Thursday, October 6, 2011

Flushing the Current Bloated, Overpriced, Moronic Law School Model Down the Commode

Critiques of “Legal Education” From Practitioners and Scholars

On September 2, 2009, this piece - written by former litigator Dan Slater - appeared in the New York Times:

“The American Bar Association, which continues to approve law schools with impunity and with no end in sight, bears complicity in creating this mess. Yet a spokeswoman, citing antitrust concerns, says the A.B.A. takes no position on the optimal number of lawyers or law schools. So then how about the schools? Can they save future generations of students from themselves?

If it means shrinking classes, don’t count on it. Limiting education is un-American, not to mention anticapitalist, even if many law schools appear to profit from what may charitably be called an inefficient distribution of market information.”
[Emphasis mine]

Seeing that the ABA has no problem with overproducing JDs and attorneys, why not allow any college student to major in law, during undergrad? Also taking the likely public backlash against “limiting education” into account, this concept will actually allow more people to sit for the bar exam. The major losers would be the parasites at LSAC, the LSAT prep companies, and the law schools.

Check out this stinging indictment against “legal education” and “the law” - by Yale law professor Fred Rodell. The fact that it was published in 1939 further shows that this industry has been corrupt for generations. From page 87 of this document:

“Thus, law school courses, since they are cut out of the pseudo-science of Law, inevitably focus on generalities and abstractions rather than on the solution of specific problems. A student might even study a case in a dozen different courses – and thus learn all about The Law of the case – and still not have the slightest comprehension of, or insight into, the real down-to-earth factual difficulty or controversy that brought the case into court.” [Emphasis mine]

Push Down the Handle

My goal is modest. I seek to inform potential law students that American “legal education” is typically a terrible and foolish financial decision. Based on this law and economics paper, Vanderbilt University "law professor" Herwig Schlunk agrees with this assessment. In the end, we each want a chance at a decent life. If you incur too much NON-DISCHARGEABLE student loan debt, then later on you may be unable to afford a home, marriage or children. This will take away opportunities for happiness. For $ome rea$on, the law school industrial complex cockroaches do not mention these outcomes, in their glossy brochures, DVDs, and colorful web sites.

Despite complaints from academic Paul Campos that the scam-bloggers have posed no alternatives, several bloggers have proposed the following: (1) require law schools to submit their employment and starting salary figures to an outside, independent audit; (2) tie tuition increases to the rate of inflation; and (3) provide stiff penalties for non-compliance, including placing violators on probation or removing accreditation.

This was before everyone realized that the law school pigs would rather die of cholera than voluntarily comply with any of the above mild requests. The law school pigs see “transparency” in job placement and salary data as unreasonable. This helps explain why Law School Transparency has been an abject failure. You cannot politely ask Industry to change its ways, and expect results. Then again, if you asked law schools to prepare students to practice law, the bitches and hags would scream that this is not feasible. (Somehow, medical and dental schools are able to provide plenty of clinical training to their students. Many faculty members are practitioners on sadistically from their jobs.) The pigs would moan and wail that the schools would need to raise tuition even higher, in order to set up clinical programs. And we all how these pieces of trash are concerned with lowering the costs of “legal education,” right?!?!

In light of the above, we should first close down the law schools – every one of these dung pits. Turn them into pawn shops, petting zoos, boutiques/hair salons, night clubs, sports bars, parking garages, or public libraries. Secondly, make law an undergraduate program, where the last two years are devoted fully to an apprenticeship-type study underneath an experienced lawyer. No more Socratic Method nonsense defecated by FAILED LAWYERS masquerading as “law professors.” At the end of this testing period, all law students will have performed work on actual transactional cases, as well as litigation. They will have researched, drafted, and argued motions – on their own. Those deemed unqualified in these tasks will be unable to sit for a bar exam. The supervising attorney will provide valid reasons for, and sign his name to, his assessment. Lastly, upon successful completion of the degree and program, these students will then take the bar exam. Anyone who fails the test twice will not be eligible to sit for a third time.

Conclusion: In the last analysis, law school is a wildly overpriced, three year ticket to sit for the bar exam. There is no point in REQUIRING law students to spend seven years in “post-secondary education” - and accumulating mountains of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, in the process. Especially, when the job market is oversaturated. Furthermore, outsourcing of legal work, greater public access to statutes and case law, and advances in software has led consumers to scale back on their need to hire lawyers.

