ginandtacos.com

(Newer readers may need to brush up on one of my favorite posts from back in the day, one that produced a wide range of responses)

Dear people between the ages of 20 and 40,

I hear things aren't going so well for you these days. The last time we talked – remember, when you asked if you could borrow $250 to get the alternator on your 1996 Nissan Pulsar fixed? – it was already clear that you are going through a rough patch. It looks like that "patch" might last for a long time, something like ten years. Five if we're lucky. Look, I know that some of this is our fault. Maybe a lot of it. That's why I gave you the $250 for your car, and why I keep offering to take you on vacation with me and Dad, and paid for you to get those two teeth fixed by Dr. Morimoto when you were in town over Christmas. I know it embarrasses you when I do things like that. Maybe "humiliates" is a better word. But here's the thing: we love you, and we know that you'd be financially independent now if the opportunities were available. They aren't, and it's sad to see. OK, maybe we have a little case of the guilts too.

All of that said, there are a few things we want to say. We're not trying to start a fight. Honest. Just hear your folks out for a minute or two.

Yes, we took advantage of a number of things that aren't available to you anymore. Strong economic growth. High wages. Taken-for-granted health benefits. Cheap higher education with cheap student loans (which in turn were almost wiped out by inflation over time). Pensions. Paid vacations. Cheap housing with subsidized mortgages. You get the point. We get the point too – we had it, you don't, and you're somewhat envious. That makes sense. Here's the thing, though: it wasn't all sunshine and roses. There were trade-offs.

Maybe it's something that happened in the schools or maybe it's TV or maybe it's my fault, but at some point your generation got the impression that work is supposed to be fun and rewarding. It isn't. It's just fucking work, if I may. You're jealous of the level of job security and benefits we had coming out of high school or college in the 60s, right? Your Uncle Joe retired at 60 with a nice pension. Do you know how he got it? He stood at a kick press for 8 hours per day, every day, for 40 years. Honey, if you had that job your head would explode from boredom and lack of stimulation in about a week. We'd never hear the end of how you feel unfulfilled and you'd probably quit to go "find yourself" or something before the pension vested.

Your Dad has one of those civil servant jobs that are disappearing these days. Twenty years at the Clerk's office and another 20 behind a desk at Streets and Sanitation. How long would you be happy if you switched places with him? My point, kids, is not that you're bad people or that you have no work ethic. My point is that we weren't just handed good money and a pension. In most cases we had to spend the great majority of our lives doing incredibly mundane, repetitive, mindless, soul-crushing crap to get it. We did it because that's where the money was. You know that silly show about the Office that you're always watching on Netflix? Picture yourself as Stanley or one of the old people who sells paper over the phone. Imagine yourself on a phone all day, every day asking people to buy paper. For years. Decades. Those jobs don't exist anymore. If they did, would you and your two Anthropology degrees do them?

Right now you'll say "Yes, I'd do any job" because you don't have one. That's understandable. I don't think you mean it, though. Maybe you should work on saying it until you believe it. I can imagine how annoying it is to be lectured on hard times by people who didn't have to live through a lot of them, at least in the economic sense. Think of it this way, though: we're right there with you for the most part. Yes, we're doing better now because we've been working for longer and we managed to get on the boat before it started sinking. But now? Now we spend most days trying not to get fired for being over 50, and most nights wondering how we're going to work until we're 70 or whenever the hell people are allowed to retire. You know those pension plans don't really guarantee anything, right? Ask my sister Nancy who worked for the airlines.

We know this is harder for you than for us – we're getting disillusioned and shafted at the tail end of our working lives while your working lives aren't even getting started. By the time the economy recovers in a decade or whatever you're going to be so old that…well, never mind. Let's not even talk about it.

Love,
The Boomers

Dear people between the ages of 25 and 40,

As we near retirement, Mom and I wanted to write you kids to share a few thoughts about the lives we've lived and the world we've left behind for you. We feel this is necessary because at first glance it might seem like we are a generation of narcissistic, spoiled assholes who freeloaded off of the magnificent world our parents built for us and then cashed out before handing it over to you. This is an unfair characterization. It disregards the fact that we earned the right to do those things. We earned them by being awesome. Haven't you seen the films of us marching around protesting The Man in the sixties? Or the Woodstock footage that documents the way we changed the world with drugs, bad music, and indiscriminate fucking? We didn't cash out. We merely took what was due.

We grew up in a much different world (hence our endless lectures about the way things were in the fifties and sixties) that you kids wouldn't recognize. Ridiculously cheap energy – at least until 1973 – and the fact that WWII left the rest of the industrialized world in ruins allowed us to grow up with unprecedented prosperity. Even though our parents were minimally educated, blue collar work still paid back then. Of course, none of this is anything that we did. Our parents fought the war and did the hard work. But it sure did give us one hell of a sense of entitlement!

