(Part 2) Best law books according to redditors

There's also a book - "I am Nujood, age 10 and divorced." It's a hard read, but eye opening. Almost as good as Kristof's "Half the sky." Almost.

http://www.amazon.com/Am-Nujood-Age-10-Divorced/dp/0307589676

http://www.amazon.com/Half-Sky-Oppression-Opportunity-Worldwide/dp/0307387097

Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.

This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

The real news:

http://therealnews.com/t2/

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r

http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

Look at the following graphs:

IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

And then...

WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM

Free markets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

Important history:

http://williamblum.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4

Where to even begin?

Paul Campos' Don't Go To Law School (Unless) should be required reading for any prospective law student.

But holy shit, the LIES.

So for decades now, law schools have been churning out twice as many lawyers as there are available jobs; obviously, you can't do this forever, but boy do they try.

• At first, they didn't need to release post-BAR employment statistics
  
  
• Then, they made them as misleading as possible (if you were a barista with a law degree, LSAC and ABA considered you employed)
  
  
• If you worked part-time as a cart-pusher, the ABA, for a while, considered you employed
  
  
• 50% of graduated lawyers ended up in a job that didn't require a law degree. LAW SCHOOLS MARKETED THIS AS THE VERSATILITY OF A LAW DEGREE, when in reality grads were just taking gasping for air and taking anything--AND ENDED UP IN JOBS THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN WITHOUT THE DEGREE!
  
  Scholarships aren't what you think they are
  
  
• You have two applying students, A and B
  
  
• A is a genius with really high scores, B would be lucky to get into your institution
  
  
• As the dean, or admissions, indeed your only real job is to increase the ranking of your school ( ^ ranking = ^ prestige = ^ money), or at least not let it flounder. How do you do that? Getting smarter kids to go to your school. Now, 'A' won't go to your school if he can help it--he's got the goods for a Top 14. But you really want him, so you offer him a generous scholarship package.
  
  
• That scholarship doesn't come out of thin air. There is no "Scholarship Vault" in the back of the Dean's office. What they do is make the lower test-score kids pay higher tuition in order to subsidize the smarter kids' tuition and, ultimately, the school's ranking. They're able to do this because a) the federal government will back students' idiotic loan amounts, 2) Student A is getting a bargain, 3) Student B thinks he's getting a bargain when in reality he's just cattle who won't see a worthwhile Return on Investment
  
  Thought grad school, in general, was a "big, cold, system"? Law school is an industrial sized grinder where the only output is marginally better rankings and jobless grads with $250,000 in debt.
  
  Law schools are thirsty whores for any type of validation, which means "rankings" news. Who is the "great decider" of rankings? Mostly US News World Report. Think about that for a second. How much validity do you think the rankings system has when one media organization runs a monopoly on the whole thing? Go try to figure out why one school is #60 while the other is #70. Seriously, go try. Meanwhile, people are reading these rankings like they're scripture.
  
  The Great Usefulness Lie
  
  One of the more recent, and clever, ploys by law schools is to sell law degrees as versatile
  
  > You don't see too many practicing attorneys because law is versatile, they're out doing a million different things, not just practicing law!
  
  No. The chances of you getting that environmental advocacy position is nill. You're not going to practice space law. Want to work for the public good and help the downtrodden? Great. Fantastic. Don't forget about your $250,000 in debt which will begin accruing absurd interest very, very soon. You'll be paying that debt off for half your life... unless you sell your soul and go work for a big firm for 80 hours a week (you'd better hope you graduated from a really good school at the top of your class).
  
  Mental Health
  
  Lawyers are, relatively, quite suicidal. Relatively, they suffer from depression and chronic alcoholism often. They self-report as miserable quite often.
  
  One (of many) white papers
  
  It's not spoken about much but, as someone with a history of depression and alcohol abuse already, I'm not going through this shit. For what? To slave for a firm for 80 hours a week?
  
  
  
  
  

I'm still with Christine Fair in saying that the entire goal, and existence of Pakistan is essentially to oppose India as the primary reason why India and Pakistan hate each other. Really the hate is a Pakistan military policy, otherwise, without competition, the entire military rule of Pakistan falls.

