Bluegrass in GCT

I know, I know. I still owe a final post on Brooklyn Law School, but I had to, again, briefly discuss something off topic.

This morning as I was ambling through the crowd departing from the Times Square/GCT Shuttle, I noticed something that I thought was funny. Many New Yorkers know of the MTA's Music Under New York program, which in effect, legitimizing the performers and musicians that earn part of their living (tin cup in hand) by playing for the hordes of commuters in the NYC Subway System. Well, today there was a Kentucky Bluegrass Band playing some fevered romp, more appropriately suited for Bourbon County that for Midtown East. What was funny is that I was watching well manicured business women, angry suits, and business-casually dressed New Yorkers sprinting to catch the TS bound shuttle seemingly in step with the bluegrass. Talk about a mixed metaphor. I wish I was a filmmaker, it would've been a priceless moment caught on celluloid.

I am compelled to temporarily move off topic for a moment because I've just read something that is incredibly fascinating. In today's N.Y. Times there is an article about the recently freed Japanese hostages from Iraq. Highlighting the idea that each person is not only part of the global community, but also is a part and product of their own culture (including biases, superstitions, and senses of morality and duty). Apparently, the 5 Japanese hostages, once freed by their captives, were not welcomed home with open arms by their fellow countrymen, but shunned and chastised. The Japanese Government has even gone so far as to charge the returning hostages the $6000 for the flight home. I was very concerned when these people were first taken captive and threatened with being burned alive. And I was elated when they were released. To my American mind, I figured they would be regaled as brave volunteers performing good work in a dangerous place. But such is not the case. As modern and sophisticated as the mainstream Japanese society is today, the ancient and perplexing (to a westerner) mores and customs still run deep in their cultural psyche. I have long been interested in Japanese history especially the modern era (Meiji Restoration 1850s/1860s) through WWII. What I find particularly intriguing is the blending of the ancient and the modern in Japanese society and in the quest for advancement how the old feudal ways often rear their head during that struggle.

Law School Rankings & Brooklyn Law School (Part II)

In today's Law.com about the U.S. News and World Report Law School Rankings Dean Joan Wexler is quoted discussing the veracity of the ranks. I do recall that last year when BLS was in the top 10 for 1 category (clinical programs) how that fact was trumpeted all around the BLS community. As per my previous post, the two problems that the Administration should focus on to improve the school is: (1) affiliation with a university; (2) student life. I'll discuss student life tomorrow.

1. Affiliation with a University. This is probably the hardest objective to accomplish, since it is like an M&A deal, and could likely cost millions of dollars. However, I believe it is the single most important factor that keeps BLS in the middle of the pack. BLS does not have a chapter of Order of the Coif, which is the National Honor Society for Law Students. If you read biographies of lawyers, judges, and politicians who were lawyers, those who went to well received law schools (and excelled academically) are usually members of this honor society. BLS doesn't have a chapter, because it wouldn't qualify for a chapter. According the institutional application to start a Coif chapter, among other criteria (which BLS already exceeds or complies with) the school should have a university affiliation. The application states:

University Affiliation. A law school should be a functioning part of a university. It is in a university setting that a law school is most likely to encourage scholarship in its students and faculty. If a law school if not a part of the university or is situated apart from its parent, it must make the arrangements necessary to bring to its students and faculty the advantages that would normally flow to it from being a part of a university. These advantages include library resources relating to other disciplines and the involvement of faculty from other disciplines in its teaching and scholarship.

Now, this is merely the belief of the folks at the Coif. However, I believe there is some merit to this. After all, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law which used to rank rather low is now ranked higher than BLS. I believe (no bias here, honest!) that BLS has superior faculty, more robust academic centers, more competitive student body, etc. But since Cardozo is part of Yeshiva University they have access to more resources and thus will be able to provide a richer learning environment for the law student. And yes, Cardozo has a chapter of Order of the Coif. My solution is to approach the New School University, which has both supurb undergraduate and graduate programs — and more importantly lacks a law school — about creating a merger. Usually, law schools are cash cows for Universities and I'm sure the Trustees at the New School University would be very interested in this. So that's my proposal to the BLS Trustees to improve BLS well into the next century. In my final post of this troika tomorrow, I'll discuss the near-term solution to lifting BLS from the rankings doldrums: student life.

