I'm sure you did, but I looked away too quick
I'm scared out of my mind.
Law school starts on Sunday. I have three days of orientation, then a day off, then classes start on Thursday. And I've got a lot to read first. Every assignment also includes a warning. "Do not come unprepared." "Do not show up late." "Do not piss in your pants during class." I'm scared out of my mind. And it feels great.
"How do you explain to someone what you can't explain to yourself?" said Steve Martin in The Pleasure of my Company. I'm thoroughly terrified, but I love it. First, a great number of law students drop out in the first week. Then, even more fail classes and are kicked out. Additionally, the amount of work and stress drive off others. Finally, I have no plan B. If I don't survive law school, then I don't know what I'll do. What am I supposed to do with a degree in criminology? I suppose I could fold it like origami and make a nice hat or a swan, if I look up the instructions on the internet. I'm riding this fear like a drug. It satisfies me, and it makes me complacent. I feel at peace, even though I'm already behind on my studies and class hasn't even started. I feel great.
Florida residents: I would like to draw your attention to Gubernatorial candidate Tom Gallagher. You shouldn't vote for this man. His campaign sent out booklets intended to gain some votes, but it lists instead a number of reasons not to vote for Mr. Gallagher. The letter starts with, "Dear Fellow Republican," so I can tell you already that he's off to a bad start. The letter lists a bunch of Republican g-spots that wouldn't change anyone's mind that doesn't already agree with the party's ideology. Here's a few samples:
1. "I am the only candidate who worked side-by-side with Jeb Bush as Education Commissioner to implement the original A+ Education Reforms. I had the privellege of awarding the first opportunity scholarship."
If we read between the lines, these statements reveal that, while true, they're lacking necessary information. He is the only candidate who was Education Commissioner, he says, under Jeb Bush. Are we to assume that, typically, governors are former State Education Commissioners? Has Jeb Bush had a lot of these Education Commissioners? Why aren't there any democrats running who were once Education Commissioners working for Jeb Bush's office? He's right, though, because no other candidate can say that they held that particular job. If we look past the bad writing in this letter, though, we can zero in on the candidate's position on education. If he'd had an education, then he'd have studied subject-predicate agreement. This is a petty argument for me to make, though. Instead, we can focus on the candidate's support of student vouchers. He says that he had the privilege to hand out the first such "opportunity scholarships." I guess my question is this: can we expect the second round of vouchers to reach all of the students that the first bunch didn't get to? Or are those students out of luck?
2. "I am the only non-lawyer candidate in the race. Like Jeb Bush I come from a business background, and I was the only candidate who fought alongside Governor Bush for medical malpractice reforms and limiting lawyers fees."
Here we have a strong argument that explains the candidate's position on lawyers. Clearly, he finds them to be a cause worth fighting against. Again he makes the mistake of expalining that he's the only candidate who worked with Jeb Bush, as though it's a requirement to work with Bush in order to fight lawyers. High legal fees are a big concern for Tom Gallagher. In fact, they're such a big concern that he gave his crusade against legal fees attention in this letter under the second of four bullet points. I guess Tom Gallagher's target demographic of potential voters consists of anyone who's ever had to pay a lawyer money. I don't know how important an issue this is to you, but it seems to me like he's picking a fight that everybody can get behind ("I hate lawyers") and is making it a partisan issue. In the meantime, his positions on drilling off the coast of Florida, school construction, civil rights, law enforcement, campaign finance reform, the corrections system, capital punishment, pollution, the Miccosukee tribe's sovereignity, sewage in Biscayne Bay, maintainance of the intercoastal waterway and even the freakin bullet train are not discussed.
3. "As a husband, father and veteran, I am the only candidate who will defend Florida's families. I am the only candidate who is 100% pro-life, the only candidate who supports President Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill, and the only veteran in this race."