It is clear that bar prep courses do a MUCH better job of preparing graduates to pass the bar exam than the law schools could hope to accomplish. The latter cockroaches are too busy training students in “how to think like a lawyer.” So what the hell is the point of law school - other than to provide overpaid work to a bunch of failed lawyers?! Lastly, it is CLEAR that the law schools will continue to game the system and cook the books - in order to help their rankings. Allowing any accredited college or university to provide legal education will get rid of this incentive. Corporate firms can still be selective, by focusing their recruitment efforts on those attending Ivy League schools. At least, the students will no longer expect to take out $120K in additional student debt for the chance to work for a Biglaw firm. Hell, such a system might produce (slightly) ethical Biglaw attorneys.


  1. The schools keep saying they don't want to shut out students. They've been saying it for years now. What better way for them to prove that than to allow undergrads to walk away with a law degree. Great work using the pigs words against them. A lot of times the law schools act like they care about various minority groups having an opportunity to study law. Well what good is the study of law if it costs too much money and doesn't teach students how to be lawyers? Reading from casebooks does not make a person a competent lawyer. Practicing law does this. It's like anything else. You get good at something by doing it. Not reading about how other people have done it. Out of your ideas the one I liked best was turning old law school buildinggs into paw shops. Both are shady industries.

  2. Many distinguished lawyers in American jurisprudence never had formal legal schooling. They apprenticed and "read" for the bar. There's no reason for the current law school cartel to exist, other than the enrichment of those running it and their confederates.

    Last night I was at a function where I ran into an acquaintance whose son graduated LS over a year ago (from a notorious Massachusetts TTT that charges the same as Harvard). He's swimming in debt, can only find temp work, can't marry his longtime girlfriend - and her parents want her to lose him because he's no longer a "catch"!!! The kid's mother said, "the whole legal paradigm has changed." This is NOT someone who would normally use "paradigm" in conversation. So the word is getting out. keep it up, Nando!

  3. Without TTR, and all the other bloggers, the warning would not be out.

    You have done so much Nando, and, at the very least, lemmings will hopefully be on notice, and think long and hard about one of the biggest financial pitfalls there can be:

    Law School

  4. Well said, my friend. Law school is one of the most inefficient ways of preparing someone to become a lawyer. Law school is a throw back to some archaic manufacturing process with all the cost and little benefit. You pay 30K, 40K, 50K a year to go to a typical law school. The law school takes 10%-40% of the money and gives it back to the college.

    The law professors teach six hours a week, and get paid a six-figure salary. The rest of the time they spend writing articles and doing outside activities that have zero benefit to most law students. The material is the same old recycled stuff they have been teaching for decades. (It was amazing getting old class outlines, they covered almost verbatim what the professor was saying.)

    The professors are put on a pedestal and required to grade one exam a semester, which takes two months to get back. Then on top of it all, when you get out and start to practice you realize they have done virtually nothing to prepare you to do regular attorney things, like: file a divorce, prepare a bankruptcy, perform a real estate closing, create a trust, and so on.

    If anything, the cost of law school should have gone down with advancements in technology. For example, all the class could be put on the internet for a small amount of money and used over and over again. Instead, law schools have taken every opportunity to raise tuition. On top of that they ask for money donations after you graduate, which is downright insulting. Law school and the bar exam in its current form are a tremendous waste of time and money.

  5. Bust the law school trust.

  6. Why would these scammers ever comply with these suggestions? They have too much to lose in the form of profit$.

    These leeches have been living it up as the top 1% of income earners in this country, while the majority of their graduates end up in poverty.

    These pigs, who claim to be doing a public service by "educating" young folks, are doing anything but.

    It's time for them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Close down the schools, and....


  7. We get that the schools refused to report accurate stats. Is this a good enough reason to tear them down?

  8. @ 3:24,

    That, along with the fact that they do not even serve their intended purpose, which is to teach students how to be attorneys.

    I, as a practicing and licensed attorney, can completely attest to this fact.

    I learned how to be an attorney by practicing law for 1 year. Law school taught me abuncha useless, irrelevant crap for 3 years.

    The pigs feasted on my tuition money.

  9. atheist, is nando's dumb idea better than the current model?

  10. Congratulations on an excellent and important post, Nando! I have a long comment in reaction, so apologies and thanks to whoever reads it.

