Tuesday, April 26, 2011

"How Firm Thy Friendship..."

The Washington Academic Internship Program provides students with an incredible opportunity to do things not possible in a traditional classroom setting. For example, I walk by both the Capitol and the Supreme Court every day to and from work, pay a visit to “Abe” (the Lincoln Memorial) on an almost daily basis, sang Carmen Ohio with the “Archie” (two-time Heisman winner Archie Griffin) in front of a host of Ohio congressmen, met the Australian Ambassador to the United States, and met “John” (Speaker of the House John Boehner). Although each of the experiences listed above is tremendous, the most rewarding aspect of WAIP is the bonds the participants form with one another. Despite having been complete strangers just four weeks ago, four of us spent last Sunday—Easter Sunday—together. (The fifth understandably went home to share the holiday weekend with loved ones). For many of us, it was the first time we had spent Easter away from our families, so we decided to have our own dinner with our new “family”—our WAIP family (or team or wolf pack).

As pictured below, the four of us colored eggs together.

While waiting on the eggs to dry, a couple of us played an Easter memory matching game. As some can attest, this game further exemplified the time-tested truism that life is not always fair. Some people just happen to be better at certain things—things like Easter memory matching games.

After numerous failed attempts to at least win one game, one person suggested we move on to something more suitable to the group’s skill set: cooking. The four of us—yes, FOUR—made steaks, oven-roasted potatoes, green bean casserole, and brownies. Contrary to popular belief, we did not almost burn down the building in which we are living. The food turned out amazing. The best part about the dinner was not the tastiness of the food; rather, it was the cooking process itself. After studying the relatively new field of managerial science, we decided to put it to the test in our cooking operation. As the lead dog in our four-person wolf pack (again, we were down a person last weekend), I volunteered for the role of supervisor of Operation Easter Dinner. I find that I learn best by doing, so after studying management science last week, I thought it appropriate to attempt to apply Dr. Kolson’s teachings in a real world setting. With each young lady handling a different dish, it was important that I ensure high quality across the board. If just one dish failed to turn out correctly, the entire meal could have been compromised. I’m not usually one to take credit, but I was able to take three—how should I say this—“inexperienced” cooks and create an Easter dinner that would have made Spike Mendelsohn proud.

Unfortunately, the feel-good evening came to an abrupt end when it came time to settle on a movie for us to watch as the evening came to a close. I guess you could say there was a mutiny of sorts, as the three girls insisted that we watch a romantic comedy called Definitely, Maybe. Naturally, these were the first 25 movies on my list: http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2010/08/top_25_manliest_movies_of_all_time.php#the_terminator_1984

Living in “The District,” it is impossible not to be reminded on a daily basis of the democracy in which we live. There is strength in numbers, and in this case—much to James Madison’s chagrin—the three girl majority outnumbered my brave, lonely soul. Perhaps this suggests I’m not quite the leader I previously thought. Maybe that is why management science is such a difficult subject. In theory, it is rather straightforward and makes perfect sense. The trouble comes in its application. Theories are often constructed in a vacuum, and whenever humans are involved, “opinions, passions, and interests” can interfere with the decision-making process. The girls’ majority opinion outweighed my dissent, so I had to “muddle through” a chick-flick.


We love Dr. Kolson.


Despite the discoloration, "John" loves him some Mike McCandlish.


THE Ohio State University!


Pink sparkles!


Smiles all around!

The Ideal Lawyer: Is it a Realistic Goal for Future Lawyers of America?

“When you think of the ideal lawyer, whom do you think of?” This was the question that 5 panelists, comprised of lawyers, authors, professors, and former state Supreme Court justices sought to answer at a program held by the American Bar Association. The program was called, “The American Lawyer Ideal: from John Adams to Atticus Finch to …” and was put on as a part of the Leon Jaworski Public Program Series at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Thanks to Leah’s boss at AFJ, we attended the event together after a long day of work.

The panelists were incredibly interesting and came from a variety of backgrounds in the legal field. All had different “ideal lawyers” in their heads. President Lincoln, Thurgood Marshall, John Adams, Abigail Adams, Atticus Finch, and Sandra Day O’Connor were all mentioned and discussed, idealized for the way they sought through adversity, their strong legal minds, and their integrity as attorneys. The panelists discussed many other attorneys, both contemporary and historical that were not as well known. Overwhelmingly, these attorneys were ones who worked as public defenders, in legal aid, or in relative obscurity until they “made it big” when they argued in front of the Supreme Court.

There were so many thoughts that were popping into my head while I was listening to the panelists. One was who I would say is my “lawyer ideal.” First I thought, Justice Antonin Scalia. I feel like I have a particular connection to Justice Scalia, first for the fact that he is an Italian-American like myself. Second, his way of being brutally honest with the way he views the law and not being afraid to say it is also extremely admirable to me. Then I thought, Sandra Day O’Connor. I’ve always enjoyed reading her Supreme Court opinions because of the way she reasons. I feel as though I will be more like her when I’m on the bench because I believe she sees the merits of both sides of an argument and weighs them thoughtfully in a way that brings law to the forefront, rather than person opinion (it’s good to have lofty ambitions, right?).

