwhites, this is how the upper class cuts their labor costs and also how they degrade the unity of the populace so they can control the nation.

      A less unified populace naturally shares fewer common interests. And so therefore the elected representatives of that populace are therefore less accountable to the populace. And so therefore the working class is less able to control their own government. And this allows the upper class to better control the government. THis is the primary difference between a large, diverse pseudo-democracy like the USA and its cousins in the other western democracies.

      Compare the USA to the other western nations (e.g., canada, australia, UK, germany, sweden, ireland, norway, brussels, france, australia, etc, our cultural cousins in western europe...). Those other nations are far less diverse. THe USA is perhaps 35 percent nonwhite. None of those other nations is less than about 85 percent nonwhite. And so those other nations are more unified and also have less cheap labor. This diversity difference explains a lot about why those other nations have universal healthcare and cheap higher education. They have more democracy because they have less diversity, few factions in the populace and therefore are more unified.

      Also the structure of the government has a lot to do with it--those other nations all have parliamentarian structures (with the partial exception of France), whereas the USA has a federalist, separation of powers, strong checks and balances structure--this is the pseudo-democratic structure. Parliamentarian govts put power in the hands of politicians elected from SMALL districts. Pseudo-democracies like the USA put more power in the hands of politicans elected from LARGE districts (e.g., presidents, federal senators and reps). Larger districts have more diversity and more factions.

      This is how factions are created in the electoral population. This structure was designed by the upper class to divide the populace. Goes back hundreds of years. Madison, Montesquieu, etc. It's all there in writing. If only you could read....

      That is why the elite created the EU--so they could control western europe like the do the USA, by creating factions via enlarged voting districts.

      Divide et impera means divide conquer. The upper class divides by increasing the number of factions in the populace by 1) increasing voting district size and 2) by creating racial and cultural diversity through a) civil rights laws followed by b) mass immigration of nonwhites.

      I speak to you tonight of REAL politics. And yet you will you respond with more trivialities about Democrats and Republicans. Do your dance, my children. Show me how well you have ingested the propaganda of the upper class.

      Delete
    22. @2:17, most civil rights workers were Republicans, actually, as were most former slaves (to the extent they could vote at all). Whatever. Just keep goin' down your path . . . .

      Delete
    23. @2:56, Paula Deen is a Republican, right?

      Oh, wait. No. She was a big D. Campaigned for Obama in 2008. Had Jimmy Carter on her show a number of times.

      Hmm. That's a puzzler.

      http://www.liberalamerica.org/2013/06/24/racist-paula-deen-republican-democrat-lets-just-fry-some-worms-video/

      Delete
    24. "The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC)"

      Yes, and he left for the Republican party as I have stated earlier. Once again see the Southern Strategy, as I have posted about two times already.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

      "The Republican side has been consistent: No slavery, no discrimination. Now? Well, the same."

      Basically you are flat out wrong.

      "Let's suppose that requiring an ID is flat-out "suppression." Okay. Let's play.

      Am I "suppressed" if I go to a bank to cash a check and forget my ID?

      Am I "suppressed" if I'm too poor to have an ID?

      Do I have a right (as in a right to sue) if I don't get handed a free ID (which most states WILL provide to those who cannot afford it)."

      Are these constitutional rights? Voting is a constitutional right.

      "Maybe we can bring back the poll tests. Have you read at least one book in the past YEAR? Just one? About vampires maybe? Iron men? A graphic novel? A blog post?"

      That is unconstitutional and once again as stated directly by the GOP, the goal of these laws was to suppress minority votes because they tend to vote for the democratic party. So once again you are flat out wrong. But nice try.

      "Any citizen who doesn't care enough to have ONE photo ID, well, maybe, just maybe, that's not someone who should be voting."

      Well I guess that would exclude everyone before 1855.

      Delete
    25. It takes a truly special kind of moron to not comprehend that the Republican Party post-1964 was a far different organization than what it was prior to that. Essentially, the racist Southern Democrats abandoned the Democratic Party and became Republicans almost en masse. We're talking about the likes of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, et. al.