    The old apprenticeship model of legal education produced Abraham Lincoln, Clarence Darrow, and Justice Robert Jackson (chief prosecutor at Nuremberg). This suggests that the 19th and early 20th centuries may have a thing or two to teach us.

    Certainly, the apprenticeship model ought to be improved and updated for these more complex times. For instance, rather than having each student assigned to a single apprentice-master, I see legal education as being a structured series of externships and clinics, taught or supervised by successful local practitioners, to turn students into practice-ready lawyers upon bar passage.

    These externships and clinics should cover the gamut of circuit court gruntwork, and should also include grounding in trial and appellate work (perhaps under the aegis of the local prosecutor or public defender’s office). The apprenticeship program should be preceded by a bar-review type crash course to teach core doctrine fast.

    There are those who fret that this model would turn legal education into a trade school. I would respond: so what? Students have a right to expect that law school will give them, at minimum, the skills and knowledge to function as lawyers from the get-go, not just a credential and a head full of disconnected doctrinal mush.

    However, the apprenticeship model is flexible enough to incorporate worthwhile Ivory-towerish stuff, as prerequisites or elective coursework, such as classes in legal history, law and literature, or Greek philosophy. In fact, this would be easier to accomplish since law school would be thoroughly integrated into the University system, rather than walled off as a separate doctorate-granting school.

    The apprenticeship model would be far more cost-effective than the current caselaw/Socratic model because it would eliminate the need for a faculty full of tenured $160,000+/yr. law professors, $320,000+/yr. law school deans, and $50 million dollar law school buildings. Also, it would run for two years on top of traditional undergraduate study, not three. Thus, graduates who do not succeed in the practice of law, or who find something else that they would rather do, would not be debt slaves for the rest of their lives.

    One healthy byproduct of the apprenticeship model is that it would eliminate the humiliating and increasingly futile need for “networking,” since the apprenticeship model would put the student in contact with plenty of local lawyers who, in turn, would have the opportunity to observe and evaluate the student as potential associates or employees. Another healthy byproduct is that nonlegal employers would respect such an education, rather than scorn it, because it would represent a bundle of skills, rather than a bundle of elite expectations.


  11. On October 14, 2008 at 8:33 pm, TLS poster "CE2JD" posted the following comment:

    "I will consider arguments regarding particular law schools and why they should be added or taken off the list:

    -the top 50 schools in the USNWR rankings except: American and Wake Forest (I refuse to remove WF)
    -these other schools: Pitt, U. of Oregon, Hawaii, Florida, U. of New Mexico, Santa Clara, Case Western, Arizona State, Pepperdine, U. of Kentucky, U. of San Diego, U. of Kansas, UNLV, U. of Oklahoma, Rutgers (Camden), Northeastern, UConn, Penn State, Miami, U. of Houston, Cincinnati, and Nebraska

    My only methodology so far is that each state (that matters) should have at least one law school as long as all the law schools in the state aren't embarrassingly crappy.


    On September 3, 2009, UCLA “law professor” Stephen Bainbridge called for some law schools to be shut down.

    "The solution is obvious, although how we can find the ability and the will to do it is not. We have to reduce the number of law schools. Just like GM has to close plants because of over-capacity, we in the law have to close some of our "factories."

    (If I had my way, we'd start by killing off UC Irvine's new and utterly unnecessary law school.)

    I have no idea who would lead this charge or how they would accomplish it. No individual school would be willing to fall on its sword for the good of the whole. Nor is there any collective law czar with the power or will to do anything. Certainly, the American Bar Association isn't going to help, as Slater observes:

    The American Bar Association, which continues to approve law schools with impunity and with no end in sight, bears complicity in creating this mess. Yet a spokeswoman, citing antitrust concerns, says the A.B.A. takes no position on the optimal number of lawyers or law schools.

    I guess we'll have to trust the market. Once word filters out to pre-law students about the state of the job market, maybe they'll start looking elsewhere. If admission applicants drop enough, maybe some of the bottom tier of schools will have to close for lack of qualified applicants. (Or maybe they'll just admit unqualified applicants.)

    Don't get me wrong. Society still needs lawyers and we still need law schools. We just don't need as many as the American legal academy now produces. Until the problem is fixed, students - especially at the bottom tier schools - are going to struggle to find jobs. Worse yet, as they look for work, we might see an uptick in frivolous litigation."

  12. If you give away your asshole (by taking out Student Loans)

    Then, you will have no choice but to shit through your mouth (by networking.