By the time we got to college we were convinced that the world revolved around us – and we were right! This was back when education was still affordable and the degrees actually made it more likely that one would find a job. The costs didn't matter much, though, since Mom and Dad footed the bill thanks to that nice, stable employment they enjoyed. When we graduated and started to overtake the rest of the workforce with our sheer numbers we were shocked to learn how many opportunities to enrich themselves our parents' generation was leaving on the table. Let me tell you, we weren't about to make that same mistake!

We really appreciated the blue collar work that made our lives possible, but how could we ignore how inefficient it is to pay Americans to do work that can be done in Indonesia? The genius of outsourcing was self-evident. Still is. Brilliant, isn't it? We've been at it for decades and I still can't see the downside. Some people complained, but the important thing is that WE got our bonuses and our stock prices went up. Our stock and other investments are really superfluous, though, since we're all going to retire on lavish pension plans, not to mention Social Security. More on those in a minute, son.

The structural changes we made to the economy, changes that were solely to our benefit and essentially told future generations to eat a dick, are nothing compared to the political changes we've made. This is the generation that gave American Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, and Newt Gingrich. Two words: you're welcome.

We realized like no other generation that the purpose of politics is to line our own pockets. Yes, most of that has been at your expense, kids. Sorry about that. Here's some token financial assistance with your college education. That should set things right.

Inflation may have made our mortgages incredibly cheap and essentially wiped out whatever student loans we had, but once we took over the political process you'd better believe we pursued the hell out of anti-inflationary monetary policies. Sorry about that! We needed the low interest rates for our vacation home mortgages and our 17 credit cards. We have taken advantage of dozens of New Deal era social programs, but boy are they pricey! So we did the logical thing and kept the benefits for ourselves and piled the costs onto you. Then we voted for people who would ensure that your generation would never enjoy the same horrible, inefficient Big Government. Sure, we waited until we got to the top of the income pyramid before demanding round after round of tax cuts with fanatical zeal. But I don't see how that makes us bad people. You enjoy low taxes too on whatever it is you earn when you're working.

Are you ready for the best part? We're all retiring on those fat-ass pensions I mentioned a few moments ago – and now we're dismantling pension plans too. Not for us, of course. For you. Here's how it works. We retire with full salary and zero uncertainty; then we lecture you about how expensive and inefficient pensions are compared to "building your own retirement" in the stock market. Hell, we even tried to replace Social Security with the Nasdaq Roulette wheel. No, WE would still have Social Security. You, not so much. Think of it like the way we enjoyed cradle-to-grave employer provided health coverage and then nearly died shitting ourselves opposing health care reform. Doesn't your boss give you insurance? Oh, come on. They must. You are probably reading the forms wrong. Let me take a look at them next time you visit.

In closing, kids, our entire adult lives have been guided by a simple philosophy: we got ours, so fuck you. It's hard to watch you struggle while we live off of all of the things we took away from you in the name of "fiscal responsibility." Some people might call that greed, but we are the greatest, most special generation of people who ever lived. I think we earned it. Maybe rather that whining and blogging and drinking Pabst you should earn some of these things too. I mean, you have a Master's Degree and you're working as a temp! With that kind of lack of ambition, how do you expect to accomplish as much as we have?

Love,
Everyone born between 1945 and 1960

PS: Sorry about those budget deficits. We don't really have much to say in defense of those except that Communism was really, really scary, especially in the 1980s when the USSR was on its last legs. How were we supposed to pay for all that stuff the country needed? Taxes? Come on. That sounds like something our parents would have said, what with their lack of vision and foresight.

Dear Governor – and future President! – Pawlenty,

Your Monday op-ed on Politico.com ("Ponzi Scheme on the Potomac") was an intellectual, political, and personal revelation for me. I am a changed man. You offer a rare combination of political acumen, wordsmithery, and an almost preternatural understanding of economics. Washington needs you. We need you. More importantly, we need the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) you've proposed here. Most Republicans harp on "cutting spending" without offering specific proposals for doing so. But you have a very specific proposal – pass a balanced budget amendment. Visionary!

I have just a few questions. Forgive me the pedantic exercise of numbering them.

1. Have you ever looked at the process of proposing, passing, and ratifying an Amendment? After getting a two-thirds vote in both Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ houses of Congress – and what could be hard about getting 67 Senators to agree to give up the right to fund pet projects in their states? – it must then be ratified by 38 state legislatures. We can assume they will be only too happy to give up the billions in grants they receive from Congress annually.