Oh boy. Here we go. Reread the first sentance and tell me: do you think that the other candidates are going to attack Florida's families? He probably doesn't mean attack as in "with a meat cleaver," but the use of language implies that meaning. The other candidates will actively attempt to hurt Florida's families. He must be referring to gay marriage, which to republicans is the same thing as a violent action made towards a family. If the rhetoric used by republicans on the hill were to be believed, you'd think the gay community is hiding weapons of mass destruction and should be invaded before they sell their secrets to Al Queda. The amazing thing is, they imply that gay people aren't American families. What, they can't love each other? Try this hypothetical: you're a happily married man or woman in a heterosexual marriage when you see a gay married couple in public. Does this mean that your marriage is suddenly less valuable to you? Does the presence of the gay married couple detract from your personal relationship to your spouse? Tom Gallagher says that he alone among the candidates will defend Florida's families from just such a fate. Well, if you really believe this is the right thing for the state of Florida to do, then go ahead and vote for him. Just so you know, he's not talking about terrorists: he's talking about homosexuals. It's easy to mistake what he's saying when he uses words like "defend."
Of course, the part that gets me angry is the mention of Gallagher's support for the President's veto. The president vetoe'd a bill supporting stem cell research (his first ever in office) because he believes embryotic stem cell research is, like abortion, the killing of unborn children. He announced the veto in a room filled with test-tube babies, as if to say that these children were once embryos that were almost used for research. What you didn't hear him say was that every child in that room couldn't have been born without extensive embryotic stem cell research (I'm quoting the Daily Show here). Instead, he ignored that thought and plowed on.
Do you guys remember how, in the first Matrix movie, Morpheus mentioned that the humans "scorched the sky," making the planet Earth inhospitable to plant and animal life? Ian and Matt over at Machall drew a comic once where a uniformed marine asked a general, "Sir, I have a question: wouldn't this plan also deprive all human life on Earth of food, forcing us to all die of starvation in the very immediate future?" The point I'm making is, the President tried to make it look like he was winning a war against something that must be fought in order to appear to us as some kind of hero, when instead his plan required everyone paying attention to look the other way in the face of jarring evidence that he had his head up his ass. In the meantime, federal funding for stem cell research that might've someday led to medical solutions to things like Alzheimer's (my Grandma), Cancer (my Grandma, Cousin Ruth, my Mom, my Friend's Mom, and a half dozen other people I know), and Parkinson's (Michael J. Fox). And the best part of it is: the embryos that would've been used for the research would've been discarded anyway. No one was going to carry them to term and raise them as their own kids. So...... nothing was accomplished and human achievement was impeded, just to make the President look really cool. Tom Gallagher says he feels the same way the President does on this issue. Vote for him if you're into that sort of hypocritical bullshit.
Also, why does he have to say he's a veteran twice in two sentences? I guess a lot of voters feel that veterans should be the only ones who hold elected office. If that's what you believe, then I can't tell you you're not entitled to that opinion. But I can ask you why it's mandatory for you when it's not mandatory for the office.
4. "As Chief Financial Officer, Governor Bush chose me to lead the successful effort to derail the bullet train boondoggle saving taxpayers over $25 billion. I have led the way in cutting taxes, and have experience in dealing with budgets and controlling state spending."
He derailed the bullet train? Is that really the image you want people to think of when they consider you as a candidate? I mean, what would he say if he'd stopped the state from building the Marlins a baseball stadium? "I smashed the fish tank?" "I caught and released the Marlins?"
This detail scares me. He's promising to save us more money. But what's he going to cut to make that happen? My first guess is, instead of spending money on schools, he's going to support vouchers for a handful of students and leave the rest high and dry. My second guess is, he's going to raise tuitions at state schools while offering less in financial aid. I'm just guessing, though, based on what he's said in this letter.
You shouldn't vote for Tom Gallagher. It's a bad idea. But then again, based on what he's said about his competition, if some other guy wins, he'll be a non-veteran non-former-education-commissioner who'll buy bullet trains and attack Florida's families. So, it's really a tough call.
Now I can expect the usual rebuttal from Annonymous who isn't so annonymous explaining why democrats are filthy and evil.