  13. I don't think law schools should be shut down. However, I do think they should have their loan-backing revoked if they are proven entirely unnecessary for the production of new lawyers.

    Given that every single state is likely pumping an oversupply right now, I imagine this would close about 50 law schools instantly.

  14. the united states is a big stinky pile of moist black shitOctober 6, 2011 at 9:33 PM

    Fuck the law schools. Shutter these shitholes and make the fucking professors work in doc review basements making $12 an hour. If they complain beat 'em with fuckin' bamboo sticks. We can use the volumes of law books and law reviews to start camp fires. The whole country is a pile of shit but these law schools it to a whole nother level. Fuck ' the asshole.

  15. Have you done Roger Williams Law School in RI?

  16. I wish I had never gone to law school. Fuck these pigs.

  17. ^

    Wait till you practice for 5 - 10 years being daily disrespected by your clients who will be delivering their blows via complaints to your Bar. And I am not talking about shitlaw, I am practicing intellectual property and corporate law.

    This blog deals with filthy animals (I like pigs and do not want to insult them) entrenched in law skools. The real cream of the crop scumbags are in the Bar. They are actually trying to give a license to practice to everyone with a pulse and a driving license. Well, driving license is not a prerequisite.

    Fuck the filthy worms in the Bar. Fuck them in the ass hard until they bleed.

  18. This was part of my original draft of this entry, regarding the Idiotic Occupy Wall Street “Movement”:

    The Folly of Protesting

    Remember 1998-99, when 89 year old Doris “Granny D” Haddock walked 3,200 miles walk from California to Washington, DC – in order to gain attention for campaign finance reform? Sure, the watered-down McCain-Feingold bill eventually passed, in 2005. Of course, the Supremes – nine filthy pigs in black robes – followed long-standing tradition, in deciding that corporations can creatively use their campaign funds, under the pretense of “free speech.” Head to page 64 of this PDF, to see how the cockroaches phrased their decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

    “The judgment of the District Court is reversed with respect to the constitutionality of 2 U. S. C. §441b’s restrictions on corporate independent expenditures. The judgment is affirmed with respect to BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements.”

    In protest of the Vietnam War, Quaker Norman Morrison set himself on fire, below Robert McNamara’s Pentagon office, on November 2, 1965. He was 31 at the time of his death. By the way, the war ended on April 30, 1975, nine and a half years after Morrison’s self-immolation. Furthermore, Alice Herz set herself ablaze, on March 16, 1965, in protest of the idiotic conflict.

    In sum, these immolations CLEARLY did not end the conflict. The numerous “love-ins” and peaceful marches didn’t do a damn thing, either. The war when the North Vietnamese flushed the United States and its South Vietnamese satellite down the commode. Why spend more money and lives on a losing cause?

    Remember when millions of people around the world protested the imminent Iraq War, in February 2003? That worked out real well, didn’t it?!?!

    If setting yourself on fire does not grab the attention of the media, then how will “occupying” public squares change things?!?!

    Marching, carrying signs, talking about peace and love, and singing are for suckers. Keep in mind that an ill-natured cop may take the opportunity to mace you or hit you with a baton. Do you think – for a second – that such a “law enforcement official” will be held liable, if you break a rib – in this situation?!?!

  19. My girlfriend who's a lawyer wants me to eat her asshole. Don't get me wrong. Her pussy tastes great and even smells great. But I'm not sure I wanna stick my tongue in her ass. What should I do?

  20. Eat her pussy and then go fuck yourself

  21. ^^

    Why would not you have a threesome with your sister and your mom first and then drop your load on your father's forehead.

  22. Nando:

    "Marching, carrying signs, talking about peace and love, and singing are for suckers."

    So what exactly would you advocate, Nando? I want to help solve these issues. I deeply care about my country. Are you saying there is no hope? Are suggesting a violent revolution as an alternative solution?

    I think the "Occupy Wall St." movement is an effective way to voice some of the issues many on your blog have.

  23. 9:58 here. My girlfriend is cool. She shaves her pussy. Wouldn't that make a difference in why it smells great? One time I inhaled her vag when I was down there and it smelled so good I gizzed all over the back of her legs. I just don't know if her asshole will taste good or not. (she usually doesn't wear underwear). And I really like this chick.