2. The GOP, home of Tim Pawlenty and fiscal conservatism, resoundingly rejected "PAYGO" (Balanced Budget Act of 1997) in 2002 when they controlled Congress. It got in the way of the Medicare expansion they were using to buy elderly votes. Maybe the problem is that it wasn't appealing as mere legislation. It will be much more popular as an amendment, right?

3. The only way (more on that in a second) to balance the budget under the current circumstances will be a series of draconian tax increases. Yet your proposal clearly states "the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent and tax burdens on individuals and businesses should be further reduced." Please explain this potential discrepancy. More accurately, please clarify what I am no doubt inaccurately perceiving as a discrepancy.

4. Under a BBA, the elimination of all discretionary and military spending from the current budget would leave us $300 billion in the hole. From where would you cut this additional $300 billion – after having eliminated all discretionary spending and the entire military budget - Social Security or Medicare? Alternatively we could save a quarter-trillion by defaulting on our debt, but that would still leave us a little short. And when "the tax burdens on individuals and businesses (are) further reduced", from where will these additional billions be cut?

4a. Which will be easiest to cut: Social Security, Medicare, or the entire fucking military budget? I can't see any problems, but a liberal naysayer might try to slow the process down.

5. When the BBA is passed with stadium-sized loopholes for "wars, natural disasters, and other emergencies":

a. Will the terribly well-defined War on Terror, the end of which is in clear sight, be sufficient to justify exceptions?

b. Are we to assume that "emergencies" refers to the well-defined, commonly accepted definition of emergencies?

6. Like all intelligent people, you and I realize that when spending increases and deficits grow, the only way to trim the deficit is to reduce spending. I recently doubled my calorie intake and gained a lot of weight. Should I assume that cutting my calorie intake is the only way I can lose weight?

Any guidance you can offer – aside, of course, from the Jedi-like guidance you have already provided – will be greatly appreciated. Please help me help you to help me further.

With kind regards,
Ed

Sen. Coburn,

We non-Senators can only imagine what it is like to live in the shadow of the senior Senator from your state, Jim Inhofe, given that he is widely recognized as the biggest idiot in the Senate. Surely your mind works overtime concocting ways to steal some attention from that intellectual black hole clad in a cheap suit, and thus I am not surprised that you thought it would be a good idea to be "that guy" – the guy who tries to curry favor with rubes who wallow in their own stupidity by taking a political whack at National Science Foundation funding every couple of years. "Haw haw!", they will exclaim as they slap their obese, diabetic hands together with enough force to dislodge a few pieces of Cheeto from the sticky morass surrounding their gaping maws, "You tell 'um, Tommy!"

Obviously I have a direct interest in your Senate amendment cutting political science funding from the NSF (or as you cheekily call it, political "science" – were you up all night thinking of that one or did you get to bed around 4, 4:30?) but were I not your reasoning would still be alarming in its creativity. Please note that none of the usual positive connotations of "creativity" apply here. Your logic is creative in the same sense as the Oklahoma City courthouse bombing.

Let me draw your attention – which I'm sure has wandered in the preceding 45 seconds, waylaid by polysyllabic words – to a specific component of your "argument" before I attempt a retort:

The largest award over the last 10 years under the political science program has been $5.4 million for the University of Michigan for the “American National Election Studies” grant. The grant is to “inform explanations of election outcomes.” The University of Michigan may have some interesting theories about recent elections, but Americans who have an interest in electoral politics can turn to CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the internet who pour over this data and provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions.

Senator, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of political science. But the category of "things Tom Coburn fundamentally misunderstands" is about as exclusive as the admissions criteria to Oklahoma State. The idea that we and the talking heads on television are interchangeable or do the same thing speaks not to the uselessness of political science but to your lack of intellectual curiosity and willingness to accept the vein-bulging ranting of Glenn Beck as explanatory of political phenomena. Finding answers means finding evidence, not shouting a handful of competing "theories" into a camera and letting Americans pick the one they think sounds best.

I have no interest in trying to explain to you what political scientists do and why it is valuable other than to summarize it with a single, brief example. What we do, Senator, is try to provide answers supported by empirical evidence – re-read those last two words, because they are the important part – for the millions of your fellow citizens who look at you and wonder, "How in the hell does a dipshit like this get elected to the Senate?" And the kind of taxpaying citizens who want an answer to that question are the same ones who aren't willing to accept the illiterate rantings of talk radio hosts as an explanation. They want an answer based on research, data, and tests of falsifiable hypotheses. That's where we come in. That's why we use the staggering sum of $91 million over ten years (That must be, what, half the Federal budget? Three-quarters?) to do work you are not only unwilling but, let's be frank, unable to understand.

