unabomber?

no, certainly not. but i am beginning to get the impression that the sort of things i would like to talk about and the way i would like to express them would have the same end result of only seeing the light of day as a force-published diatribe originating from some mid-western (only kosher with spell check if hyphenated) wilderness. i will also never rock a pair of aviator sunglasses like in that infamous f.b.i. sketch; i look silly in those. the point is, both myself and the unabomber (wikipedia article is really interesting) may have had thoughts we thought worthy of dissemination, but did not see fit to seek out and utilize the acceptable channels. if the dude would have used the right language and obtained the appropriate degree and position (specialization denies people with phds in math the outlet to be a well-regarded social critic for the most part), he probably would have enjoyed the same niche notoriety/fame of academics across the nation. he probably could have even put it how he did had he stayed on as a prof somewhere and taken classes in some other discipline. what someone has to say is oftentimes irrelevant if they do not choose the correct way to express it. and thus his writings and my own will inevitably disregarded as manifestos of malignant minds. not that i have one worked up or anything, but you get the idea.
the practical application at this point in my life is that even if i go through the charade known as legal education, i do not believe that i will be able to wrench it into anything i find satisfactory. i'm not saying it would leave me incapable of doing anything worthwhile or good; quite the opposite really, but at the end of the day nothing i personally want to do. i realize that the majority of people spend the majority of their lives doing things they would rather not do, but i am also aware that there are plenty of people who enjoy what they do, be it drive a bus or give graduate seminars in astrophysics. i do not feel like i have been backed into a choiceless (not a word, says spell check) corner; my life has been one of relative privilege imbued with a certain degree of ability. i find it problematic to value "the right thing" over one's own interest, as the result tends to be a severe degree of self-righteousness.
this need not be the result in the former or latter case, in fact there was a talk today given by people who worked in the private sector in a manner they felt allowed them to "maintain their progressive ideals". i'll spare you the details, but i think it took a little convincing on their own part a lot of the time, even if they had the ability to paint a road picture in which they were eugene v fucking debbs. they have jobs which are reasonably remunerative even by lawyerly standards, and they can indeed view it as a social positive. however, none of these things seemed to bear any resemblance to anything i would want to do for a living. in short, it seems like legal work for good or evil will have the necessary consequence of boring the shit out of me. i have also reached the conclusion that it is something i could do. i may even become decent at it through practice. but that alone cannot make me want to do it.
this is a major component to my present impasse. here i have an opportunity to get a decent job by putting up with a couple years of bullshit. law school, in my experience, is nothing but a means to an end. i know no-one who does or did enjoy the experience of "legal education", and i imagine that this is mostly because it is not education. college was education. this is the scholastic equivalent of the eliminator at the end of an episode of american gladiators, except the competition takes place in hell and has doubled its prescription for steroids. i for one did not decide to attend law school as purely a means to an end, although that was naturally a consideration i took into account.
i showed up expecting an education without a strictly defined end. i wanted to learn about the law and find a way to put that into use, either within some appealing enclave i discovered within the vast realm of legal employment, or alternative and preferably in some other field in which a j.d. carries some weight. the last few months have been bearers of bad news on this front. even appealing areas of the law are heavily if not entirely infiltrated by the dominant legal culture. so whether you're facilitating divorces, defending pharmaceutical companies, suing the federal government, or providing a wide variety of services to a needy and worthy non-profit, your writing has to look the same. the big business nature of "important firms" informs law schools and by extension lawyers in all walks of law. the point is always to cut to the chase and inform the reader. do not plan on them reading your document in any logical order. they are busy and more important than you are. they need to make meaningful decisions, and fast. to delay them is to cost time and time is money. so do not let your writings be readable to a true human being, for this is an unnecessary expense. individual expression through inappropriate forms must not be allowed, or the machine will not run properly. if you don't play by the rules, you are not a real lawyer, and if you're not a real lawyer, no one wants to hire you to pretend to be one if you don't act right. i asked my legal writing prof if what we were being taught is what would be required of us at any legal job. she said mostly yes, but perhaps i could get a job at a small job and "get right into court!". that is precisely the last place i want to be in any capacity whatsoever.
so with chances sufficiently diminished within the traditional legal realm, natural home of those holding j.d.s, i once again cast my glance toward employment outside of the field also placing value on that particular piece of paper. the purported utility of the degree is somewhat misleading. while there are certainly jobs where one is not a lawyer but preferably holds the degree, these jobs are by and large within legal trenches, i.e. legal publishing, law librarian, f.b.i., etc. in that respect, i might be forced to say that i not only have an aversion to being a lawyer, but also of utilizing that skill set in the name of furtherance of lawyerly activities. these jobs hold minimal interest for similar reasons stated above. beyond that, i had encountered several lengthy lists of things one can do with a j.d.. while these lists are long, i did not immediately realize that these were simply things that having a j.d. certainly not preculde one from, and where it may be helpful. however, you don't really need the degree. these lists are mostly for people who are already lawyers and want to find something else to do. basically a lot of you could be a (fill in the blank)... with a LAW DEGREE! Mostly studies in career changing. In fact, most people who make these lists are former lawyers who have found alternative careers telling lawyers what else they can do, a perverse parasitic relationship in my view. on the other hand, some jobs still require a j.d. and are not bogged down by proximity to lawyerly work, such as being a law professor. this was indeed a hope i held upon enrollment. guess i should have done a little more looking into things before hand. the fact that i had encountered programs at law schools outside of the most lofty echelon dedicated to training law professors gave me some hope. however, the explosion of higher education in america has of course reached this portion as well. if you want a job where you need a j.d. due to the nature of the work but that job is not being a lawyer, you damn well have better gone to one of those schools in the aforementioned echelon. i suppose one is not automatically forbidden from pursuing or obtaining such employment, but let's just say the odds are pretty good that someone who got into and made it through one of the best of the best and is more than ready to forgo an unearthly salary is probably brighter, more organized, and a better interviewer with a better resume than you will ever have. personally resolved global warming, darfur crisis, etc., while maintaining a four point and heading up the championship skulling (can't believe that got marked, it's an olympic sport!) squad. they have also written and published more scholarly text than half of your professors, and they haven't even attained such a post yet. enough of that, the point is that those jobs where a j.d. is necessary but you will not be a lawyer are pretty fucking tough to get.