  24. I forgot to mention. She insists of squatting over my face. C'mon. I might be okay with biting her ass cheeks or even sucking on them. But she wants to spread her cheeks and feelmy tongue in her asshole. WHat the heck am I supposed to do?

  25. Nando makes a good point about the Iraq War.

    I know it is an old joke, but it is true: There were no WMD's found in Iraq.

    Only a helluva lot of WD-40.

    And now, when children misbehave in Iraq, their parents threaten American "Freedom" as a form of punishment.

    Which scares the hell out of the kids.

  26. Why'd I ask you losers about this. Like any hot woman would ever ask you to eat out her lush ass. Fuck you all. I'm actually leaning towards eating my girl's asshole.

  27. ^

    Hey, since you are still hesitant and working on the question "to eat or not to eat", why would not you try to eat my Rottweiler's asshole first? She is a bitch thus your sexual orientation will not be compromised.

  28. I have a question which I hope someone here can answer:

    Why are there so many attorneys who are disrespectful to their staff?

    I'm not trying to be cute, nor start an argument here; I am looking for some insight in deciding if I should seriously consider looking at a new career path after working in legal support after being unfairly terminated from my recent position. I've work in this field for nearly 15 years and I have witnessed this field deteriorating rather rapidly, especially in the past seven years. Many of the attorneys I have recently worked with seriously lack communication skills and common courtesy. For example, when does suggesting using a different approach with clients is insubordination? I'm not sure if being rude and condescending is something which is taught in law school, but seriously folks, what gives? What can be gained by being rude to your own support staff, or thinking because you studied law for three years, that makes you some sort of a legal expert?

    Again I mean no disrespect with my question. I too am very concerned about the direction that this field is going in and especially the student loan debt problem. However I have noticed a very disturbing trend in this field that it’s perfectly acceptable in abusing staff and engaging in unfair employment practice, despite knowing such conduct may lead to legal action.

  29. @10:44:

    I think this is more of a problem with young lawyers. Law school teaches nothing of value about practicing law. It is just intellectual enough to give new law grads intellectual airs and a big ego. It is cutthroat competitive for not real reason. Most law students have no prior life experiences whatsoever. The high grades necessary for law school also attracts boffins who are good at studying but lack social skills or perspective.

    These become your young law associates.

    I think once people are out for a while, they revert back into normal people; but it takes a while for the damage of law school to wear off.

  30. @12:27 pm,

    Take a look at this article, from former independent congressional candidate John A. Murphy:


    The same people who preach the false gospel that “violence begets violence” tell us that the anti-Vietnam war protests of the 1960s and 1970s ended, or helped to end the war on the people of Southeast Asia. A simple trip into history reveals something quite a bit different. Four students were murdered in 1970 at Kent state University by the National Guard. After that incident the antiwar movement was gutted and slowed dramatically. In 1973 president Nixon ended the draft and with the same stroke of the pen ended what little remained of the antiwar movement but the war continued on for another two years. The Vietnam War came to an end because of superior violence used by the North Vietnamese regular Army against the United States Army. The United States was militarily defeated and that is why the Vietnam War ended.

    Martin Luther King was a wonderful man who did much to call the nation’s attention to the Jim Crow laws and to have them abolished. His nonviolent demonstrations however had nothing to do with the policy changes, the civil rights legislation, of the 1960s. Those changes came about due to the violence in the streets by young African-Americans primarily the Panthers in the North and the Deacons in the South. But there was no way that the United States Congress would deal with people like Stokely Carmichael or H Rap Brown so they canonized Dr. King has the champion of civil rights. Even his campus supporters, originally called the “Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee” knew that nonviolence would not achieve their ends so they changed their name to the “Student National Coordinating Committee”. Ralph Abernathy was sure to appear in Congress to take advantage of the most recent street violence. In that way, Martin Luther King can be said to have contributed to the civil rights legislation but certainly not his nonviolent demonstrations. [5]

    Similarly, in India, the nonviolent demonstrations of Gandhi came at the end of a 100 year period of violent revolution. Even while Gandhi himself was leading nonviolent demonstrations, other revolutionaries were destroying the infrastructure in India. Great Britain was burdened by the cost of two world wars and simply was no longer able to deal with the destruction caused by the violence of the revolutionaries. Just as the United States used Martin Luther King, so also did Great Britain make use of Gandhi. The British press turned Gandhi into a saint but nonviolent demonstrations only caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Hindus and Muslims since he was added to the committee which ultimately determined the nature of Indian independence."

