February 25, 2012

"The fervor of the sixties penetrated law schools quite passionately."

Strikingly sexual imagery from a 2005 article called "Introduction to Clinical Legal Education" (which I'm reading in connection with my law school's "self-study" of its clinical program). (PDF.) Here's the quote in context:
During the second wave of clinical legal education - a period spanning from the 1960's through the late 1990's - clinical legal education solidified and expanded its foothold in the academy. The factors that contributed to this transformation included demands for social relevance in law school, the development of clinical teaching methodology, the emergence of external funding to start and expand clinical programs, and an increase in the number of faculty capable of and interested in teaching clinical courses. Perhaps the most powerful of these factors was the zeitgeist of the 60's, which produced "student demands for relevance." In reflecting on the growth and direction of clinical legal education, Professor Dean Hill Rivkin has noted: "It was the societal legacy of the sixties . . . that most shaped clinical legal education. The fervor of the sixties penetrated law schools quite passionately."
ADDED: Speaking of passionate fervor, I love Wikipedia. It has an article titled "Relevance." Excerpt:
During the 1960s, relevance became a fashionable buzzword, meaning roughly 'relevance to social concerns', such as racial equality, poverty, social justice, world hunger, world economic development, and so on. The implication was that some subjects, e.g., the study of medieval poetry and the practice of corporate law, were not worthwhile because they did not address pressing social issues.[citation needed]
Of course, that passage contains many links to other Wikipedia articles, including this one called "Social justice." Excerpt:
The term and modern concept of "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.... It is a part of Catholic social teaching, the Episcopalians' Social Gospel, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum....
Ah! Religious roots. I note the resonance with Rick Santorum's observation that President Obama believes in "some phony theology." Sorry. The 60s penetrated me too passionately, and I've still got the fervor for relevance.


Carol_Herman said...

And, Obama got a free ride! Plus, a credential from Haaarvahd. Where he's considered to be an expert on Constitutional Law. (It didn't have to be the US Constitution, either.)

So much for the credentialing.

And, the genitalia requirements; if you weren't Black.

Not that I care.

We've grown so much crap onto our country with the passage of the Volstead Act (sp?) back in 1914. Or 1919. And, act specifically designed to kill Blacks better than anything done by the KKK.

Hate bred atrocious outcomes.

Obama? He's gonna win, again. Because the GOP is the stupid party.

Wince said...

Oh sure, now that Barney Rosset is dead, everyone's an expert on the subject of dirty books.

SHERRY: Licorice gum? Never! We were reading passages to each other from that Henry Miller book.

JERRY: "Tropic of Cancer".

SHERRY: (Correcting) No, "Tropic of Capricorn".

JERRY: Tropic of Capricorn?

SHERRY: Remember? "What holds the world together... as I have learned from bitter experience is... sexual intercourse."

edutcher said...

Well, we know what some people were doing when they were supposed to be studying torts.

Carol_Herman said...

And, Obama got a free ride! Plus, a credential from Haaarvahd. Where he's considered to be an expert on Constitutional Law.

Not by anything he's done recently.

PS Right on Volstead, wrong on the electon.

All of GodZero's stupid ideas are about to lay him by the heels.

Chip S. said...

And now, decades after the first spasms of excitement, all that's left is the syphilitic dementia.

PaulV said...

I went to a "national" law school (UVA 1974) and it was geared to clerkships for judges and big law firms. General practice was an after thought at best.

bagoh20 said...

It's unfortunate that truth is not relevant. In fact, it seems that the most relevant ideas are those that deny the truth.

Barry Dauphin said...

When you have terms such as "penetrated" and "sexual imagery" in the same post, I'm expecting pictures ;>)

edutcher said...

Ah, yes - relevant. I remember it well.

Willie was sooo concerned about being relevant after Newt ate his lunch on budget and welfare reform. Some people never got past their twenties.

SGT Ted said...

The 'relevence' is all leftist political tropes. It's all bullshit designed to control others speech.

Darleen said...

Sorry. The 60s penetrated me too passionately, and I've still got the fervor for relevance.

Sorry, Ann, what I loved about the sixties was the race to the moon, the promise of advances in tech and medicine ... what I sneered at was the emo-stylings of the naval-gazing, naked in the mud at Woodstock, stoners and well-fed, spoiled-brat university-occupiers bleating "relevance".

The Baby Boomers were as split ideologically (as well as hygienically) then as now.