overall, i'm driving at the fact that law school is not inherently of enormous value, and the means-to-an-end prospects are seriously unappealing in my opinion. at best my completion of the degree gains me the right to throw that on, you guessed it, the resume. and at that point one is subject to as much benefit as detriment. in my mind, a considerable number of people who get the first look at resumes would immediately think "what is wrong with this person? why is he not a lawyer? he could be RICH! something has to be off about this guy...". i suppose they are correct after a fashion. i am off in the sense that a significant part of me doesn't want to get into certain business just to make money. oh well. could put a good spin on that if i made it to an interview i suppose. whether or not i go through with all this, i firmly believe that what one does for a living does not or at least should not define who one is. and beyond that, much like the importance of how one says something versus what one says, how one does is more valuable than what one does. thank you calvin for that. and for giving me a by-and-large legitimate and worthwhile liberal arts education. it is not the fault of the believers of liberal education that we graduates don't all get amazing jobs; the market is far from their control. as a fellow believer, i am finding that out in sharp relief through this experience.
i believe it was voltaire who said "well, then, fuck them". i cribbed that from achewood. allow me to reiterate that it is good stuff and you should read it. plus then you can call me out on my bullshit when i subconsciously rip it off, dude style (i don't think the dude is fully aware of where he gets his phrases, but i think he knows he heard it "somewhere"). in any case, that is an excellent statement of a classic position, and i defy someone to deny that. also makes an appropriate conclusion to what turned out to be one hell of a vent, even by my standards. if you read it, thanks. hopefully there was some value in there somewhere, i am under the impression that there had to be. so anyway, to restate my conclusion one last time (you wouldn't believe how many conclusions are restated how many times in any given memo): fuck 'em. regardless of whether they can take a joke or not. fuck 'em.
man, i just put on a soul coughing show, which reminded me that mike doughty is playing nearby tonight and i am not going, which is a bummer. on the one hand, my favorite things about soul coughing certainly include the crazy sampling and jazzy upright bass playing which will of course be absent, but then again i would love to personally witness this guy talk or sing about anything; the delivery is fascinating and hypnotic (and only occasionally pretentious, but even then not in a bad way) to my ear. although i did hear that his solo acoustic stuff is of a somewhat different stripe, guess some of it made its way to prime time television show soundtracks, but i guess those have some decent tunes in them these days from what i'm told. either way, recent set lists indicate a reasonable amount of soul coughing material in the mix. hey, he wrote it, he can play it. although it must miss something. in any case, i am not going to find out firsthand tonight, and that is too bad. i am too busy alternating between reading a bunch of cases and writing their corresponding briefs. if i was truly a non-conformist, i would write boxers for my cases. although they usually provide less but more purely relevant coverage of the case. this metaphor is going nowhere; best result is that i declare that i write g-stings for cases. that's how you know i haven't been drinking: i didn't say fuck briefs! i write fuckin g-strings for my cases bitches! my notes are sexy as hell compared to everyone's lame ass old school briefs! back to the what is said/how is said idea...
come to think of it, that very distinction was dispositive in a criminal law case i did for today, common law looked to an accomplice's statements and his intentions in regard to how those statements were to be interpreted to determine his culpability. but i know i've had more than enough law school for one post, so i figure it is safe to assume everyone else has too.
i've switched the tunes to vinyl, billy joel's piano man. excellent album overall really, hell yes billy the kid. "ain't no crime" is on right now, and i know someone reading this loves the hell out of that song. out yourself. i really want a copy of street life serenader, that was one of my favorites as a kid, and one i curiously couldn't track down in the folks' collection, so if you happen across a copy pick it up for me if you will. surprised i haven't found a copy myself yet. billy joel has been a constant in my life, surprisingly, but soul coughing to billy joel is a weird transition. not as weird as one time where i went to him from cradle of filth in the car once though. that was just classic. this was before ipods. and i didn't even use the word "random". which reminds me, becky, invite me to the group about nothing random about your new photo album or whatever. that word has been unconscionably abused over the last decade (right up there with "plethora"), which was a real bummer for me, since i had been using appropriately for a while before all that started.
but back to music for a moment. i keep meaning to go on about how much i like built to spill, and i can never remember if i have before on here or not, so sorry if i already have, but they do kick some serious ass in my book. the vocals strike me as the sort of love-it-or-hate-it kind though, so be forewarned, but i think most of my readership could dig it. sort of in the neil young tradition in some ways. if you like wayne's voice from the flaming lips or how the my morning jacket guy sounds, it is sort of closer to that. if anyone out there digs this band already let me know so we can talk about how sweet they are sometime, favorite tracks, and maybe point me at a studio album or two to track down.
well, after all that, i think i have to admit that another distinction between me and the unabomber is that dude had better focus. and at least some doctorate. and he was smarter. and i'm loving the shit out of technology right now. and penthouse will most likely not volunteer to publish anything i wrote. even my notes which are sexier than regular legal briefs. i guess i have almost nothing in common with that dude. good thing i looked into it. i suppose this is a favorable overall result. some small things work out sometimes.