    Non-violent protest does not accomplish much. Do you think slavery ended due to moral suasion?!?!'s_slave_rebellion

    When slaves started revolting, and abolitionists such as John Brown engaged in insurrection, this signaled the beginning of the end of that institution. The Civil War ended it, for good. (To be fair, life in the United States did not improve much for recently freed blacks. However, at least they were no longer considered chattel - or wore chains.)

    The point is that if people truly want significant change, then they need to be prepared and committed to actually FIGHTING for what they believe in. The state wants people to engage in non-violence. Signing petitions, writing letters to the editor, holding placards, chanting, and participating in non-violent protests does not accomplish much. In the end, it makes the protestors feel good; it does not produce substantial change.

  31. Those pussies committed to non-violence do not understand that sometimes the tormented MUST stand up to the abuser - WITH FORCE. For instance, I beat the living hell out of my grade school bully. (He never physically attacked me, but he and his friends would make fun of me. Plus, the kid was a head taller and much heavier than me.)

    After I punched him 8-9 times, and busted up his nose and mouth, he put his hands down and said "I quit." (I could have beat him down further, but I took pity on the child.) This larger kid never bothered me again. These non-violent protestors suffer from cognitive dissonance. Some of these fools distinguish between rape victims who stab their attacker, and the people versus the state. Apparently, in their mind, it is okay for the state to beat up the citizens - without fear of retribution.

    Could you imagine if Ho Chi Minh, Vladimir Lenin, Jose Marti, Bhagat Singh, Fidel Castro, George Washington, Simon Bolivar, Emiliano Zapata, et al. had applied for protest permits, i.e. government permission?!?! Real men act upon their convictions. Chumps hold signs, chant, and engage in non-violent protest.

    Commitment to non-violence has not precluded the cops from using these people as punching bags. How is that "non-violent" technique coming along?!?! In short, any ill-natured pigs know that they have nothing to fear. They can wail away on these hapless fools. (Do you think that any of these cops will be criminally charged, suspended or terminated from their jobs?! Their union reps, as well as internal affairs, the local DA and press, will successfully employ the "danger involving crowd control" argument.)

    Those who glorify non-violent protest are dead wrong. Simply put, it is generally not an effective strategy. (King benefited from the violent tactics and stormy rhetoric employed by the Black Panthers and other groups; the same goes for Gandhi, as the British would prefer to deal with him than with violent revolutionaries. Somehow, I doubt that either man would have admitted to this reality.) Some people who ignore historical fact nonetheless categorize themselves as historians.

    Everyone with an IQ above 70 knows that corporations OWN this country. What the hell is the point of marching against corporate greed?! We know that these pigs receive untold subsidies, tax holidays, rebates, favorable land deals, eliminate U.S. jobs, write legislation, buy politicians, etc. Do you think that the owners are going to cave in, because some people are protesting in the streets?!?!

    In the end, these non-violent protestors are foolish. They are ignorant of history. For some reason, they believe that they are going to change the situation with non-effective means.

    Guess what, non-violent pussies?!?! India benefited from the fact that England became preoccupied with Germany, in the 1930s. World War II also exhausted the British government's will. For some reason, Occupy Wall Street participants and "leaders" ascribe Indian independence PRIMARILY or solely to the force of Gandhi's moral argument. Get real, people.

    Regarding the United States, the civil rights movement received a HUGE boost from the Cold War. The U.S. realized that it could NOT lecture the USSR on human rights violations, when it was allowing southern states to spray black people with fire hydrants, beat protestors with police night sticks, and set police dogs loose on black children. The U.S. government made a PR move. Sure, it expended resources - and sent military troops to desegregate southern schools and universities - on this objective. Make no mistake: this was for public consumption, also.

    I will have some respect for these protestors when they gain an understanding of reality, history, and effective methods. If you truly want to change the situation, you need to be prepared to suffer some casualties. Refusing to fight shows an inherent weakness.

  32. What's thje message of occupy wall street? That corporations are greedy fuckheads? We already know that. Fuck these jokers.

  33. OWS is a dead end. It isn't the lack of violence that bothers me. Aside from the moral issue, a violent challenge would be like a mouse assaulting an rhino, and an invitation to repression.

    What bothers me is that OWS looks like a mishmash of ultra-politically correct sociology majors and body painting urban ravers. They have no demands beyond vague calls for revolution. That is supposed to be a strength? Well, it isn't.