Ann Althouse said...

"When you have terms such as "penetrated" and "sexual imagery" in the same post, I'm expecting pictures ;>)"

Yes, well, maybe somebody can draw/photoshop the fervor of the 60s fucking the law schools. I'm sure it would be quite titillating.

bagoh20 said...

"Relevant" is just university speak for "hip" or "fashionable", like bell bottoms or mood rings.

Kirby Olson said...

Santorum thinks family life is relevant. I am finally reading his book It Takes a Family, which seems relevant in several ways. One, it attacks the notions of Hillary that the village will do it all (communism will work). Santorum says no it won't, and it doesn't. I've now read the first four chapters of Santorum's book It Takes A Family. It's a very easy and good read. It is firming up some of my ideas that have been floating around without quite gelling. His basic argument is that we have these gnostic village elders who are giving us toxic information about how to live. Most of them haven't got their own kids, or have them raised by maids. He thinks for most of us, family is the only thing we've got, and all the major institutions are trying to disestablish that rugged institution in order to consolidate their power over us. "Can you imagine Hollywood, the media, and university faculty communicating the value of selflessness, commitment, faith, virtue, and a keen sense of right and wrong?" (page 20). Imagine Madonna or Lady Gag-Gag or the Rolling Stones communicating those values! Much less a psychopath like Zizek or his clones throughout academia!

Carol said...

Catholic "social teaching" is a Jesuit thing, and they're just one order of the Church. It's political. Nowadays it means to lobby the government to spend tax money on the poor. That's a long way from traditional direct action of Catholic charities, hospitals, schools, soup kitchens and so forth. We still have those too.

"Social teaching" is not doctrine. It's not infallible. We are free to take it or leave it. I mostly leave it, in light of the permanent dependent underclass the government solution it has created.

Carol said...

Lady Gag-Gag


Bender said...

The term and modern concept of "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas

Oh no! Enough with those religious extremists shoving their religion down our throats. (By the way, I don't know who coined the actual term "social justice," who first put those two words together like that, but the concept of social justice -- even the modern concept -- was, from the Christian perspective, originated 2000 years ago, e.g. the corporal works of mercy: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick, visiting the imprisoned, burying the dead. (Mt 25:31-46))

As for "social justice as a secular concept," that seems to be a rather strange concept.

"Social justice" implies a need for change. But, as a secular matter, society determines what "justice" is. Such that, whatever society is doing, it is necessarily just, so that there is no need for change.

"Social justice" only makes sense if "justice" is an objective concept, rather than a subjective one. "Social justice" only makes sense if "justice" is an objective truth that transcends the personal and subjective. But for that to be, there must be such a thing as absolute transcendent objective truth.

And, of course, we all know that such ideas are believed only by religious nuts. There is no absolute transcendent objective reality, there is only humanity. And humanity, in society, decrees what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust. To say that there is a need for "social justice" is to say that there are things greater than society, greater than our own wants and demands.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Those 60s students in my cohort (engineering) could see that 'relevance' was a tool to hijack school resources to focus them on leftist political causes, at the expense of scholarly inquiry in almost all other fields.

Relevance is bearing enormous fruit today in all the Angry Studies programs, and in the corruption of science into a religion militant by the insiders in the AGW community - such as the oh-so-ethical Peter Gleick.

'Relevance' - excellent candidate to be driven from the educational temple.

ricpic said...

What's true is never relevant
What's relevant is never true,
The more most bow to the present
The more prescient become the few.

G Joubert said...

'relevance' was a tool to hijack school resources to focus them on leftist political causes, at the expense of scholarly inquiry in almost all other fields

Bingo. Add to that, boomers didn't want to work that hard in school.

Bender said...

Catholic "social teaching" is a Jesus thing, and He's just the head of the Church.

In summary, what is that social teaching from Christ Himself?

Well, if you want the Latin -- caritas (love, from which we get the English word "charity").

Love God (who is Love and Truth) and love one another, as Jesus has loved us so too must we love one another. And there is no greater love than this, to lay down one's life for another. So, to be perfect in love, let go of your attachment to worldly things and give of yourself to others, especially those most in need, e.g. the poor. And who are the most in need, who are the poorest of the poor? Those who are unwanted, those who are the refuse and lepers of society, those who do not know love, those who are blind and stumbling around in darkness. (Lk 10:27, Jn 15:12-13, Mt. 19:16-21)

Bob Ellison said...