Edit:
I honestly don't know why I'm being down-voted. This a fairly common, and accepted idea that Pakistan's real power, and influence does not come from the civilian government, but rather from the Military. That is in a Republic policy is driven by a civilian government, but it is absolutely evident that Pakistan's policy fundamentally, even under civilian rule, is driven by the threat of the military. And the sole purpose and goal of the Pakistani military complex is to oppose India. That is extremely evident in their behavior. Otherwise the military complex, and the vested power fails. That is why you have so many coups in Pakistan throughout its history.

The fundamental reason why Pakistan hasn't developed and progressed as a Republic is precisely because the PakMil complex sees it as detrimental to its power and influence within the country.

I suggest people read the article I posted below and read Christine Fair's book Fighting To The End.

Nicolas Kristof's book Half the Sky deals with this. He spoke at my high school about how, if you count all these instances of gender-fueled violence as a single entity, it's the largest loss of human life in history. I'm paraphrasing, because that doesn't sound quite right, but it was something along those lines.

I think part of the problem is really that people are looking at only granular parts of problems today and don't have enough historical context. Its useless to follow every story about everyone and every little thing. There are lots of ups and downs in politics and there's no reason to be so reactionary to every single new and probably manufactured "scandal".... that's what's exhausting. I like to keep updated on a few big issues, I follow the careers of a few people I find inspiring (and follow a few that do things that worry me), and spend the rest of the time reading up on topics in book form... they have the advantage of being written over time, and with more vigorous standards for accuracy. The news, while still important where immediate info is necessary, is essentially click bait now. You don't need to get caught in the rip tides that pull you everywhere constantly, just understand the general trajectory of the important things.

edit: to those curious about some book recommendations: I'm by no means an expert in anything really, and the books you read should really be about the topics you personally are interested in, so don't take my word as gospel (or any author's). I like American history, ancient history, international relations, and though I think they're more boring I force myself to read about the health care system and the American education system because I feel they're important. I'm also looking to read some books on the military industrial complex and cyber security/ big data because I don't really know anything about them other than the stuff I see in passing on the news or here on Reddit. So if anyone knows a good overview of those issues, feel free to let me know.

• For a good start on human history and the beginnings of modern economics/ intl relations (basically why the West has historically dominated), try Guns, Germs, and Steel I believe there's also a documentary if the book is too dense for your taste (it is pretty dense).
  
  
• Perhaps if you're interested in why people get so damn heated talking politics, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation
  
  
• If you wonder why people vote against their own social and economic interest: What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America Full disclosure: I liked this book, but I lean left. I'm not sure if it matters, the point of the book is just to track how the Republican party went from being the party of elites, to the party of blue collar workers.
  
  
• If the Supreme Court interests you at all, I liked Jeffrey Toobin's, The Nine
  
  
• The achievement gap? Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria
  
  
• Health care? There's a lot, but this one is an easy read and it compares the systems of Britain, Japan, Germany, and I believe Cuba (which is very good for their GDP!) and the US's. The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T.R. Reid
  
  This is just some stuff I've listed off the top of my head. Another thing that I find helpful to better understanding intl relations are books about the major genocides of the past few decades, which are hard to get through (because of the brutal content) but... What is the What (Sudan), First they killed my father (Cambodian genocide), Girl at War (more of a autobiography, but still chilling) there's a couple of others I've read that I can't remember now.
  
  Anyway, just go to Good Reads and look at Contemporary Politics. Perhaps Great Courses has a political philosophy course too that you can draw from if you wanna go even farther back into the origins of society's structure and political thought.
  
  Also podcasts! I've just discovered these but there's a lot of audio content (FREE!) that you can listen to on your commute and whatnot. I like Abe Lincoln's Top Hat right now.
  
  Edit edit: wow thanks for the gold!!