Law School Rankings & Brooklyn Law School

U.S. News and World Report recently came out with their America's Best Graduate Schools 2005: Top Law Schools rank list. This annual rating of the nation's law schools is always controversial. I will not rehash the arguments on the pros and cons of the rankings. However, I have decided to comment about my alma mater Brooklyn Law School ("BLS"). For the 2004 rankings BLS is ranked number 67 in the "Top 100" List. I do not recall what number BLS was last year, but suffice it to say, it was in the neighborhood of the mid-fifties. Bottom line is the school slipped. There are a million reasons this might have happened. And while movement plus or minus a few places is not significant itself, large movement, to me, signifies a problem. Having gone to BLS not to long ago, I have some ideas and theories of how the school could fare better in the hyper- competitive market that is NYC Law Schools.

It is my understanding that the BLS Administration is attaching its hopes for improved rankings and dynamic student bodies to the construction of a new residence hall that could accommodate all students that need housing. You see, for years students had to by and large fend for themselves for housing in Brooklyn Heights since the few residence halls that BLS had could not accommodate all the students. I for one had to search high and low for affordable housing, commuting from my parents former house out in Long Island until I found my spacious studio in MetroTech.

Truth be told, the dormitory is not going to do it. While the academic program I received at BLS is competitive to Columbia or NYU (all of my professors were either Ivy League or top-20 law school educated or leaders in their field, sometimes both) there are two problems that the Administration need address: (1) affiliation with a university; (2) student life. I'll address each in turn in the next post.

K.I.A.

It breaks my heart each day that I read about our fallen troops in Iraq. I feel many of them are dying in the pursuit of a lie. Then there is the other side of me where I think that, though initially mistaken, we are there now and cannot abandon the task at hand. Too much is at stake in terms of our international credibility, the renewed war against al Queda (who have been seemingly streaming into Iraq), and the obligation to rebuild Iraq. My brother is in the Marine Corps awaiting deployment overseas. Each day that goes by without a detailed and sincere plan to deal with the occupation and effectively respond to the attacks, I fear for my brother and all our brave service people over there. When I think about the troops, like my brother, from what he tells me, many of them are a political and are just doing a job they love. They are bonded to each other and fight to protect their fellow troops, often in inspiring ways.

George Bush will likely have to send more troops over to Iraq, which I think will actually save more lives in the long run. In the meantime, my thoughts and prayers go out to all the families that have lost someone or who are worried about their loved ones overseas.

N.Y.C.'s Bravest

Note to TBP reader(s): It's been a few days since I have had a free (or a stolen) moment to post. I have also noticed that for the last several weeks, practically all of my posts have been foreign affairs/national security related. Those issues come easy to me since I have always been passionate about them. However, in keeping with the theme of this Blog, I will try to even out the posts and comment on local — N.Y.C. — issues.

This article in NY Newsday regarding Mayor Bloomberg's message to NYC Firemen to check their behavior, provoked several thoughts.

Recall the days, weeks, and months after the 9/11 attacks where the NYPD and the FDNY were heralded (rightly so) for their service, sacrifice, and heroic deeds. Interestingly, there were practically no (reported) incidents of outrageous behavior (by firemen) or over-zealous shootings (by policemen). In light of this, I seem to remember a controversy over allegedly looted Gap jeans found in a rubble-covered fire truck at the WTC site (for a contrary view see WTC Living History Project Group Response). But I digress.

