We sang a piece last semester by Georgy Sviridov -- it is pretty, tuneful, a little schmaltzy. Its plaintive suspensions are all followed by obliging glissandos that slide guiltily into the chord that everyone knows they want to hear, the way a spoon may seem to slip gratefully into a dish of chocolate pudding. It was nice. Introducing the piece, our conductor mentioned that there is an asteroid named for the composer, 4075 Sviridov, an interesting albeit not entirely crucial fact to know when listening to the piece.
After the concert, I encountered an astrophysicist in the audience. I think he studies the sun -- something like that. We were chatting, and I mentioned the asteroid since I thought he would be interested, and then realized that he thought composer had been named in honor of the asteroid and not the reverse. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Bar Exam Questions I Have Not Loved
One of the hardest things about the multiple choice questions on the bar exam is that many of them seem to have been purposefully written to remind test takers of the devastating limitations of our legal system.
For example: "An industrial city in the Midwest had approximately 300,000 inhabitants, and about half of them were members of a recognized racial minority. The latest census figures indicated that 33,501 minority residents of the city could be classified as 'poor' under federal poverty guidelines. In contrast, only 7,328 of the approximately 150,000 nonminority residents of the city could be classified as 'poor.' To combat a budget deficit, the city's 10-member city council, including no minority members and no poor members, decided to raise bus fares during rush hour periods from 80 cents to 1 dollar. Because poor people and members of minority groups placed greater reliance on the city's bus lines than did the bulk of the nonpoor and nonminority population (many of whom drove to work), the effect of the transit fare increase was hardest on the poor and minority communities. Several activist groups representing the poor, various minority organizations, and some community action coalitions vowed to fight the fare increase in federal court.
Which of the following statements most accurately describes the constitutional status of the fare increase?"
The correct answer is: "The fare increase is constitutional, because there is no evidence that the city council acted irrationally or was motivated by an intent to discriminate on the basis of race."
This was question number 197 of 200 on a six-hour simulated practice exam. I read it with a sinking feeling of recognition and dejection. This is the world we live in. People of color are disproportionately poor and underrepresented in the political system. Since they are underrepresented, they are often the first to bear the costs of economic downturn. And it is not always obvious what we, as lawyers, can do about it. Just bubble in letter "C" and move on to the next question...
For example: "An industrial city in the Midwest had approximately 300,000 inhabitants, and about half of them were members of a recognized racial minority. The latest census figures indicated that 33,501 minority residents of the city could be classified as 'poor' under federal poverty guidelines. In contrast, only 7,328 of the approximately 150,000 nonminority residents of the city could be classified as 'poor.' To combat a budget deficit, the city's 10-member city council, including no minority members and no poor members, decided to raise bus fares during rush hour periods from 80 cents to 1 dollar. Because poor people and members of minority groups placed greater reliance on the city's bus lines than did the bulk of the nonpoor and nonminority population (many of whom drove to work), the effect of the transit fare increase was hardest on the poor and minority communities. Several activist groups representing the poor, various minority organizations, and some community action coalitions vowed to fight the fare increase in federal court.
Which of the following statements most accurately describes the constitutional status of the fare increase?"
The correct answer is: "The fare increase is constitutional, because there is no evidence that the city council acted irrationally or was motivated by an intent to discriminate on the basis of race."
This was question number 197 of 200 on a six-hour simulated practice exam. I read it with a sinking feeling of recognition and dejection. This is the world we live in. People of color are disproportionately poor and underrepresented in the political system. Since they are underrepresented, they are often the first to bear the costs of economic downturn. And it is not always obvious what we, as lawyers, can do about it. Just bubble in letter "C" and move on to the next question...
William Finnegan has a chilling piece in the July 2nd New Yorker about the drug-related violence eroding civil society in Mexico. This is the kind of climate that defies straightforward attempts at explanation, driving even journalists into the arms of a sort of magical realism: "In Mexico, it is often impossible to know who is behind something -- a massacre, a candidacy, an assassination, the capture of a crime boss, a 'discovery' of high-level corruption. Either the truth is too fluid and complex to define or it remains opaque to anyone not directly involved in manipulating events."
We are no strangers here, in the US, to the endless cycle of scandal and cover up, to political theater, sounds bites, and spin, and to the way that concentrated capital can hobble democratic institutions. But rarely do we find that the truth of a particular political event is "too fluid and complex to define." Either he is sleeping with her or he isn't. Either he took the money or he didn't. Either she leaked the story or she didn't. At bottom, something happened and that something can be found out and narrated, front to back.
What is happening in Mexico is different. What is happening in Mexico is not really for me to explain, since I barely understand it myself. People are disappearing, headless bodies are being dumped in public squares, some or most or maybe all government officials are on the cartel payrolls.
But this is our story, too, isn't it? What's happening in Mexico is not just happening in or to Mexico, and it is not just happening. It is not a storm rolling in but an effect being produced like night falling in a small town on a Hollywood soundstage.
Is there any way to understand this except as the direct consequence of the US drug policy that has radically increased the value of controlled substances without so much as denting demand? If drugs were legal then the cartels would be multi-national corporations and Mexico would have a new business class and the violence would finally subside. Meanwhile, all those bodies are piling up on the altar of our next fix.
Happy Independence Day.
We are no strangers here, in the US, to the endless cycle of scandal and cover up, to political theater, sounds bites, and spin, and to the way that concentrated capital can hobble democratic institutions. But rarely do we find that the truth of a particular political event is "too fluid and complex to define." Either he is sleeping with her or he isn't. Either he took the money or he didn't. Either she leaked the story or she didn't. At bottom, something happened and that something can be found out and narrated, front to back.
What is happening in Mexico is different. What is happening in Mexico is not really for me to explain, since I barely understand it myself. People are disappearing, headless bodies are being dumped in public squares, some or most or maybe all government officials are on the cartel payrolls.
But this is our story, too, isn't it? What's happening in Mexico is not just happening in or to Mexico, and it is not just happening. It is not a storm rolling in but an effect being produced like night falling in a small town on a Hollywood soundstage.
Is there any way to understand this except as the direct consequence of the US drug policy that has radically increased the value of controlled substances without so much as denting demand? If drugs were legal then the cartels would be multi-national corporations and Mexico would have a new business class and the violence would finally subside. Meanwhile, all those bodies are piling up on the altar of our next fix.
Happy Independence Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)