The grandmother got custody because she asked for it. They gave her temporary custody in the beginning until we could have a full trial. I was shocked but figured there was no way she would win. I was accused of everything from child molestation to, and this is no lie, embezzling money from the Fraternal Order of Police. They accused me of doing drugs and being involved in organized crime. I took two on the spot drug tests on two different occasions and a hair follicle test on another occasion, all court ordered because of their allegations. I had to undergo psychiatric evaluations (15 different tests in all) because of all their accusations. I had Child Protective Services question me and basically raid my house. I have had to turn over ever single financial statement for the past 6 years to prove that I am not involved in any crime ring. And on and on and on. I proved that they were lying after every single allegation but the courts did not care. They kept on pounding me with crap. If they would have accused me of being an alien I probably would have had to go through an autopsy to prove that I was not.

Then, after all of that, the judge just said "I grant physical custody to the maternal grandmother and joint legal custody to the father" (which joint legal custody does not mean crap). No reason was given and to this day I have never been told why. No court document gives any reason as to why I do not have custody. But plenty of people have made a good living off of my case.

The Department of Child Support Enforcement is a big player in all of this because they make alot of money by collecting child support. I do believe that the courts look at who can pay the most in child support to base their decision. I am working on making a documentary about the whole need for Family law reform. If anyone would like to read how screwed up the system is, read Taken Into Custody by Dr. Stephen Baskerville.

Mark Herrmann's "The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Curmudgeons-Guide-Practicing-Law/dp/1590316762

George Orwell: 1984. Essential to understanding the Totalitarian Left, and ideas that have now entered our language and are becoming more relevant by the day, such as doublethink, thoughtcrime, and newspeak.

Donald J. Boudreaux: The Essential Hayek. (also Hayek's original works, eg The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty, but they are much more expensive. This is a good introduction to the Austrian School of economics).

Carroll Quigley: Tragedy & Hope: a history of the world in our time.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf
> One of these persistent questions is typical of the twentieth century rather than of earlier times: Can our way of life survive? Is our civilization doomed to vanish, as did that of the Incas, the Sumerians, and the Romans? From Giovanni Battista Vico in the early eighteenth century to Oswald Spengler in the early twentieth century and Arnold J Toynbee in our own day, men have been puzzling over the problem of whether civilizations have a life cycle and follow a similar pattern of change. from this discussion emerged a fairly general agreement that men live in separately organized societies, each with its own distinct culture; that some of these societies, having writing and city life, exist on a higher level of culture than the rest, and should be called by the different term "civilizations"; and that these civilizations tend to pass through a common pattern of experience.

Carroll Quigley: The Evolution of Civilizations. http://www.archive.org/stream/CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionTo/CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionToHistoricalAnalysis1979#page/n1/mode/2up
> In this perceptive look at the factors behind the rise and fall of civilizations, Professor Quigley seeks to establish the analytical tools necessary for understanding history. He examines the application of scientific method to the social sciences, then establishes his historical hypotheses. He poses a division of culture into six levels, from the more abstract to the more concrete—intellectual, religious, social, political, economic, and military—and he identifies seven stages of historical change for all civilizations: mixture, gestation, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion.

J.C. Unwin: Sex and Culture
https://archive.org/details/b20442580
> With care-free open-mindedness I decided to test, by a reference to human records, a somewhat startling conjecture that had been made by analytical psychologists. This suggestion was that if the social regulations forbid direct satisfaction of the sexual impulses the emotional conflict is expressed in another way, and that what we call 'civilization' has always been built up by compulsory sacrifices in the gratification of innate desires.

Sir John Glubb: The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
> d) The stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:

>The Age of Pioneers (outburst)

> The Age of Conquests

>The Age of Commerce

>The Age of Affluence

>The Age of Intellect

>The Age of Decadence.

>(e) Decadence is marked by:

>Defensiveness

>Pessimism

>Materialism

>Frivolity

>An influx of foreigners

>The Welfare State

>A weakening of religion.

>(f) Decadence is due to:

>Too long a period of wealth and power

>Selfishness

>Love of money

>The loss of a sense of duty.

>(g) The life histories of great states are amazingly similar, and are due to internal factors.

E. Belfort Bax: The Fraud of Feminism. http://www.angryharry.com/FraudOfFeminism.htm (written in 1913, it clearly shows that there was no 'golden age' of feminism, and that feminists can never be satisfied).
> Though women have been conceded all the rights of men, their privileges as females have remained untouched, while the sentimental "pull" they have over men, and the favouritism shown them in the courts, civil and criminal, often in flagrant violation of elementary justice, continues as before. The result of their position on juries, as evinced in certain trials, has rather confirmed the remarks made in Chapter II. anent [concerning] hysteria than otherwise. The sex-bias of men in favour of women and the love of the advanced woman towards her sex-self show no sign of abatement.

