We Should Trust Arizona — Even Though It Doesn’t Trust Itself
So even MORE fun news from Arizona. As expected, a whole bunch of pissed off people have already filed/are thinking about filing lawsuits to overturn everyone’s favorite hate group-drafted, frivolous lawsuit-subsidizing, blatantly unconstitutional, meaningless political statement of a law.
We are not amused
Now this whole time, Arizona’s been like, “dudes, just *trust us*. Is there the potential for racial profiling? Yes. Is there the potential to overstep our authority? Yes. But you don’t have to worry about us. We’ve got things under control.”
Let’s ignore for a second that all this is coming from the state that is so notoriously bad at upholding the Constitution that because of them, now every police officer in the country has to read people their rights. Let’s put on our imagination hats and just pretend like this wouldn’t be anything like giving a box of matches to a pyromaniac kid. *At least* Arizona has its show together, right?
Well…no. Governor Brewer believes that the man who is *supposed* to defend the law, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, is untrustworthy because he’s a Democrat who was elected when Napolitano was governor. Apparently, vowing a rigorous defense isn’t enough for her, so she basically fired an attorney that The People Themselves (in caps) elected and replaced him with private attorneys of her puppetmasters’ her own choosing.
Sooo…these are the messages that the leadership of Arizona has sent so far with this whole mess:
- Dear people of Arizona — you’re too stupid to choose someone to defend the laws of this state, so we went ahead, circumvented your wishes, and chose someone else
- Dear federal government — you suck at your job! And we’re not going to give you any tools to do your job right because we want the President to fail and besides, we believe in “small government.”
- Dear Founding Fathers — we know that you thought immigration should be left to the federal government in order to ensure that a state-by-state patchwork of laws didn’t pose a threat to the security of our whole country, but well…that’s stupid. And we know that you made it so that if we disagreed with what you wrote in the Constitution we could change it with a constitutional amendment that represented the will of the people, but well…that’s stupid, too.
- Dear President Obama — this is a gesture to say that we want comprehensive immigration reform. And when we say that, we really mean, “this is a way to rile people up against you, and we hope you fail your next election.”
- Dear Latinos — we say all this is only aimed at illegal immigrants, but really, we hate your culture and can’t stand the way you say “biolet” instead of “violet” and really, we just want you to go away
Also, Ms. Brewer, if I could make a suggestion? You should hire the same lawyer who wrote the law for you — Michael Hethmon from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (yes, the hate group). I don’t agree with his policies, but I think it would be fun to watch him get ripped apart by Eric Holder.
A Pound of Flesh? Help Yourself to 10
So I just finished a mutual yelling contest talking rationally to my mother about my financial aid award package from GW. It was hellacious. I’ve had a colonoscopy before, and I have to say that was more pleasant than this conversation, because at least I got drugs.
After about an hour of being told that no woman would ever want to marry me because I’m argumentative rationally discussing my loan options and not deviating off-topic even once except to tell my mother that I learned how to argue from the best growing up by watching her confront cashiers at Wendy’s for being “out to get her”, I identified four issue areas that caused us some problems.
Please note that I love my mother dearly. She has overcome incredible adversity. I owe my success in large part to her. I admire her strength, wisdom, and compassion, and I would not hesitate to die for her. But sometimes she DRIVES ME UP THE WALL WITH HER CRAZINESS. Anyways, here we go.
Issue #1: I am not a financial person and am thus stupid and untrustworthy, even when what I say is backed up by facts
It does not matter if I point out where we can find all this information on the Internet. We should talk to the financial aid lady before reading that. And we should not try to prepare for meeting her or go in with even a basic understanding of what all this means. She works at the university, so she obviously has our best interests at heart and wants us to pay as little as possible. Also, my understanding of all this is fundamentally flawed because even though I made it into a Top 20 law school, I apparently have the mental capacity of a five year old. *She* heard differently, and even when confronted with mounds of proof that she’s wrong, she wants to hear the financial counselor tell her she’s wrong. (Because she’s never wrong.)
Issue #2: The Internet, federal law, and the Dean of Financial Aid are wrong. I can get more money if I just ask politely.
I’m eligible for the maximum amount of Stafford subsidized loans available to me. (Woot). However, my mom does not wish to believe that this is *actually* the maximum amount of subsidized loans I can get, even though it’s set by the Feds, even though I read her an e-mail from the dean saying it’s the maximum amount, and even though *she* read the e-mail herself. She thinks that if we just talk to the financial counselor, she’ll give me more subsidized loans, probably in the same brown paper bags that alcoholics use to drink whiskey in public. She also thinks they’ll take pity on me even though most of my tuition is paid for and I get an apartment for free my first year. Yeah, I’m a real sob story. “We’ll get back to you…after we stop laughing at your stupid request.”