I applaud your courage, as it is not easy to be William Jennings Bryan in a modern Scopes Trial. It takes real courage to expose yourself to this level of humiliation in furtherance of your heartfelt commitment to fiscal prudence. Most of all, it takes wisdom; wisdom to listen to the suggestion of whichever 23 year-old staffer, still smarting over the F he received on his Legislative Politics research paper for writing a half-assed pastiche of opinion and sub-Hannity rhetoric, proposed this gambit. Recognizing genius is a form of genius itself, Senator.

Regards,
Ed __________
Department of Political Science
University of (far better than any school in Oklahoma)

August 17, 2009

Kenneth Davis, J.D.
Dean, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Law
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706

Dean Davis,

As an academic with a rather active and classroom-inappropriate website, I want to preface my remarks by stating emphatically that I support the right of faculty to express themselves outside of the confines of their professional lives. The UW-Madison Law School should be commended for its willingness to support Bascom Professor of Law Ann Althouse as she maintains an active presence on the internet as a political commentator. From the tone of this introductory statement you are no doubt expecting that this is where one would begin the complaint; on this count I will be utterly predictable.

Prof. Althouse's ideology and opinions are not the subject of my complaint as the University and the School are no doubt comfortable with her right to say what she pleases, although the costs to the Law School's professional reputation when she makes statements such as "but I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion that, coming from Bill Clinton, the "O" of an onion ring is a vagina symbol. Hillary says no to that, driving the symbolism home" (6/19/07) as the ex-President attempts to eat an appetizer cannot be measured. I must wonder, however, what effect Prof. Althouse's disregard for or ignorance of the basics of formal logic and argumentation have on her ability to effectively teach attorneys-in-training.

In her promotion of the broadly discredited conspiracy theory that President Obama was born in a foreign country, Prof. Althouse recently said the following: "If Obama can't convincingly prove he's not a Muslim/not born in Kenya, it only means the rumors might be true." (8/14/09) I urge you to overlook the politically controversial and factually dubious basis of her statement and consider the fact that this is an exceptionally basic logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance. The individuals who teach formal logic classes to freshmen on your campus – and I was one of them a decade ago – cover such elementary forms of illogic in the first few weeks of class. I am not unused to encountering fallacious arguments from students, media commentators, political figures, and strangers. Seeing a professor at a highly-ranked law school routinely embarrass herself with her inability to construct arguments that are logically consistent is less common.

Academics-turned-bloggers (or in my case, vice-versa) must live with the effects of their private lives on the perceptions of their colleagues and students. I regularly risk students concluding, "My professor is an offensive asshole, and he swears too much." What I do not risk, but Prof. Althouse does, is having students conclude, "My professor is an intellectual lightweight who couldn't pass a freshman logic course and can't construct a basic argument." I won't suggest that my bewilderment at her poor rhetorical skills means that she cannot teach well (i.e., argument from incredulity) but her consistent inability to adhere to the basic rules of logical argument of which I have cited but one recent example raises the question.

Whether the issue is Prof. Althouse's promotion of far-right conspiracy theories or Kevin Barrett's public involvement in the 9/11 "Truth Movement," UW-Madison has proven that it can provide an outstanding education despite the unconventional personal beliefs of its faculty members. I question whether the same can be said of daily public displays by a faculty member of a very basic inability to perform the most fundamental intellectual task of an academic.

Regards,

(name and affiliation redacted, but included in the hard copy I sent)

PS: Note in advance the inadequacy of Prof. Althouse's predictable and clever (in her opinion) response that she merely said the theories "might be" true, which represents a legalistic attempt to cover her backside but is every bit the logical fallacy that a solid assertion would be.

My fellow Americans,

Now that I'm making up a little ground in the polls I think we should talk about what I am doing. Frankly you all are starting to worry me a bit. Some of you are seriously considering voting for me. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

Listen. This entire campaign is just an elaborate piece of performance art. An experiment, if you will. We are seriously just fucking around with you – seeing how blatantly we can give you the finger without losing your support. I had Phil Gramm (remember when he ran for President and finished behind Lamar Alexander?!?!) go on TV and call you a bunch of whiners for complaining about the economy. Read that again – my multimillionaire surrogate mocked your economic difficulties! I also promised to stay in Iraq (you know, that war you fucking hate!) for 100 years while all but guaranteeing a new war in Iran. It's like Marcel Duchamp crawled from the grave and ran for President.

I'm publicly dropping hints that Mitt Romney will be my running mate. Mitt Fucking Romney!!! I mean, come on. I can barely even talk about it with a straight face, and you retards just keep applauding! Next I'll roast a live panda over a bonfire while my campaign staff steal medicine from pediatric cancer patients. And my supporters will send more checks! Ha ha!