      Delete
    26. "Are these constitutional rights? Voting is a constitutional right."

      Really? So we can't deny the vote to convicted felons? Or minors?

      I'm not saying that voting is not very, very, very important. But it's a privilege and an honor. This isn't just about law, it's about We the People. ALL of us, regardless of color or condition.


      "Any citizen who doesn't care enough to have ONE photo ID, well, maybe, just maybe, that's not someone who should be voting."

      Well I guess that would exclude everyone before 1855.


      Before 1855 (or 1955 for that matter), there weren't many citizens who didn't KNOW, personally, every single other voter in town. Voter "ID" was hardly an issue then.

      Now we have busloads of "voters" taken by union and ex-ACORN thugs from polling place to polling place, voting multiple times. Districts with 100-0 tallies. Districts with more votes than there are registered voters. Worry much?

      Delete
    27. Here's who's voting . . .


      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/07/12/help-obama-repeal-the-bill-of-rights-n1639901

      Delete
    28. > "Are these constitutional rights? Voting is a
      > constitutional right."
      >
      > Really? So we can't deny the vote to convicted
      > felons? Or minors?

      Read the Constitution much? Idiot.

      Amendment 15

      Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

      Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      Amendment 19

      The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

      Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      Amendment 24

      Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

      Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

      Amendment 26

      Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

      Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

      Delete
    29. "of these laws was to suppress minority votes because they tend to vote for the democratic party. "


      Seems race is never far from your mind. Doesn't leave a whole lot of room for substance, does it?

      How sad.

      Delete
    30. @A Working Class American, July 13, 2013 at 3:28 AM


      Not sure I agree with your conclusions, but I enjoy reading your posts. Thank you.

      Delete
  9. I appreciate the sentiment, but the model does not work. See "failure/implosion", where the competent retire and leave the incompetent in command and the whole thing implodes.

    There are no competent people in law school. They are all incompetent practitioners, and will never leave. They have nowhere to go.

    There needs to be an additional step, which is a huge red center and a tiny blue rim (which is where we are now), which represents the continued student loan fuckmess and the absolute utter inefficiency of the entire system. And a huge needle of red injecting life into the core, which is student loans.

    Face it. Law school is such a niche problem that it can get to be a red center the size of the fucking sun before anyone will notice. 80,000 students per year? That's nothing! This is still a fringe, niche issue. Nobody gives a fuck about law students, nor law schools.

    THE ENTIRE SYSTEM SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE TO FUCKING IMPLODE ON ITSELF. WE ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. BY HIGHLIGHTING THE PROBLEMS, WE ARE GIVING THESE SCAM INSTITUTIONS MORE LIFE BY DISSUADING STUDENTS.

    THE BEST THING WE COULD DO IS SHUT THIS BLOG DOWN AND LET THE SYSTEM INFLATE AND THEN FUCKING EXPLODE. FUCK THOSE CUNT PROFESSORS AND DEANS WHO ARE STILL MILKING THIS LIKE A COMMISSION-BASED SPERM COLLECTION AGENT WITH A LONG MIDDLE FINGER AND A TALENT FOR FINDING THE PROSTATE. THEY WOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS IN THREE YEARS IF WE STOP TELLING LEMMINGS TO NEGOTIATE FOR SCHOLARSHIPS AND NOT GO TO LAW SCHOOL. LET THEM FLOOD THE SCHOOLS AND THE MARKET AND LET THEM JOIN US IN THREE YEARS AS AN ENTIRE ARMY OF 20,000 PISSED OFF SCAM VICTIMS. THEN MAYBE WE COULD GET THE MESSAGE OUT INSTEAD OF THE LETHARGIC MILQUETOAST SHIT WE'RE WRITING NOW.

    LET THESE CUNTS STRANGLE THEMSELVES.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is actually a rather interesting idea...anyone wanna go halvsies with me on opening a law school?

      Delete
    2. "Adam B's and Duped's School of Law and HVAC Repair/Servicing."

      At least there would be one marketable skill on the other side, at any rate.

