1-Environmental Week: Next week we are beginning a new initiative where we are going to try and be ESPECIALLY cognizant of our environmental waste in the law building. Consequently, we ask that you leave the lights OFF in the downstairs locker area (use your cell phone light to open the combination), take notes by hand (no laptops) and don't flush any of the toilets throughout the week in any of the law school bathrooms.
2-ABA visit -- Unfortunately, I got an early peek into the Law School rankings this week and CU is slipping from #32 to #67 this year. This makes your attendance at the ABA meetings this week VERY important. I have been told to ask you to wear glasses to make us look smarter, talk about how much you love the Socratic Method, and encourage that we lower our median grade several more points into the mid-70s in order to get the ABA to give us a more favorable review.
3-Fall OCI Interview change: I'm asked to relay the news that in part due to the economic crisis, law firms in Colorado want to wait and see our 2L fall grades. As a result, OCI interviews will now be held from 12/22-24 and from 12/26-28 of this year. This economy really is hurting us.Thanks for your help and understanding with the foregoing. Please email me if you have any questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Thats funny. and No, I didn't get the email.
Did you note the date today?
Got an email telling me to pick up around the Journal Offices. I seriously doubt our review will be dependent upon a wayward LR article submission.
Yet more proof that our class is seriously f-ed when it comes time for graduation:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12050886
Re: Denver Post Article:
You didn't already know all of that? Where have you been living the past 6 months?
Hey, for all of you working on last minute journal articles . . .
The jury found for Ward Churchill today. How does this affect you? Easy. Do you have a brilliant point to make for it, but no citations or support for it? Here's an idea - make up a separate article supporting your point, put a different author name on it, and then cite that article in your journal article. Piece of cake!
Should your academics ever come into question, write an inflammatory piece. Perhaps bring ethnicity into play. Should the article be questioned, piss and moan to the national media. Hold demonstrations on campus. Convince gullible 18 year olds that you are being unfairly persecuted. File a lawsuit against the university alleging that you were fired for writing the inflammatory article, not that you made stuff up. Get a jury trial before your "peers" of uninformed 20-somethings. Nevermind that your academic peers think that you are a fraud. Win $1, be vindicated, and continue living your life as a douchebag.
There, isn't that easy? You'll have 30 pages of journal article done in no time. Brilliant!
I'm just gonna throw this well thought-out statement out there...Ward Churchill sucks.
I heart Wardo!
Im glad Ward won, he deserved to.
Even if he is a douchebag, ultimately...
ugh, please wake up people - i am bored at work and i want to start fights with people here, ok?
flame wars make the afternoon go by far more quickly, imo
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/the_hell_that_is_barbri_open_t.php
just found this - laughed my butt off - there is another one for this year:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/03/nyu_law_revue_preview.php?show=comments#comments
the second one really has a lot of truth to it.
Sorry - i don't know how to "imbed"
Wonderful idea!
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/apr/03/ward-churchill-university-colorado-chancellor/
So how freaked out are the 3Ls about the job situation? My clerk position just got extended another year because of the hiring freeze, and I have to admit, my blood pressure has finally returned to normal. I hear that several of the big firms in Denver are laying off associates (20-30 per firm).
http://www.denverpost.com/theeconomy/ci_12050886
A travesty. Obviously the jury has no idea of what academic misconduct means. Of course, if you operate outside of the fantasy realm of higher education, plagiarism doesn't seem like such a big deal. Of course, I'd be kicked out of school without recourse if I tried anything that Ward pulled off.
Wardo is an inflammatory turd sandwich. I think that I'm just going to start making sh*t up, and when called out say that I'm relying on my culture's "oral tradition." Of course, Wardo isn't even Native American, but that doesn't seem to slow him down. This guy sucks. Obviously he has protected free speech to write controversial essays. He doesn't have a constitutional right to be a fraudulent professor. This should have been a JNOV on the academic integrity issue.
I just hope that he is not reinstated. Pay him off. Then let him either fade into obscurity or become yet another America hating radical leftist blowhard pundit on MSNBC (actually, I guess being a pundit on MSNBC is kind of like fading into obscurity, so I'm being redundant).
Justice Fails:
You are wrong. This is not a travesty. Ward Churchill is a hack and a lousy academic. I don't think anyone questions that. However, we have to assume at this point (until the verdict is reversed on appeal, if that ever happens) that the jury was properly instructed on the law, and properly applied that law to the facts as they were presented. Then they found that he wasn't fired for academic dishonesty/plagiarism/etc., and instead was fired because of the content of the inflammatory piece that he wrote---which the school can not do.
I don't think insulting the intelligence of the jury is really fair until there is some indication that they did something wrong.
But I'm sure the Caplis/Silverman/Limbaugh/O'Reilly/FoxNews- loving set will never see that side of things.