Snakes on a Plane comes out August 18th. Go see it with friends.
Law school starts on Sunday. I have three days of orientation, then a day off, then classes start on Thursday. And I've got a lot to read first. Every assignment also includes a warning. "Do not come unprepared." "Do not show up late." "Do not piss in your pants during class." I'm scared out of my mind. And it feels great.
"How do you explain to someone what you can't explain to yourself?" said Steve Martin in The Pleasure of my Company. I'm thoroughly terrified, but I love it. First, a great number of law students drop out in the first week. Then, even more fail classes and are kicked out. Additionally, the amount of work and stress drive off others. Finally, I have no plan B. If I don't survive law school, then I don't know what I'll do. What am I supposed to do with a degree in criminology? I suppose I could fold it like origami and make a nice hat or a swan, if I look up the instructions on the internet. I'm riding this fear like a drug. It satisfies me, and it makes me complacent. I feel at peace, even though I'm already behind on my studies and class hasn't even started. I feel great.
Florida residents: I would like to draw your attention to Gubernatorial candidate Tom Gallagher. You shouldn't vote for this man. His campaign sent out booklets intended to gain some votes, but it lists instead a number of reasons not to vote for Mr. Gallagher. The letter starts with, "Dear Fellow Republican," so I can tell you already that he's off to a bad start. The letter lists a bunch of Republican g-spots that wouldn't change anyone's mind that doesn't already agree with the party's ideology. Here's a few samples:
1. "I am the only candidate who worked side-by-side with Jeb Bush as Education Commissioner to implement the original A+ Education Reforms. I had the privellege of awarding the first opportunity scholarship."
If we read between the lines, these statements reveal that, while true, they're lacking necessary information. He is the only candidate who was Education Commissioner, he says, under Jeb Bush. Are we to assume that, typically, governors are former State Education Commissioners? Has Jeb Bush had a lot of these Education Commissioners? Why aren't there any democrats running who were once Education Commissioners working for Jeb Bush's office? He's right, though, because no other candidate can say that they held that particular job. If we look past the bad writing in this letter, though, we can zero in on the candidate's position on education. If he'd had an education, then he'd have studied subject-predicate agreement. This is a petty argument for me to make, though. Instead, we can focus on the candidate's support of student vouchers. He says that he had the privilege to hand out the first such "opportunity scholarships." I guess my question is this: can we expect the second round of vouchers to reach all of the students that the first bunch didn't get to? Or are those students out of luck?
2. "I am the only non-lawyer candidate in the race. Like Jeb Bush I come from a business background, and I was the only candidate who fought alongside Governor Bush for medical malpractice reforms and limiting lawyers fees."
Here we have a strong argument that explains the candidate's position on lawyers. Clearly, he finds them to be a cause worth fighting against. Again he makes the mistake of expalining that he's the only candidate who worked with Jeb Bush, as though it's a requirement to work with Bush in order to fight lawyers. High legal fees are a big concern for Tom Gallagher. In fact, they're such a big concern that he gave his crusade against legal fees attention in this letter under the second of four bullet points. I guess Tom Gallagher's target demographic of potential voters consists of anyone who's ever had to pay a lawyer money. I don't know how important an issue this is to you, but it seems to me like he's picking a fight that everybody can get behind ("I hate lawyers") and is making it a partisan issue. In the meantime, his positions on drilling off the coast of Florida, school construction, civil rights, law enforcement, campaign finance reform, the corrections system, capital punishment, pollution, the Miccosukee tribe's sovereignity, sewage in Biscayne Bay, maintainance of the intercoastal waterway and even the freakin bullet train are not discussed.
3. "As a husband, father and veteran, I am the only candidate who will defend Florida's families. I am the only candidate who is 100% pro-life, the only candidate who supports President Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill, and the only veteran in this race."