    Want reform? Then set out clear, popular, achievable demands, educate the community, build alliances, and lay the groundwork for further progress.

    Want revolution or a new society? Then organize communes and kibbutzes, or pool your resources and start employee-owned, employee-run businesses.

    As for these OWSers, they will disperse when winter sets in, or when McDonalds restricts bathroom use to paying customers.

  34. peaceful protesting is for pathetic punk bitch pussies

  35. "[P]eaceful protesting is for pathetic punk bitch pussies."

    I certainly would not go that far. People can protest without breaking things, destroying property, and harming others to get their point across. The problem with OWS is that there is no unified message with the exception in going after millionaires.

    If these protesters would clarify their issues in addressing problems which affect the masses such as outsourcing, at will employment, and student loan debt, then perhaps these people would be taken more seriously. Just going down and sitting in a park with make-shift signs protesting just anything, will not drive their point home.

    These protesters also have to stop doing dumb things like dressing like zombies. How is anyone going to take you seriously if you look like you are trying out as an extra for Glee or for a Yeah Yeah Yeahs video? Also going after the "rich" is pointless. The rich is not the problem here--it's corporations and our own government which is the problem. And these protesters should not limit themselves in attacking the right; both the Democrats and Repubs need to be called out on over spending, passing bills which do not help, and pander to corporations.

    I've seen peaceful protests in which people are unified and have a clear POV succeed such as teachers' strikes and Tea Party demonstrations. It's been done before. The OWS protesters with their lack of unified voice are just opening themselves in being exploited by any movement which has an ulterior motive. Marching on the lawn of BoA excutives isn't going to drive the message home

  36. *************


    RED ALERT!!!


  37. Thank you for the link, 2:35 pm. You convinced me to highlight Aaron Nathaniel Taylor on this blog.

    @ October 7, 2011 12:46 PM,

    I profiled the fourth tier pile of waste known to the world as Roger Williams University Sewer of Law, on June 17, 2011. I also mentioned the Ralph R. Papitto fiasco.

    Inside Higher Ed reported that the toilet’s former chairman retired, after the following conduct:

    “Roger Williams University announced last week that its board chair of nearly 40 years, Ralph R. Papitto, a major donor for whom the law school is named, was retiring from the board. The press release praised Papitto's "visionary leadership" and said that he considered the diversification of the board as one of his greatest accomplishments.

    What the press release doesn't say is that the board today consists only of white men. Nor does it say that the board's two women and one other man were just ousted -- after the three demanded Papitto's resignation for using the slur "nigger" in a board meeting.”

    I hope that you enjoy the post.

  38. "I will have some respect for these protestors when they gain an understanding of reality, history, and effective methods. If you truly want to change the situation, you need to be prepared to suffer some casualties. Refusing to fight shows an inherent weakness."

    Easy there, my e-thug.

    And "non-violent pussies?" Huh?

    Everyone at OWS is a pussy? Really? Even the marines? Wow.

    That's some tough typing. Have you been there personally?

    I hear you about the law school problem, and many of your points relating to it.

    But by so blindly attacking every single protestor, and using such broad, ignorant generalizations, you lost me - probably a lot of your readers as well. And that's even if I concede your points about Gandhi and MLK.

    And by the way, real niggas don't talk shit.

  39. To the anonymous pussy who posted at 3:37,

    Keep your mouth shut then, bitch. Seriously, quit crying and sobbing - and be a man. You can buy into the myth of King and Gandhi if you want, dicknose. Some people cannot handle reality. You honestly believe that love and peace topple entrenched power structures?!?!

    By the way, that report of the Marines arriving to help the protestors turned out to be FALSE, moron.

    "As much as social media has proved itself as a revolutionary tool for political organization and messaging, sometimes it can also act as a Hall of Mirrors, as was the case over the week-end when a rumor started flying around online about the Marines getting involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

    In this case, what started as a muddled post by a friend of another friend’s post on Facebook ended up as a statement of fact in a major speech made by former White House green collar jobs czar Van Jones at the Take Back The American Dream Conference on Monday."

    Learn how to read, and stop believing everything you hear, pussy.


    "However, there have been pockets of resistance within SOME in the Occupy Wall Street movement against including Blacks and other minorities.