Issue #3: GW is peddling lies with its cost of living estimates
GW released the estimated cost of books, health insurance, etc. for the 2010-11 school year. My mom thinks that these numbers are propagandistic lies inaccurate, and that if we talk to the financial counselor, she’ll give us the *real* numbers, which I guess she thinks they keep locked away in the catacombs somewhere. The counselor will know exactly how much my books will cost next year, down to the penny, so we should wait until we talk to her. And she definitely won’t tell us the same thing we found on the web site.
Issue #4: I should take money I don’t need
Based on these cost-of-attendance numbers (which as mentioned before are lies), there’s about an extra $900 that I’m eligible for, but probably won’t need. My mom says take it for an emergency, and if I don’t need it, oh well. The only problem is that it starts accruing interest from the moment I get it. So let’s say I borrow $900. By the time I graduate, I owe the bank $1,096.37. And by the time I’m finished paying off my soul-crushing debt ten years after graduation, I will have paid $2,110.96 on that original $900. That I don’t need. Even in the event of an emergency.
Now I’m sure there are a lot of nice things you could buy with an extra $900 in DC. Museum tickets. Concealed weapons. Several kilos of cocaine. A congressman. But I’m a 1L. Unless I can bribe a prof with it, I have no use for that money. I’d rather take that $2,000 and put a down payment on a Camaro after I graduate rather than blow that $900 on something like an XBox. Although an XBox would be cool.
In closing, I have to say 1). I am glad that I mortgaged enough of my personal life in undergrad to get a decent scholarship; 2). you cannot count on having a “decent human being” as your loan officer; you must approach the situation with cold, dead shark eyes; 3). some people might call all these loans “being shylocked,” but seriously, Shylock from The Merchant of Venice, that guy was just trying to make a living, and Antonio was an asshole, whereas this whole student loan system is really just usury; 4). I hope to baby Jesus this degree pays off.
Uncharacteristic Depth
A shrink once told me that in a martial arts class he took, the sensei told his students that even if they mastered various fighting techniques, chances were that they would never actually use them in a streetfight. It wasn’t because these techniques weren’t effective. It’s because when a person believes himself to be in danger, he reverts immediately back to instinct. He might know intellectually how to kill a man in three moves, but if he feels truly threatened, he loses his wits and will always be compelled to throw ineffective punches in order to survive.
I’ve noticed this happen a lot in arguments. Fundamentally, although I hate conflict, I find myself drawn to it, and although for the most part I usually do my best to bite my lip and keep my head down in daily life, when it comes to some issues, I can’t help but gird my loins and prepare myself for spine-ripping, Mortal Kombat-style debate. I go into arguments fully expecting to fend off immaculately choreographed attacks from all sides. Yet within less than a minute I start feeling like the people I’m debating keep pushing the “A” button and throwing out wimpy punches that don’t even make sense in the context of the conflict.
It frustrates me that even when I’m not going all Kung-Fu Panda on people’s beliefs, the most innocent and innocuous approaches to issues cause even incredibly smart people to shut down and act like children. Because I’m usually a callous asshole rational, I never understood why people would fight irrationally. Now, I do.
A well-constructed argument often makes people afraid, because it undermines their belief about something. Even if that “something” is trivial, the argument is seen as an attempt to crack the foundation upon which they’ve built their selves and their entire lives. So they bunker down. Rational debate stops because they are afraid that if they open their beliefs up to criticism, they open the door to have their entire identities destroyed.
As some Joe Schmoe talking about a political issue, you’re not just talking to some “person.” You’re talking to a sum total of their identity, their experiences, their prejudices, their hopes, their dreams, their friends, their parents, everything that they see around them. And if that issue undermines some facet of their identity, your interlocutor will stop seriously engaging and start throwing girl-punches.
At the hazard of stating the obvious, political scientists and economists are full of shit. When you talk to someone about an issue that affects their lives, they will rarely be “rational actors.” As a Joe Schmoe, political debate is proving that you’re right to an irrational human being who thinks that what you’re saying is in an attack not only about what they believe, but who they are. And in a democracy, if you want change as a Joe Schmoe, you have to do that repeatedly, until you get enough votes.
But when you’re a lawyer, you only have to prove that you’re right to a reasonable, impartial human being a judge. I think that’s why law appeals to me. Plus, as an added advantage, in the real world, you never win a fight unless the other person concedes. In court, when the judge rules in favor of you, that’s binding and (to a certain extent) final. Effectively, a court order is the equivalent of a judge yelling out “FINISH HIM!” and “FATALITY!”
The moral of all this, I suppose, is that arguing lawyer-style with people who aren’t lawyers is a little like being the asshole that shows up to the paintball field with Kalashnikovs modified to shoot paintballs. People will never take you seriously. (Incidentally, I imagine this is why many attorneys are always unhappy.) Besides, life’s too short for this bullshit. If I want to school haters, I can save it for the judge and get paid for it.
Speaking of judges, anyone else think that Elena Kagan looks kind of like The Penguin?
Justice Kagan dissents!
Confessions of an Aztec Law Student 