Even when I act senile – trying to provoke a reaction like "Oh my God, this demented fossil can't possibly have his finger on the button" – you're unfazed! I just gave a goddamn speech about Czechoslovakia (and did it again after I got called on it!) That hasn't been a country for, what, 20 years? Your response: crown me a foreign policy "expert!" You gotta be shitting me.

It's no secret that my party has been trying to tank this one from the outset. We all know what's coming, and we're perfectly happy to blame Great Depression II on the liberals. No fracking way do I want to be the older, dumber Herbert Hoover for a new century. But at some point I started having fun with this, seeing how far I can go. I am standing before the camera with both middle fingers shoved in your face screaming "Hey! Suck my dick, losers! Sometimes I buy gas just to set it on fire!" And then you promise to vote for me. I give up. So here's my platform for the rest of the race:

1. I'm sending Former Majority Whip Dick Armey to your mother's house to bone her in the ass. Not metaphorically. With his wang.

2. I'm going to start referring to Asia as "the Orient" and southeast Asia in particular as "Indo-China." Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda will be "Tojo."

3. New tax breaks for single people who drive SUVs.

4. Unrestricted immigration for gay Mexican welfare recipients.

You people are amazing. Remember when the Supersonics played nothing but scrubs for a couple of months in 2006, hoping that they would lose enough games to draft Greg Oden? The damn scrubs tried too hard, won too many games, and the plan failed. That's what you're doing right now. Come on! I'm not trying to win; the point is to let my team reap the benefits of losing.

Bite my ass,

John McCain

Dear Undergraduate Considering Law School,

You have already read innumerable things about law school – from U.S. News and World Report's rankings of the top law schools to Kaplan LSAT prep books to mind-numbing tracts on how to write that Perfect Cover Letter – and you don't need one more thing to read. But think of it this way: before you spend three years and $100,000+ on the ol' JD, you can spare five additional minutes to read this.

I am not an "expert" on law school. What I have is personal experience and ongoing experience teaching and advising droves of undergraduates who march toward it (and through my classes) each semester. My intent is not to dissuade you, but merely to be honest with you (and get you to be honest with yourself) because I have found the overwhelming majority of undergrads to look at law school with expectations that range from Delusional to merely Unrealistic, Confused to merely Ambivalent.

Why do you want to go to law school? Your answer to this question falls into three general categories:

1. You have a deep and substantive interest in the law; being a lawyer is your dream career. You picture yourself in a courtroom, defending the downtrodden. You see yourself getting a nice, "ethical" job (helping people and whatnot), disregarding the fact that such jobs are about 0.01% of the profession and you will most likely end up doing bankruptcies or criminal defense of defendants who, unlike those in the movies, are guilty as fuck.

2. You want to make a metric crapload of money, and being a lawyer seems like the easiest way to do it without having to use math. Many people (parents and older relatives in particular) have told you repeatedly that you'd "be good at it." Since lawyering kinda sorta doesn't seem too bad, you figure "What the hell. Why not."

3. You have a useless BA (political science, history, etc) and, as you look beyond graduation to the vast, uncertain future offered by a post-industrial economy, you can't think of anything else to do. Your options are to go to law school, do Americorps for $5,000 per year, or return to Seymour, Indiana and work in the H.R. department at the screen door factory.

All three of these are valid reasons for going to law school. Unfortunately, that does not mean they are all good. First, we need to critically evaluate the myth that law school is a great way to ensure a high-paying career for life (i.e., #2). Let's look at what it will cost you and what you'll get back from it.

1. Law school is expensive. If you go to a "top tier" school you can count on borrowing a cool $125,000 to pay for it. Lower-tier (and often public) schools may run you a more pedestrian $60,000+ over a three-year period. At the current Federal Student Loan interest rate (6.62%) borrowing $125,000 would leave you with a $1,427 monthly payment. For ten years. Going for the cheapie school ($60,000) would put you on the hook for a mere $685 per month. For ten years. So making a big salary isn't just desirable; you're going to be pretty fucked if you don't.

2. About one in ten law school graduates (that's actual graduates, not applicants or enrollees) will make a starting salary in six figures. In 2006, for example, the ABA reported that 42,676 law degrees were awarded. Do you think that there are 43,000 plum job openings every year, waiting to absorb another throng of 26 year-olds who are balls deep in debt? Only about 4,800 of those new JDs made over $125,000. The people who make that much go to the Top 15 schools – Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc – and finish in the top of their classes. So on the one hand, this can be encouraging. Nearly 5,000 law school grads each year can end up in high-paying jobs. Can you realistically expect to be one of those 5,000? Are you going to go to a top program and/or finish at the top of your class?