      Delete
  10. the LS industrial complex has hit its tipping point since the last one or 2 admissions cycles. now that biglaw overcapacity has been exposed (e.g. Weil's layoffs) and increased federal student loan rates have increased, the shitstorm and bloodletting will come at an even faster pace. as i said multiple times, the LS scam does not affect me in any way, but i still follow it since it's so egregiously fucked up beyond recognition.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One piece of advice.

    CHS is wonderful to read, but he's pretty much a permabear. It's all collapse, all the time.

    Right now, the law school system *is* correcting, and you may want to do some posts tracking the reduction in class size.

    What is going to happen within the next 5 to 10 years is that there is going to be some sort of systemic correction within the law school system, so in that sense, this is a self-correcting problem.

    Now it is *fun* to blog about the collapse because it's so obvious, but there is optimism now that it's peaked.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "the LS industrial complex has hit its tipping point since the last one or 2 admissions cycles. now that biglaw overcapacity has been exposed (e.g. Weil's layoffs) and increased federal student loan rates have increased, the shitstorm and bloodletting will come at an even faster pace. as i said multiple times, the LS scam does not affect me in any way, but i still follow it since it's so egregiously fucked up beyond recognition."

    The LS industrial complex is no more distorted than anything else in the modern financial hypereconomy.

    BigLaw is in secular decline. I expect *law* as a profession to stabilize and recover, but I do not think that BigLaw is going to experience the same recovery

    As I have said before, debt that has no business existing in the first place is going to cause problems.

    Most student loan debt has no business existing in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not all about law school, folks.

      The law schools are just the tip of the iceberg. They will indeed adjust. Are probably adjusting now. But even at 50% capacity (which we'll never see), they're still cranking out students based on BigLaw and MidLaw hiring practices. And law firms haven't changed their business model... they've simply shrunk it.

      The problem is that the profession takes in far too many people and then spits them out. By that time, the people are 6 or 7 years into the law career, and of course they must forge ahead with a solo or microfirm practice. No one leaves law at that point.

      Putting too many people in any profession will result in extreme depression of wages (hell, most lawyers are working on contingency anymore).

      The profession won the race to the bottom, and now we're all at the bottom watching more new lawyers come in. The fact it may be 25% less lawyers coming in than before is physically irrelevant as a saturated solution can by definition hold no more.

      Law school ain't collapsing; it'll keep producing expendible youthful labor for the 2-3 year firm stints. The law profession ain't getting up off the ground anytime soon though.

      Delete
    2. The government shouldn't be issuing or guaranteeing any student loans whatsoever. Just give grants. I can see what's happened here. Making these loans almost impossible to discharge and saddling them with high interest rates makes them, on paper, a very attractive asset.

      The various federal loan authorities have every incentive to recklessly issue as much debt as possible because all of this will appear as valuable assets in their accounts. Never mind that in practice a lot of will never be repaid due to defaults or various loan forgiveness schemes.

      Delete
  13. Are the schools to blame? We are all adults now, and we can research and make up our own minds. And for the record, I did read a lot about how law school was supposedly a "bad idea" before going, but it was better than a lifetime of working in fast food, even if I could have become a manager. I tend to not listen to the advice of others, because, truly, I honestly still to this day know that I am a special snowflake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If your choice was law school or a lifetime of fast food jobs, you are not lawyer material in the first place! Perhaps if you would have said that you were in management or IT or something, then maybe your logic holds. But if your career option was flipping burgers, you clearly had no place in law school to begin with, making it all the more scammy for admitting you when you were clearly a failure to begin with, and for selling you on a dream that was far too big for someone like you. Did you think success was a JD away? With no connections (if you had any, your career options would not have been all fast food) and no pedigree, plus a résumé that hiring partners would have laughed at, do you not realize how foolish you sound?

      Delete
    2. Uh, me again. Your comment about you being a snowflake was a joke, right?

      Good trolling. I fell for it.

      Delete
    3. I have made many contacts in law school though...

      Delete
    4. @July 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

      This is from Mr. Infinity's blog. And yes, he is a joke.

      Delete