Speaking of "love Wikipedia", my public-school kids are banned from using it as a source in schoolwork. This is a travesty, and I think it's pretty widespread.

ricpic said...

The true is never relevant
The relevant is never true,
The more most bow to the present
The more prescient turn out the few.

Turn out better than become.

traditionalguy said...

The relevance battle cry has been a creative way of saying that an Authority/Emperor is subject to a higher authority.

The claim to be the operatives of that higher authority always comes in the same breath.

That speaker may be a Jesuit, a Party leader, or a Secret Society High Priest.

All three of those hats rolled into one gives you a Bill Ayers or Barack Obama. It is actually naked rebellion, and its natural enemy is the truth contained in Judeo-Christian scriptures.

The terrible Santorum wants to make our choice between those two camps clear. The Media Propaganda Arms wants to make all things fuzzy and warm urging trust in Barack's smile and Barack's lies.

KJE said...

I graduated in 2002 and went into solo general practice. IMHO, law schools would be better off preparing new graduates to actually try and practice law, particularly if they aren't likely to be in the top of the class and placed in the big firms or judicial clerkships.

We need clinical programs in law school, but less of the sociological style law classes, "law and gender" or "law and sexuality." Clinicals in criminal defense and prosecution, ADR, children's court, bankruptcy courts, that's really what today's young lawyer needs.

And because schools don't take it, or the clinicals don't exist, or they are actually work, this gives most of the new lawyers a learning gap on graduation. it's sad, because they have the rest of their life to be indoctrinated or to decide what they want to stand for and believe in.

wv; hrepe langst, which reminds me of herpes angst.

Chip Ahoy said...

Wikipedia is proof that real teachers will teach for free. Teachers are eager to share what they know.

Wikipedia is also proof that political activism poisons and pretty much ruins everything it touches.

I wondered when I read it here in this post, if 'social justice' would even be a Wikipedia item had that annoying guy not talked about it so much. Glen Beck. Took me a moment there, his dastardly enemies disappeared him well. I got an image of an academic somewhere getting all steamed and bothered and itchy poopy-pants about Beck demeaning the term 'social justice' over and over and over and then going, "well, where did the term come from anyway?" And so then uses their academically-honed mad research skillz to find out. Finds it, massages what they find to their liking and to how they would like you to understand what they found, and then posts what they found and massaged, or what they already knew, on Wikipedia.

On the other hand the item on social justice could have been there already on Wikipedia and seen by Beck during his staff's research, written earlier by an academic with a strong interest in the subject and matched by an interest to share, devoid of any political motivation or taint.

traditionalguy said...

Practice Tip: Anyone who quotes St Francis of Assisi as an authority is following another theology. That dude was whacked out.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bender said...

Make no mistake, the idea of "social justice" has indeed been hijacked by some to implement a leftist agenda, thereby twisting and distorting it so much as to result in social injustice. (Which brings us back to the point that they believe that "justice" is a malleable concept to mean whatever they want it to mean so as to obtain and wield power, rather than authentic justice, which is a matter of transcendent objective truth.)

Bender said...

Anyone who quotes St Francis of Assisi as an authority is following another theology. That dude was whacked out.

Not everyone is willing to be as radical as Francesco d’Assisi, one with the Crucified Christ.

But, as with "social justice," Francesco too has been hijacked (even being turned into a hippie in Zeffirelli's awful film).

neomom said...

Or maybe the phony theology was the black liberation theology that Obama sat and listened to for 20 years? Note Santorum also brought up Jeremiah Wright in the interview with Charlie Rose...

Just a thought.

Michael said...

Mostly, "relevance" meant "easier." Students figured out that it was better to discuss how the Romans might have been open to homosexual marriage which might have caused the flurry of cultural advances that were thwarted by the backward Germanic tribes than to conjugate Latin verbs. I am sure that the same thing applies in the law school cases. Way more fun to rant about social justice than sin. Not so close to home.

KCFleming said...

The sixties didn't just screw law schools, but everything it could. Uninhibited and promiscuous, it slept with every institution it could, and gradually turned most of American government, schools, art, film, and businesses into like-minded leftists.

After every Bacchanal comes the clean-up and paying the bills. We're nearing the end of this 60s-driven mind-fuck. Payment is due.

But why change dicks in the middle of a good screw?
Brought to you by the Committee to Re-Elect the President.