See, that is where you are wrong. I was at the closing arguments, and the jury was deliberately misled by Ward Churchill's attorney, David Lane. Lane is the type for whom the end justifies the means. He has a personal theory that if the protected speech is ANY factor whatsoever, then the plaintiff wins (I'm paraphrasing). The problem is that that interpretation is 100% at odds with the actual law. In truth, even if Churchill could have proved that the speech was a substantial factor (not just a factor!), CU had the affirmative defense that Churchill would have been fired regardless. Even the jury verdict form reflected that truth. Yet Lane got up there and bold-face lied to the jury, saying that if the protected speech was any factor whatsoever, then the jury absolutely must find for Churchill--end of analysis. Sadly, CU's counsel was too much of a pansy to call him on it. That does not even cover the numerous evidentiary shenanigans Lane pulled, or the fact that he called all of CU's witnesses "lying liars who lied," something which Colorado case law clearly prohibits.
So in summary, it was a sad day for the American justice system, because Churchill's attorney lied and cheated his way to a verdict that clearly reflected the fact the jurors saw their hands as tied. Congrats Wardo. Your fraud triumphed again.
Well, then, it sounds as if CU has some excellent arguments on appeal, should it chose to file one.
If Churchill's counsel acted inappropriately, or misstated the law, then the verdict should be reversed--although it sounds like O'Rourke may not have objected and preserved those issues for appeal. But thats a whole other issue altogether.
"actually, I guess being a pundit on MSNBC is kind of like fading into obscurity, so I'm being redundant"
Just because you diagree with the left-leaners on MSNBC doesn't make them obscure, you know.
Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and even Rachel Maddow are anything BUT obscure.
MSNBC is the future, Fox Noise is the past.
Anon 3:19 . . .
Instead of following the "O'Doyle Rules!" basis of argument, let's look at some facts:
2009 Q1 Nielsen ratings:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cable-time-period-rank-1q09-livesd.pdf
Fox News: #2 in prime time, #5 total cable programming. 2.25 million prime time viewers. Bill O'Reilly (love him or hate him) - 100 consecutive months at #1 in his time slot - dominating Olbermann.
MSNBC: #24 in prime time with 746 thousand viewers. #28 overall.
Also check out http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/, where Fox News tends to dominate MSNBC about 2-3 to 1 on average.
Furthermore, check out growth rates at: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/hln_fox_news_msnbc_showing_double_triple_digit_growth_112477.asp
MSNBC may be challenging CNN, but has a long way to go to catch Fox.
In short, the far right and far left punditry stations are both gaining market share, thus showing the increased polarization of this country. Just the facts. Who would have thought that CNN would be the "moderate" station while losing market share?
The MSNBC joke from above was obviously made in jest. But, shouting MSNBC jingoism while while stating that Fox News is the past shows only ideological dogma without a basis in reality. Both are growing. Besides, don't we want to hear both sides (that would be a conservative and liberal point of view, not just a liberal and an even more liberal point of view) of an issue in order to make our own informed opinions? There is no such thing as an unbiased media, just different degrees of polarization.
Anon 9:39:
O'Doyle Rules!
Watching fox news does nothing to help one make an "informed opinion".
Unless I need to be informed about bullshit like terrorist fist jabs and other racist, ignorant, and delusional nonsense before I can think rationally?
I don't think so.
http://mediamatters.org/
A good resource for anyone stupid enough to think Fox News should actually be called a "news" channel.
http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors
Because surely a former staffer for John Edwards, a director for Joe Biden, a Green Party lobbyist, a Brown University graduate, etc . . . provide the most unbiased of commentary.
This would be like me posting a link of: http://www.mediaresearch.org/ to combat everything liberals misrepresent. The lesson - consider the source. There's plenty of misinformation and punditry on both sides.
As mentioned above, all of the networks that rely on talking heads and punditry are biased. It is a matter of degree and to which side of the spectrum. Some hate Fox, others hate MSNBC, others hate the message of CNN.
Recognize the bias, become informed of all points of view (not just the one with which you agree), and then make a decision. Isn't that what being "liberal" or "open-minded" is all about? Plugging your mind and ears while shouting your own personal brand of zealotry (no matter which side) gets us nowhere.
BTW - the BBC oftentimes presents more balanced coverage than our own media. Interesting, but kind of sad in its own right.
I have discovered that most Fox bashers have never seen Fox news.
For example, "Unless I need to be informed about bullshit like terrorist fist jabs and other racist, ignorant, and delusional nonsense before I can think rationally?"
I watch Fox regularly and have never seen this type of programming. I, for one, am an extremely open-minded, non-racist, delusional or ignorant person and wouldn't watch any channel that promoted these things.
If I had to guess, the person who made the comment is regurgitating what s/he heard on programs such as MSNBC or "news" blog sites like media matters and the daily kos.
Just saying ...
The Colorado Daily is all you need.
Post a Comment