In any case, Bloomberg's message strikes me as curious. My grandfather was a fireman (and actually a Fire Chief) in a suburban volunteer fire company during the late 1960s and early 1970s. I recall going with him to the fire house to look at and sit in the ladder and pumper trucks. For a little boy, this was the greatest thing in the world. I also recall going with both my grandfather and grandmother to the firemen's family pic-nic where many of the firemen would be getting soaked on the ample supply of beer there. True, us kids were getting sugar high for the gallons of soda we drank and piles of candy we consumed, but that is another story for another time. I have also had friends who were members of several fire departments or girlfriends who dated firemen. From what I observed and heard, these guys can drink. Now that's ok. They work real hard and put their necks on the line for us each day for no money (in the case of volunteers) or for (decent) blue-collar wages for the professionals. But, boy does the alcohol flow. In fact, I know of a fire department on Long Island where they have a bar and kegs on tap up on the second floor of the firehouse. For that matter, off-duty NYPD officers imbibe with the best of them too. Frankly, this is not really a big secret either. My guess is that, for at least the firemen, part of the allure of joining a fire company is the camaraderie and esprit de corps that comes with the boozing and carousing while off-duty. In many ways it is like a fraternity. And with any fraternity, there will be problems when personalities, competition, and liquor mix. So what's with the Mayor's statement? The FDNY aren't children! Do something about it Mr. Mayor. Perhaps the City or the Mayor's Office should consider studying the drinking issue in detail and figure out a meaningful approach to it (mandatory private counseling??). Then again, maybe firemen and policemen will have to tackle the issue themselves and embrace personal responsibility by remaining forever vigilant against the dangers of alcohol abuse.

A queen, some kings, and many pawns

There's a lot going on today, so just a few points.

A Queen: Condi Rice testifies before the 9/11 Commission. Let's see if any "new" non-politicised light is shed on the attack. I doubt it.

Some Kings: Home opener for the New York Yankees.

Many Pawns: It looks as if many of the troops in Iraq that were scheduled to rotate home will have to remain on station a bit longer.

It's the occupation, stupid!

A little more than a year ago, when Geo. W. Bush finally gave the order to begin the Neo-con's long awaited crusade, I felt a bit anxious at what this war would mean for the U.S. in the years to come. After all, the Babyboomer Neo-cons (most who had never served a day of their lives in uniform) were satisfying their current desires and ambitions, by borrowing blood and treasure from their succeeding generation — my generation. The mess that they have created and its long reaching effects will not have to be paid by them. Oh no, just like the tax cuts, the Medicare "reform" act, and social security neglect, the Neo-con's foreign policy aims will remain a debt for Generations X & Y (and beyond) to pay for. In my heart of hearts, I fervently believe that Bush, Cheney, Condi, Wolfie & Rummy thought the active combat would go better than expected and the Iraqi people, in their warm embrace, would welcome us with open arms, thus making the occupation a walk in the park. The conventional wisdom is that not only did they not have extensive plans for the post-war period in Iraq but what plans were made, the Administration didn't even heed them. Well, there were no WMDs, Saddam wound up in a spider-hole, and the Bush administration scrambled to create a connection between terrorism and Iraq. Then there was the announcement of the June 30th transfer of sovereignty; the escape clause that will (they believe) save Bush's re-election campaign. Yet with the weekly attacks in the "Sunni Triangle" and now a new front opening in Shi'ite dominated south and a mounting body count, I am convinced that this, Mr. Bush's war, will go down in American history as a second Vietnam. And many years from now, my grandchildren will ask me, what was it all for?

Well, well, well . . .

Condi Rice has been stressing as of late, to all who will listen, that the Administration was very concerned about global terrorism before 9/11. To paraphrase a line from William Shakespeare's Macbeth: "I think she doth protest too much". To wit this article from today's Washington Post regarding a policy address that Dr. Rice was to deliver coincidently on September 11, 2001. The speech, which was to be a major foreign policy unveiling, stressed the Bush Administration's real pet project — national missile defense. Iraq and Saddam's supposed WMD program fits nicely into this national security rubric, but there is very little room for terrorism. And that's the same position that the Administration took, as articulated in Dr. Rice's missive, according to the Post. So Dr. Rice, to quote Gaylord Focker (as played by Ben Stiller) in Meet the Parents: "Can you deal with that!?"