David R. Graham said...

Social Gospel is not of Episcopalian origin. It originated in German Liberal Theology of the 19th Century. Harnack and Schleiermacher. Neo-Orthodoxy attacked it as superficial, which it is.

Liberal Theology is collectivist humanism draped in some biblical language and more than some perverted biblical - and classical theological - concepts. It goes and went to socialism/communism, e.g., social gospel and liberation theology, and alinskyism secularly.

Liberal Theology' draw is optimism. It's drawback is hysteria.

Relevance meant in the 60s, "You better see things my way and do as I want, or else." It means the same thing today when used in a "social justice" context (actually the phrase is modernly "peace and justice," from the "liberation theology" movement). "Social Justice"/"peace and justice" is a cover for menacing petulance in one hand and insouciant theft in the other.

God, An Original A-hole said...

By me, Althouse! That was impressive. Had I known at the beginning that you would reach around to Santorum and finish off thataway... Well, then I would have been much more stimulated by the foreplay at the beginning of your post!

Why don't you post a naked law chic or something at the top? I read "sixties" and I instantly become flaccid; a counter-balance is needed.

Hey-- you could use this portrait of Rick Santorum, composed from images of gay porn. Santorum oozes that repressed gayness waiting to be unleashed in a fury of mega-penetration. Me is all hot for Ricky... and by measure of the sexy fascinations he has been muttering about me lately, I believe he is hot for me too!

David R. Graham said...

"Practice Tip: Anyone who quotes St Francis of Assisi as an authority is following another theology. That dude was whacked out."

Raises a needed clarity. The whacked are the seers of him as a collectivist supporting government mandated "charity" in the form of, say,"income distribution', aka theft. No, that's not Francis. That's communist projection.

So is making New Testament statements out to the same distributive effect. Same for making those statements out as pacifistic and/or utopian. Babbling ignorance - and dangerous since is always rides in on horseback swinging clubs.

Carol_Herman said...

The 60's still had the draft. And, an ugly war in Vietnam, where American kids were being killed for no sane reason at all.

Then, in 1968, came Nixon. He said "he'd end the war." But for years he did not. However, with 1972's race looming, Nixon cancelled the draft.

And, in his second term Nixon ran into "problems."

Knocking McGovern out of the 1972 race, where McGovern only won one state ... seems to have had very little impact on how politicians think.

And, today, we know ALL politicians are the same. Doesn't matter if they go with the "D" label or the "R" label. Except that "R" could stand for "rectum."

Methadras said...

Leftism become an infestation into academia. Now look at it. Unfortunately professor, you are a part of it. The fervor of socio-economic justice is what penetrated law schools to the point that blaming whites for what ills the world became and is still all the rage.

Alex said...

Carol - the reason the Democrats did not panic about 1972 is because they knew they had the media and colleges. They knew 1972 was the last gasp of the Archie Bunker generation.

David R. Graham said...

I neglected to mention Ritschl as the base of "Social Justice" via his Liberal Theology. Ritschl precedes Harnack.

Liberal Theology broke down from attack by two theologians from Halle but mostly from the force of world history going into the 20th Century.

A lasting impact of Liberal Theology is visible in modern rejection of the vertical component of life, especially as expressed by classical mysticism. Ironically, Neo-Orthodoxy, which attacked the optimism of Liberal Theology, also rejected mysticism, and this double-barreled blast at the identity of reason and Reason explains the uniform hostility of modern academe to self-critical scrutiny at assumptions.

Academe cannot stand apart from its classical Christian dogmatic structures, which synthesized and advanced classical Greek and Roman dogmatic structures. Academe is a consequence of those. It cannot live without them. They are its penetrating enthusiasm.

Carol said...

-- caritas (love, from which we get the English word "charity").

Fine, but leaning on the government to provide the caritas is a recent, political perversion. The Jesuits are awesome when they work directly with the poor (without federal grants).

Carol_Herman said...

Well, let me see what I remember from back in 1972. (Where I learned, to my surprise, that my mom had voted for Nixon.)

I learned this because I repeated Pauline Kael's remark that she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon.

So, my mom gave me her answer.

Then, "without panic" ... Nixon blundered into Watergate. It made for some very entertaining TV. All the "soaps" got knocked off the air, while the Watergate Hearings "on the Hill" got televised "wall-to-wall."