However, I had a hard time listening to the panelists at the same time I enjoyed their discussion. Every panelist had graduated from an Ivy League law school, and many of the “lawyer ideals” that were discussed were also Ivy League educated. I couldn’t help but wonder: what about your average, everyday lawyer? What about the lawyer that couldn’t afford an Ivy League education or didn’t have the right credentials that would admit him or her to such a school? As a student that may not be able to get in to one of these schools, this fact bothered me. Perhaps this is my “quarter life crisis” speaking. With law school applications looming in the near future, I could feel myself stressing out.

The other thought that I couldn’t get out of my head was the fact that all of these lawyers were not lawyers in big law firms or in corporations. They were public defenders and attorneys working with legal aid and non-profit organizations. These lawyers are some of the worst paid lawyers in the business. What struck me is that the discussion left out an entire class of lawyers that many aspiring attorneys long to be. Apparently I wasn’t the only one thinking of this, because a lawyer in the audience asked a question that dealt with this subject to the panelists. It is a tough reality for me to try and grapple with: I would love to work in the public sector, or as a public defender or legal aid, but I’m going to have tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in debt for law school, in addition to undergraduate loans.

While the discussion left me with some heavy questions about the “logistics” of my future legal education, I still felt inspired and remembered why I wanted to be a lawyer in the first place. President-elect of the American Bar Association, Stephen N. Zack, put it best. He described his own experience in growing up in Cuba. He remembers how the old Cuban Constitution was extremely similar to that of the United States and how so quickly the liberties it described was taken away in the communist revolution. He reminded us that if there are not lawyers defending these liberties how quickly they could be taken away. Lawyers and judges are the defenders of liberty, and the champions of justice. This is why I want to be a lawyer.

House Ways & Means

I realize I'm a little late posting this, but during the first week of my internship on the Hill, I was fortunate enough to observe a mark-up of a piece of legislation in the House Ways and Means Committee, of which my Congressman is a member. This committee handles all legislation concerning taxes and other revenue-raising methods, and also handles issues like Social Security, Medicare reform, trade agreements, etc. For those of you not familiar with a mark-up, it is the hearing during which the members debate and propose amendment to various pieces of legislation. The hearing I attended was a mark-up of H.R. 3, which would prohibit the use of tax-payer dollars to fund abortions. Chairman Camp was quick to point out to the entire committee and to the observers that this piece of legislation was something that would be controversial and that as a committee, Ways & Means is always hesitant to discuss and review legislation concerning social issues, since it usually focuses solely on issues of taxes and revenue. He instructed the committee to view H.R. 3 from a revenue standpoint and avoid including their social beliefs about abortions into the debate. However, I noticed that just a few minutes into the hearing that this would not be the case, and the debate turned from the issue of taxpayer funds for abortions to just the issue of abortion, making it obvious where the party lines fell.

During the debate and amendment process, I was able to observe how the format and seating arrangements of the Committee. The Chairman sat in the highest row in the exact center, with the most senior Republican committee members to his right and the most senior Democrat members to his left. The members sat in order of seniority spanning outward, with the most junior members sitting in the lower row. I thought it was interesting to see how here, much like at the Supreme Court, the seating was based on seniority (although it did not alternate sides, sticking straight to party lines).

I was reminded of this experience (and to blog about it!) after reading the first few chapters of this week's assignment, The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. The authors discussed the histories of both the House and the Senate, and I was drawn to a section detailing the various reforms made to committees during the 1970's, focusing my attention to the reforms made specifically to the Ways & Means committee. Several freshmen members targeted Ways & Means because it was extremely powerfull and had a jurisdiction over very important policies, even extending to social issues (H.R. 3) if they involved revenue. The Democratic caucus expanded the committee from twenty-five to thirty-seven members, spreading out the power and giving the majority ten more positions on the committee. Ways & Means was also forced to create subcommittees, again diluting the concentration of the power of the committee, effectively reducing its status as a "super-committee." However, after observing the committee in action last week, Ways & Means still appeared to me as a one of the most powerful committees in the House.

ED

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Oil Spill? That look is SO last year...

I have always been deeply touched by the rally of American support and patriotism after a disaster, man-made or natural, in the spirit of helping fellow citizens in need. We saw it after 9/11 shook not only New York City, Pennsylvania and, Virginia, but our entire nation: we saw it after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast: and we saw it yet again after the catastrophe that was "Bottle-Gate 2011". Okay, so maybe not "Bottle-Gate" but if that incident would have occurred at a national level than I imagine fellow citizens would provide similar support to those affected by such a disaster. Or at least buy them a drink.

One year and one day ago the nation rallied once again in support of the Gulf Coast during the tragedy that is now known as the BP oil spill. Unleashing around 80,0000 barrels a day of oil into the Gulf the BP oil spill quickly became the largest oil spill in our history. Support came pouring in to help those along the Gulf Coast, but once the spilling stopped so did large spread cover and support. Was this because all is well along the Gulf Coast? Was it because those affected by the spill don't need our help? Was it the Obama's Florida vacation that convinced us that everything is okay now? We may think everything is squeaky clean along the coast, but the truth is it is far from it.

With new issues arising everyday it is easy to forget about things that don't directly affect us in places like Washington D.C. or Columbus, Ohio. This doesn't make the problem any less real. There are ongoing efforts to help clean up the Gulf Coast and restore the lives and businesses of its residents- it just isn't enough. I'm not asking you to quit your job, jump in your car, and skip over every BP station between here and the Coast. On the one year anniversary of the spill I just ask you to remember that clean-up is a continuing effort- one that deserves our attention.

Check out AFJ's First Monday award winning film Crude Justice about the effects of the spill on the Gulf Coast.