Another portion of the 43,000 grads got decent-paying jobs ($50-75,000) at small or medium firms or working for the government. That's not bad, although the loan payments will be crippling on a $50k salary (and many public defenders / prosecutors can start as low as $30,000). But here's the important part: nearly half of the 43,000 JDs reported in 2006 found no work in the legal profession at all. Only about 22,000 of the degrees had reported starting salaries. As for the remaining 20,000?

Given the bias in the way these statistics are accumulated (schools try very hard to account for every graduate with a high paying job in order to brag about their placement records), I suspect that close to 0 out of the missing 19,989 law school graduates had high salaried legal jobs, and the majority of them have no legal employment at all.

As many as half of the new JDs in 2006 were unable to find work in the legal profession at any price. They are on the job market, overqualified for wherever they end up.

I have personally known dozens of people who have entered law school. Most quit. Some finished. Exactly none of them – bright, dedicated people one and all – are making huge money or working for big firms. Should my anecdotal evidence be given much weight? No, but it explains my motivations. I'm trying to get you to confront the disconnect between what you think is going to happen when you go to law school (starting in a big firm at $150,000) and what is likely to happen. Sure, you could land a plum job. But that is the exception, not the rule.

The the legal field is like the rest of our economy: the top five percent are doing exponentially better every year. Salaries at "the top" are skyrocketing. The most common reaction to this fact is "Wow, I'm gonna get in on that!" Statistically, no. No you won't. The top students at the top schools will, and the rest of your cohort will get the scraps.

And the punchline: if you do defy the odds and get one of the rare $125,000+ starting gigs, you'll be working 80 (billable) hours per week for the next ten or fifteen years. Fun? Fun!

So that's it. If you are going to law school because you want to help innocent people, make a ton of cash, or because you can't think of anything better to do, I sincerely hope you will pause and put more thought into your motives and expectations before you start incurring mountains of debt. My intent here is not to insult, discourage, or deter you. I have simply heard too many undergraduates speak of law school as a combination Lost City of Gold, career utopia, and get-rich-quick scheme. It is not. It's difficult, expensive, and with the exception of the elite, not as rewarding as you think.

Regards,
Ed

(PS: h/t Mike, who also helpfully recommends this graph of the gloriously bimodal distribution in starting salaries)

This is going to be a bit odd, but I want to walk the reader through a recent CNN story, sharing my reactions along the way. The "news" item in question: "Homeowner offers house and her 'love' for sale." It deals with this craigslist ad. By the end of this post, we will have learned some important lessons, such as that there are much less dignified alternatives to eHarmony or staying home and masturbating to Adrien Brody movies.

She's tried nightclubs and online dating sites, but now a 42-year-old single mother is looking for love where everyone else's heart is breaking: the real estate market. After a year of trying to sell her four-bedroom home and eight years of singledom, Deven Trabosh is offering her South Florida home and a shot at marrying her on the Internet.

I don't see what could go wrong with this premise.

"I figured, let's combine the ad, because I'm looking for love and I'm looking to sell the house," said Trabosh, a Barbie-esque blonde who teeters around the nearly 2,000-square-foot house in patent leather heels.

"Barbie-esque blonde who teeters around the house in patent leather heels." Mister, you just made a sale. Where do I sign?

"Marry a Princess Lost in America," Trabosh wrote in the ads she posted on eBay and Craigslist last week.

Interested in learning more about her noble birth, I did some research and found out that she is the eldest daughter of King Leathery II of the Land of Sadness. She is indeed next in line for the throne and therefore not misrepresenting herself as a Princess. Carry on.

Trabosh, a licensed real estate agent who hasn't practiced in years, knew that she would struggle to sell the home in the troubled real estate market but insists that her fairy-tale ad isn't just a sales gimmick.

Hmm, she hasn't worked in years. So this is apparently a very straightforward and ancient transaction: a financial Knight in Shining Armor agrees to rescue her in exchange for 6-8 years of dry, unenthusiastic fellatio. But hey, if you're a millionaire with a lifelong dream of fucking a woman who looks like a catcher's mitt, this is your chance!

"I'm struggling. … I don't want to lose my house, and I want to find somebody,"…"So I came up with this dream plan, because I've always dreamed about being a fairy-tale princess."

"Did I mention yet that my home is going to be foreclosed? Yeah, that's kinda relevant I guess. I also have a stunningly misguided conception of what being a Fairy Tale Princess entails. The only Fairy Tales my parents read to me were the screenplays to Pretty Woman and Hard Anal Sluts #19: There Will Be Sluts."