Lots of women screamed that they "missed their soaps." And, who can forget John Dean's testimony?

Nixon resigned in disgrace.

Bill Clinton didn't have to. Because all Bill Clinton got was a blow job. And, Monica? She didn't complain. Had Monica "complained," then, yes, the new rules in the workplace would have kicked in.

In 1972, after McGovern's failure on election day, he was asked how he felt. And, he replied, "he couldn't laugh about it. And, he was too old to cry."

The GOP? Stupid party doesn't learn much from the stinkeroo's they keep putting into place to run for the presidency.

Want to know the year of their biggest mistake? 1948.

Because the republicans wouldn't choose General Douglas MacArthur. Seems the tent dwellers at the country club hated MacArthur's brilliance.

Typical. Both parties are now providing stinkers. People who decide to vote? They hold their noses. How bad is turnout? Well, it's fallen below 65% of those who are eligible to vote.

What will the turnout be in 2012?

Well, I don't know. Nor do I think anyone else is able to predict the future.

BUT if there are enough angry people at the antics of the stupid party? Maybe, that could be a motivator?

I wouldn't be shocked. Or suprised.

traditionalguy said...

The Social Injustice cited is that the USA is rich while others are poor.

So what?

What is always to rob the rich and kill them so they can get no revenge.

St Francis proclaimed that his mystical spirit god demanded aceticism that he called being Married To Poverty.

So what?

What is that once you are in poverty you have nothing left to give another.

So becoming a Bangladeshi hell hole as St Francis wants would cause the Social Justice Crusades to leave us alone and go where people still have something left to steal.

Anonymous said...

John Rawls is primarily responsible for the implosion of the Democrats as a majority in this country. It was his goofy philosophy that tore apart the unique fusion of interests, and drove middle-class people into the Republicans. More importantly, it was his philosophy that seduced and continues to seduce intellectuals who care so much, and want to help so much, and think of themselves and their views and their choices as the only rational ones.

Synova said...

Obama isn't a child of the 60s. He's the same age (near enough) as me. He didn't hit college until Reagan was president.

Chip S. said...

@7M, Neither Michael Harrington nor Herbert Marcuse, to name two of what seem to have been the major influences on the "new left" in the late '60s, were likely to have been influenced much by Rawls, whose book wasn't published until 1971.

Rawls subsequently modified his views to a point where they were pretty much indistinguishable from any standard talk of an "equity/efficiency tradeoff."

If you want to find the intellectual underpinnings of the modern welfare state, look to the Webbs. And of course, in the political sphere, Bismarck was way ahead of them.

I do agree, though, that the ubiquity of the term "social justice" probably has a lot to do with Rawls.

coketown said...

I was in college 2004-8. The fervor of the sixties was no longer penetrating, and the passion was gone. But in the Liberal Arts department at least there was the unmistakeable musky scent and, on some of the desks, residual evidence of that foregone intercourse. Professors reminisced fondly but couldn't quite explain it to the younger generations, anymore than a deflowered virgin can explain the thrill of the first time to a gaggle of worn-out whores. We've been railed by the spirit of the sixties since kindergarten. It's all routine now.

Chip Ahoy said...

Now let me get this straight, Carol Herman, help me out here, I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes. You're trying to suggest to us that you think the Republicans can be summed up as the stupid party?


Since R will stand for rectum then, as an equal opportunity offender, what body part would D stand for?

Derriere. Nah. Insufficiently anal.

We need a D that really gets in there.

Digestion. Duodenum. Dyspepsia. Drainage. No. Ass-related body parts that start with D.

Deltoid something. Distal something. Dorsal something.

Ass related!

Descending colon.

Greg Hlatky said...

The only thing I know about "Social Justice" is that it was the name of Father Coughlin's anti-Semitic magazine published in the 1930's.

Unknown said...

Wrong on social justice. It is an idea out of marxism that was looking for a digestable label to use. A label that would allow it to be indoctrinated into the west. Social Justice here has less to do with the church and more to do with Marx and Marx

Bender said...

What is that once you are in poverty you have nothing left to give another

As a general proposition? Once you are in poverty, what you have to give to another is yourself. And a gift of self is far more valuable than mere material things.

So becoming a Bangladeshi hell hole as St Francis wants

Seriously -- where do people come up with this stuff? A guy could spend his entire commenting day just on correcting the misstatements and misimpressions and just plain wrong things that are constantly being thrown out there.