    Recently, a Clutch reader forwarded us a tidbit about the Occupy Philadelphia protests over the weekend. During the demonstrations, two Black women were called “niggers” and told to go back to Africa by two White Occupy Philadelphia protestors."

    The article continues:

    "Another blogger, of Bergin & Water, reports a similar incident involving Hispanic women at an Occupy event in Austin, Tx:

    A group of hispanic and white women (and two men) were there to speak on behalf of the Indigenous population in order to better include their communities in the OccupyAustin and OccupyWallStreet movement. However, the “protest leaders,” who are overwhelmingly white, didn’t want them to speak. At one point, the guy with the mic screamed at the women to “STOP TALKING!” like a fucking fascist. That’s when the majority of the crowd turned their backs to the platform, and I left shortly thereafter. While I still support the movement, I’m deeply disappointed in OccupyAustin. YOUR PRIVILEGE IS SHOWING."

    These idiots did not allow civil rights icon John Lewis to speak to them, because a mere 0.5 percent of the crowd prevented him from receiving a unanimous vote?! But they were nice enough to patronize him, by thanking him for coming to their stupid rally. This is collective mental illness in action. The chanting and "twinkling" are creepy. By the way, someone should have taken that microphone and beaten the bearded fool to a pulp with it, and then let Lewis - an obvious member of the power structure - speak for 2-3 minutes. Anyone notice that this Occupy Atlanta gathering appears to be 90%-95% white?!?! I have been to Atlanta before. My guess is that the area is about 60 percent non-white.

    "In the first few days of protest, I remember watching the live streaming video of Occupy Wall Street, zeroing in on anyone who looks like me and wondering why in a city, which is heavily populated by black, brown and various other ethnicities, were “we” largely absent from the protest? And then I began to think about the overall unspoken nuances over the term “occupy” on the same grounds, which was once Algonquin native land and, upon conquest, acted as a major trading post for black slaves."

    I can tell you that the local OWS has pretty much no minority involvement. I have talked to friend in other cities, who have told me that they have seen a similar lack of racial minorities in their Occupy groups.

    Again, 3:37 pm: keep your damn foolish mouth shut. Frankly, the racial insults could be the results of plants. However, after seeing the idiotic Atlanta crowd stifle John Lewis, there is something unsettling about this "movement."

  41. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


    To the piece of garbage from Ridgewood, NY who posted on October 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm and on October 13, 2011 3:30 pm,

    I notice that you only visit this site at the same time, pussy. Is that the one hour of internet time allotted to people residing in your halfway house, cockroach?!

    Time Visitor Session Referrer
    Oct 13 2011 3:28pm 2 actions 2m 3s
    Oct 13 2011 3:02pm 2 actions 25s
    Oct 12 2011 3:37pm 2 actions 11s
    Oct 12 2011 3:24pm 2 actions 10s

    By the way, who gives a damn if Cryn Johannsen is a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street, you wannabe thug?!?! She can support whatever cause she wants, you pile of waste. Or do believe that everyone should support this movement? For your information, Ignorant Pussy, Cryn and I completely disagree about this idiotic OWS bowel movement.

    Lastly, I talk the way I write, you pathetic ball-licker. If I met you in person, I would absolutely call you a pussy to your face. At that point, you could try something. Just don’t cry when you end up on the receiving end of a brutal beat-down.

    “We can meet at William and Fulton. It'll be fun.”

    I don’t want a blow job from you, bitch. But you can send your sister to that location, if you want. Is there where she normally services strangers and clients?!?

    In the last analysis, your fellatio skills are the only thing “hardcore” about you, pathetic weakling. You can continue to put Cryn on a pedestal. If you meet her, you can ask her why I simply do not support this meaningless feel-good gesture.

    Furthermore, I have been to the local OWS group, waterhead. I also have a full-time job with benefits, mental midget. Try to be productive, loser. I also have a mortgage, a wife, bills to pay, and other obligations. I don’t have time to set up a tent and sleep in the park – like a bum, i.e. you. That group is about 99 percent white. I don’t need these vaginas pretending to speak for me – or the remaining “99 percent.” Idiots such as you need others to speak for them. Have fun being one of the relative few token minorities in attendance at these stupid events. Get a job, Ass-Clown.

    Marching in the streets peacefully, chanting, carrying placards, and taking it up the ass is NOT going to change the corrupt and morally-bankrupt power structure, Stupid. Get that through your thick skull, retard!


Web Analytics