She listed the home for $340,000 on a sell-it-yourself Web site but upped the price, adding a $500,000 shipping fee to include her companionship on eBay.

I missed the part where this is not straightforward prostitution.

Trabosh says eBay removed her ad, though she planned to change the wording and repost it.

I wonder why eBay doesn't want to go down the path of allowing people to sell "companionship." I'm pretty sure it is because the prohibition against prostitution is the last remaining difference between eBay and the darkened alley behind a Laotian pai gow parlor at 3:30 AM on Saturday morning.

Trabosh hasn't received any serious offers but says she's had nearly 500 responses, mostly positive, including one from Ottie of Surrey, England, who e-mailed to say, "You are offering the perfect life with the perfect American princess."

"I can tell from your 100-word Craigslist ad. Also, I've never spoken to a woman without having to give my credit card number first."

She whips out her laptop to show off a picture of Claudio, a handsome Italian wine and cheese taster who she's been corresponding with since he responded to the ad. Seated on a white leather love seat in her living room, she giggles almost girlishly about him. They're hoping to meet in Miami in a few weeks.

Who wants to bet that "Claudio" is a 47 year-old laid-off welder who panhandles in Rome for hair gel money? I find it hard to believe that an attractive "Italian wine- and cheese-taster" is not hip-deep in pussy, and even harder to believe that he would need to troll Craigslist for pathetic Americans. If he wanted to nail vacuous blond Americans he would hang out at tourist sites in Rome and look for Lonely Planet books and Rutgers t-shirts.

"I'm not selling myself. I'm selling love … to meet that true love,"

I am going to call up a professor I know. She is the tenured chair of the Department of Love at Romance University. She will tell me if it is possible to sell love.

(phone rings)

(indistinct conversation)

No, she says it isn't.

"Of course, it's gonna take more chemistry and connection. It's not going to be instantaneous that I'm just going to be automatically for sale. … It's a package deal for true love."

(hits speed re-dial)

"Hi. Can 'true love' ever be a part of something described as a 'package deal'?"

(hangs up)

No. No, it can't.

"There is a plethora of quirky ads on craigslist that pop up on craigslist every day, and this appears to be one of them," spokeswoman Susan MacTavish Best said in an e-mail.

This is what separates craigslist from eBay. Their "quirky" is our "appalling."

Ideally, Trabosh hopes a European man will close the deal and says she's willing to move overseas.

That this will make it difficult-if-not-impossible for creditors to find and collect on her is incidental. Purely incidental. This is about true love. And someone buying an idiotically expensive house that was bought in 2001 and has since lost half of its value. And pony up an extra $500,000 (for her credit card bills, I presume) for the privilege of being married to someone who bathes in spray-on tanning fluid and shame.

"I know I'm putting myself out there. I'm sincere. I believe in true love,"

That has been proven.

"I want to get married again."

Did she mention the imminent foreclosure? Good. That's important.

Craigslist used to be a happy place people where people could find an old couch, fence stolen goods, and find a like-minded person with whom to sever and consume one's penis. Don't go changing on us.

Back when George Bush pardoned Scooter Libby, I had the misfortune of attracting a loon – first as a commenter and then as an emailer. This person's ax to grind was her (extraordinarily novel) interpretation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

She insisted that this meant that Libby could not be pardoned…because George W. Bush might potentially be impeached and Libby could potentially maybe be called to possibly testify in such a hypothetical impeachement. I began by politely explaining how goddamn retarded that is and that I have consistently heard better arguments from Rush Limbaugh callers. A dozen insane emails later, she finally dropped it…but not until she added me to the mailing list of her horrendous website! Seriously, have you ever seen a more poorly laid-out website? Autistic, farsighted apes could do better. Anyway, thus began my 3-year quest to stop getting emails from this deranged person who I can only assume lives in a haunted mansion with 27 cats.

Three years of spam later, it finally bore fruit; hilarious, amazing comedy fruit. An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton. I like Open Letters! I've written several on this site. So I figured, OK, I'll actually open this email! Maybe I can find some common ground with this Bea Arthur-after-multiple-concussions.

Senator Clinton,

First, thank you. Your steadfastness, your courage, your grace have been an inspiration to me, even though I was not originally a supporter of yours.

OK, I wouldn't exactly call April and May "graceful" on HRC's part, but I'm glad a candidate inspired you. What a positive beginning. I predict that the letter will go uphill from here.

I have an idea that I want to share with you about what you can do going forward that could possibly end up give you more power to effect the kind of change you want to make in this country than you could ever have in elected office, perhaps even the office of president.

Still OK so far. This sounds constructive! And very appropriate given that she has effectively buried her own political career. She needs a new direction. I'm looking forward to this.