Francis did not demand that everyone become one with the poor as he did, or otherwise embrace poverty, any more than Fr. Damien, who sought to be one with the lepers of Molokai, demanded that everyone acquire leprosy (Francis himself ministered to lepers).

The Body of Christ has many parts, not everyone is expected to be the part of a Francis, each has his or her own role and function.

What Francis did do is exhort people to penance, brotherly love, and peace. Francis himself had once been an eager soldier, and subsequently prisoner of war, that area of Italy having numerous military conflicts at the time. But this was also the time of feudalism and nobility, when being poor meant no work, no home, no food, no clothes, and thus were in great need of charity, which Francis also preached.

We should not be so quick to embrace the leftists' hijacking of Francis to falsely use and exploit him to promote their own agenda, rather than his.

Kirby Olson said...

Pennsylvania apparently gave 860 million dollars that usually go into the public schools over to the charter schools. I wonder if there's any other way to escape the fervor of the 60s who so totally penetrated the school system and screwed it up beyond belief.

Michael K said...

The subject brought back memories of the 1964 medical school class that refused to take the anatomy final because it wasn't "relevant." They had run into a professor smarter than they were. He just gave to final to anyone who wanted to take it and have the rest an "incomplete." They finally figured out that an Inc. became a D at the end of the school years. One student cam in to complain that the tests asked the wrong questions (He had apparently taken it but hadn't studied). He said, "I know lots about anatomy but you asked the wrong questions !

The professor said, "OK. Mentally I will give you a C. I'll just put the D on the paper." The student remonstrated, "Mentally ! It's what's on the paper that counts !"

The professor, who told the story with relish, just smiled and shrugged his shoulders.

DADvocate said...

I took a German literature class in college, I found medieval poetry quite relevant. Life was tough back than and it was reflected in the writings.

Michael in ArchDen said...

So..."The fervor of the sixties"=Satan?

Carol_Herman said...

It you've heard any of the Beattle's tunes ... you've heard a sound from the 1960's.

Then, was it Dylan who sang "The Times They Are A Changing?"

Believe it or not, we're genetically engineered to grow and change.

While the 1960's have already left behind more than psychedelic colors.

And, yes. In the 1960's there were still plenty of people who weren't entertained by the new sounds. They all voted for Nixon. And, in 1968 Nixon won. It wasn't all The Age of Aquarius, either.

But at least women learned they didn't have to be virgins to get married. Heck, today a white wedding gown no longer even suggests that you're virginal.

Lots of good things about the 60's.

Synova said...

When did the white wedding dress thing start?

I saw my grandma's wedding picture and figured that her not-white dress was because she was pregnant (she was - not shocking on her part, but I'm rather surprised at my grandpa) but that wasn't it at all. People were poor. When you got married you probably borrowed the nicest dress you could find. No one cared that it wasn't a white dress or thought it meant anything.

Did we start to have white wedding dresses because we got wealthy?

Lem said...

Something called Data Execution Prevention Program keeps me from opening PDF sites like the one linked to here.

I dont want to have to turn it off, but it looks like I have no other alternatives.

If anybody has any ideas.. please share.. I have a Windows 7 PC.

KCFleming said...

I wish the fervor of the sixties, after having penetrated law schools and universities and Hollywood quite passionately, would have remained consistent to their ideals and performed an abortion soon afterwards.

Lem said...

.. I still got the fervor for Relevance.


I still got the fervor for Obama.

Lem said...

I will be very surprise if the professor doesn't vote for Obama.

God, An Original A-hole said...

@ Lem -

Don't execute your data. Thou shalt not kill, ya' know... and thou shalt not attempt to persuade your CPU that content be machine code instruction either.

Try updating to the latest version of Acrobat Reader and that might do the trick! If it works, you owe me a prayer!

God, An Original A-hole said...

Oh, lookie lookie dear Althousians!

Bender thinks he knoweth the will of God!

I added the "-eth" to make it sound official and Biblical and all that. Pay attention, Freeman Hunt, wherever you are!

The rest of y'all: Put down your Jameson on-the-rocks and attend:

We should not be so quick to embrace the leftists' hijacking of Francis to falsely use and exploit him to promote their own agenda, rather than his.

Oh, Bender may indeed be correct.

But it is a small step from this to what Mohammad's heirs did; this is, reinterpreting a concern for the poor and downtrodden into a desire for worldwide political domination. If you say you know the intent of Moi, then you probably don't!