Oh boy. Here we go. Reread the first sentance and tell me: do you think that the other candidates are going to attack Florida's families? He probably doesn't mean attack as in "with a meat cleaver," but the use of language implies that meaning. The other candidates will actively attempt to hurt Florida's families. He must be referring to gay marriage, which to republicans is the same thing as a violent action made towards a family. If the rhetoric used by republicans on the hill were to be believed, you'd think the gay community is hiding weapons of mass destruction and should be invaded before they sell their secrets to Al Queda. The amazing thing is, they imply that gay people aren't American families. What, they can't love each other? Try this hypothetical: you're a happily married man or woman in a heterosexual marriage when you see a gay married couple in public. Does this mean that your marriage is suddenly less valuable to you? Does the presence of the gay married couple detract from your personal relationship to your spouse? Tom Gallagher says that he alone among the candidates will defend Florida's families from just such a fate. Well, if you really believe this is the right thing for the state of Florida to do, then go ahead and vote for him. Just so you know, he's not talking about terrorists: he's talking about homosexuals. It's easy to mistake what he's saying when he uses words like "defend."
Of course, the part that gets me angry is the mention of Gallagher's support for the President's veto. The president vetoe'd a bill supporting stem cell research (his first ever in office) because he believes embryotic stem cell research is, like abortion, the killing of unborn children. He announced the veto in a room filled with test-tube babies, as if to say that these children were once embryos that were almost used for research. What you didn't hear him say was that every child in that room couldn't have been born without extensive embryotic stem cell research (I'm quoting the Daily Show here). Instead, he ignored that thought and plowed on.
Do you guys remember how, in the first Matrix movie, Morpheus mentioned that the humans "scorched the sky," making the planet Earth inhospitable to plant and animal life? Ian and Matt over at Machall drew a comic once where a uniformed marine asked a general, "Sir, I have a question: wouldn't this plan also deprive all human life on Earth of food, forcing us to all die of starvation in the very immediate future?" The point I'm making is, the President tried to make it look like he was winning a war against something that must be fought in order to appear to us as some kind of hero, when instead his plan required everyone paying attention to look the other way in the face of jarring evidence that he had his head up his ass. In the meantime, federal funding for stem cell research that might've someday led to medical solutions to things like Alzheimer's (my Grandma), Cancer (my Grandma, Cousin Ruth, my Mom, my Friend's Mom, and a half dozen other people I know), and Parkinson's (Michael J. Fox). And the best part of it is: the embryos that would've been used for the research would've been discarded anyway. No one was going to carry them to term and raise them as their own kids. So...... nothing was accomplished and human achievement was impeded, just to make the President look really cool. Tom Gallagher says he feels the same way the President does on this issue. Vote for him if you're into that sort of hypocritical bullshit.
Also, why does he have to say he's a veteran twice in two sentences? I guess a lot of voters feel that veterans should be the only ones who hold elected office. If that's what you believe, then I can't tell you you're not entitled to that opinion. But I can ask you why it's mandatory for you when it's not mandatory for the office.
4. "As Chief Financial Officer, Governor Bush chose me to lead the successful effort to derail the bullet train boondoggle saving taxpayers over $25 billion. I have led the way in cutting taxes, and have experience in dealing with budgets and controlling state spending."
He derailed the bullet train? Is that really the image you want people to think of when they consider you as a candidate? I mean, what would he say if he'd stopped the state from building the Marlins a baseball stadium? "I smashed the fish tank?" "I caught and released the Marlins?"
This detail scares me. He's promising to save us more money. But what's he going to cut to make that happen? My first guess is, instead of spending money on schools, he's going to support vouchers for a handful of students and leave the rest high and dry. My second guess is, he's going to raise tuitions at state schools while offering less in financial aid. I'm just guessing, though, based on what he's said in this letter.
You shouldn't vote for Tom Gallagher. It's a bad idea. But then again, based on what he's said about his competition, if some other guy wins, he'll be a non-veteran non-former-education-commissioner who'll buy bullet trains and attack Florida's families. So, it's really a tough call.
Now I can expect the usual rebuttal from Annonymous who isn't so annonymous explaining why democrats are filthy and evil.
Snakes on a Plane comes out August 18th. Go see it with friends.