First of all, please don’t drop out of the race.

Oh, fuck. I just pooped a little.

Anything can happen between now and August

Ask RFK! Wink Wink Wink!!!

including the chance that the Republicans might jump the gun on their oppo research, and Obama’s negative ratings rise so high that even the Kool-Aid drinkers among the superdelegates would have to pay attention.

Yeah! That's definitely what the DNC/Delegates should do…look at some mid-July opinion polling (suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend Obama polls poorly) and then switch candidates!!! Holy shitballs, Carolyn Kay. You are a genius! I can't believe you are not a highly-paid political strategist. Your party needs you and your Cat-Powered Idea Machine. What could work better than switching candidates in mid-campaign!???!!!!11!!???

Leave the option open to challenge the DNC’s unfair and possibly illegal handling of the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Oh FUCK YEAH, you gotta leave open the possibility of letting the lawsuits fly!! Especially to challenge something "possibly illegal," like when Libby was pardoned! I cannot think of anything that would make HRC more popular than to start filing lawsuits and attempt to win the nomination in court.

Second, even if it’s offered, don’t accept a vice presidency.

We indirectly totally agree about this! Don't worry, no one in the Obama camp wants anything to do with that race-baiting nutbar and she won't be on the ticket unless the superdelegates force it. But you really give great career advice, too! I mean, what kind of idiot would take a job a heartbeat away from the presidency?? You should work for Monster.com writing a column called How to Spot and Subsequently Shit On Great Opportunities.

I don’t think it will be offered

Amen, tard-o!

because there seems to be some inexplicible but visceral hatred of you and President Clinton in the Obama camp.

Inexplicible? Visceral, yes. But do you really not understand it? You were sentient and awake during March, April, and May yet you don't understand the hatred? I have a mentally retarded friend who needs to have episodes of Full House explained to him. He just called me and said "I totally understand why Obama and his supporters hate Clinton" before eating another sporkful of modeling clay.

But even if it is offered, it would be used as a way to marginalize you. I don’t what that to happen.

No better way to bury someone away from the public eye like making him or her the Vice Goddamn President of The United States of America. Marginalization City, population: THE FUCKING VICE PRESIDENT.

Third, you are in a position to harness the voting, lobbying, and donation power of 17 million people to force more real change than I see coming from the so-called change candidate.

Most of those 17 million people are smarter than you, and they will get over their little hissy fits in a couple of days. They'll ask themselves a question, namely "Do I like Obama better than McCain?" They'll say yes and they'll vote for the guy you think they hate. See, only the true believers are willing to go to the end in the Fuhrerbunker (metaphor!) Everyone else flees the advancing Soviet army (metaphor!) when the cause is clearly lost. Only a couple of people are willing to enter the bunker and stick around for the bitter, gun-in-mouth end. Hitler, Eva Braun (metaphor!) and Goebbels (Lanny Davis. Also, Metaphor!) are going to fight to the death. Everyone else says "Yeah, fuck this. Let's go find some Americans and surrender. I'm not eating a bullet for this asshole." Those 17 million people aren't "true believers" like you think. That's just you, Lanny Davis, and Hillary. Christ, even Bill's going to abandon ship. Fucking CARVILLE abandoned ship. Carville. James Carville. Why? Because he's not an idiot and he doesn't feel like becoming persona non grata in his party. His own career is (shockingly) more important to him than going down in flames with Crazypantsuits.

Many of us are very angry at how you’ve been treated, and you could use that anger to build a grassroots organization

No, because everyone except you is going to GET OVER IT in a couple of days. Lanny Davis won't. If he doesn't eat cyanide, this grassroots organization is going to be you and Lanny Davis sitting around a rickety old card table bitching and moaning about the conspiracies to take down Hillary.

that could rival MoveOn.org in size and influence.

Right, like MoveOn but without the popular issue positions! Also, without the 17 million people who are all going to get over it and start supporting Obama! Also, without the influence because Hillary's going to turn herself into a pariah!

We could remain within the Democratic Party,

That's big of you. No Lieberman-esque independent campaign?

but a force to be reckoned with, to push a legislative agenda that is more in keeping with what is needed to make Americans’ lives better.

Like that gas tax holiday! And…..those other issues HRC talked about? Help me out here. All I remember is the race-baiting.

I would be very proud to help you build such an organization.

And how could it fail with a mind like yours? I can think of a few more productive ways to spend Democrats' time and resources. Like loading 100,000 Democrats and $100 million onto an oil tanker and ramming it into a jagged rock at full speed in icy waters.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Thanks for playing. Also, TAKE ME OFF YOUR FUCKING EMAIL LIST.

Regards,
Ed