Egotistical bastards! The whole lot of 'em! Mohammad, Bender, Santorum...

I ought to smote 'em all! But my therapist has been telling me for the last millennium or so that I best refrain, so as to let mi peeps figure da things out for themselves. "How else do they learn?", Dr. Melfi asks me.

"By seein' their fellers smote!" I reply. And she laughs. But I get her point.

I don't know if this is a good long-term strategy. But I do know there is only a small stretch of soul between the likes of Bender and those of the so-called self-proclaimed "Prophet".

Where's my whiskey anyway?

You guys wanna see something beautiful? Check this out! It is like a giant copper titty... and what comes out of it is just as luscious as mothers' milk!

chickelit said...

God's writ: I ought to smote 'em all!

smite, smote, smitten

God, An Original A-hole said...

Listen, you little royal clucker, once I decide to smite, I smote, and those in question have already been smitten. Tense is for mere mortals. Do you suggest I whack instead?

Darcy said...

I love God.

Titus said...

I love the word penetrated.




Bob Ellison said...

Chip, not every commenter here realizes what's important. They view life as disconnected incidents etc. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, "plate," or "shrimp," or "plate o' shrimp" out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.

Valentine Smith said...

Holy shit! John Malkovich is God. Who knew?

traditionalguy said...

All St Francis lovers out there should enjoy their religion, take seriously their vows of poverty and bless the abused animals everyday. I am happy that aceticism makes you happy.

But please don't waste my time with that third rate religious spirit.

chickelit said...

Go whack yourself, God!

chickelit said...

Valentine Smith said...
Holy shit! John Malkovich is God. Who knew?

Why am I always the first to pint such things out?

Bender said...

They weren't wasting your time TradGuy, they weren't bothering you at all. They were minding their own business.

It was you who went out of your way to rant and spew in ignorance like you were Andy36yashu. Better advice would be for you to not waste your own time like that.

RonF said...

Can someone tell this non-lawyer what the term "clinical" means in the context of legal education?

Tom Perkins said...

"The 60s penetrated me too passionately, and I've still got the fervor for relevance."

Considering you went to Santorum, I think this is a relevant comment.

You wrote what I quoted. Do you see any connection between your fervor and the unfortunate fact you voted, I believe, for Obama?

What is actually true and relevant, is that there is and can be no such thing as social justice. All justice and injustice is individual, a classically and so actually liberal axiom.

newscaper said...

Bob Ellison,

Great Repo Man quote!

Jesus urged voluntary acts of charity, not the Church turning to Caesar to force it.

hombre said...

“For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.”
― G.K. Chesterton

In the case of secular progressives, who lack a metaphysical ground for morality, "mercy", "tolerance" and "charity", are frequently the subjectivist's "synonyms" for "justice" for the favored objects. "Social" is just the modifier that informs us that they are not talking about traditional justice. Traditional justice, i.e., "just deserts," is applied by them in accordance with current political correctness.

E.g., what do SPs mean by the following?

"Justice for undocumented aliens;"

"Justice for Israel;"

"Justice for Palestineans;"

"Justice for death row inmates;"

"Justice for Scott Walker."

Malleable, ain't it?

AugustFalcon said...

effecTo RonF:

Clinical in a the law school context means that the students actually get to go do law, i.e., handle real cases under the supervision of a licensed lawyer who holds a faculty position. It typically includes client contact, research, writing of motions, briefs, etc., going to court, appearing before judges and arguing the client's case. Fun stuff! Similar to the concept of medical school clinical work.

Nate Whilk said...

I don't remember hearing the phrase "social justice" until relatively recently, probably during the Clinton administration. And I attended a Jesuit high school and a Jesuit university in 1964-1971. I even heard a talk by one of the Berrigans.

traditionalguy wrote, "I am happy that aceticism makes you happy." A belief in vinegar?

Chip Ahoy wrote, "Since R will stand for rectum then, as an equal opportunity offender, what body part would D stand for?"

In Polish, "dupek" = a**hole
"dupa" = "a**"

My own non-authoritative inventions: "Dupacrat"/"Dupekrat" a**/a**hole in government.

Nate Whilk said...

The "social justice" wiki article also says, "The word has taken on a very controverted and variable meaning, depending on who is using it."

Orwell's list of words/phrases that are intended to deceive already contains "socialism" and "justice".