And two recent important works in political philosophy that are therefore not available for free.

John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. A seminal book providing an alternative to Utilitarianism. "Rawls's "Theory of Justice" is widely and justly regarded as this century's most important work of political philosophy. "
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0674000781/

T.M. Scanlon. What We Owe to Each Other. Following on from Rawls' insights, and applying them more broadly than only to justice, to what underpins a society working together. "What do we owe to each other? What obligations of honesty, respect, trust and consideration exist between people?"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/067400423X/

Finally

Jonathan Haidt: Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt shows that there are at least 6 foundations of what people see as social good. Of these, the Left see 'Caring' as the good, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Libertarians see 'Liberty' as the good, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Conservatives are fairly evenly balanced across the 6, and have the easiest time understanding the perspective of the others as a result. See also http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUM4akzLGE. You might know Haidt from this talk: http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/the-myth-of-equality/jonathan-haidt-coddling-u-strengthening-u/

> Saudia Arabia's basically said if Iran gets nukes, Pakistan will sell some of theirs to them.

Let me add a little more nuance to what you said. It is correct that Saudis have said that.

What is not well known, Pakistan is Saudi's back stopper in case things go titsup in RSA. Notice each year, RSA gives some 2-5B$ of aid to Pakistan. That doesn't come without strings. The tacit understanding is that the rent boys will do as told.

And in the RSA air force, there are a number of PAkistani pilots that are good on the F16s that are being denied to Pakistan. Notice that Pakistan does not complain too much on the US's embargo on the F16 spares and parts? They practice in RSA through the hiring of pilots in the military.

RSA provides teh money and the cover.

Pakistan,the mechanic and delivery boys of KABOOM

What's not to like about it?

And they're a notch less than ISIS, that's about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-End-The-Pakistan-Armys/dp/0199892709

Feminism does not care about women but about their privileges. And the most important of all is to maintain control of sexuality. That is why they oppose sexual dolls and any alternative to a relationship where the woman marks the sexual pattern.

The feminist lie (book):
https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality-ebook/dp/B071SG95CN

Postscript:
When a feminist tells you that you are reifying the female body for having a sex doll, tell her to throw her dildo in the trash.

The Feminist Lie by Bob Lewis is pretty good. It exposes it for the fraud it is in pretty good detail, as well as laying out the method and tactics feminists use to silence opposition and how to counter them. Well worth the read.

Here is a rather lengthy article in The Atlantic covering this and many other "mismatch" points. The Atlantic is covering high points from the Mismatch book. I've got a source which focuses on this specific point in one of these folders, shuffling papers, somewhere.

Edit: Here it is, it's a PDF. Page 7 specifically shows the statistics from Prop 209. Despite minority apllication, acceptance, and enrollment drops; graduation rates significantly increased. Actual numbers graduating also increased by a small amount.

Now that is good. For $11 I’ll give it a go.

https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/1400096790

Surprisingly more expensive on kindle, so paperback it is. Looks like a decent book. Thanks man!

It's even available on Amazon. From their own description:

> A wave of sexual misconduct allegations about powerful men have exploded recently in the media (e.g., the news, Twitter #MeToo, etc.). A bold social movement has begun with brave women coming forward and being applauded for speaking out and sharing their stories of abuse, discrimination, and harassment. As a result, accused men like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and dozens more have been removed from power and are suffering the consequences.


> In How to Destroy A Man Now (DAMN), Dr. Angela Confidential (a business psychologist, consultant, and human resource professional) empowers women with a step-by-step guide for destroying a man’s reputation and removing him from power.


> In easy to understand terms, the handbook reveals and explains the fundamental dynamics between allegations, the media, and authority as they relate to male misconduct in today’s society. It also unveils and details practical real-world methods for leveraging allegations, media, and authorities to dethrone a man from power.

I'm torn. I really want to maintain the integrity of book reviews left by people who have actually read the book. But on the other hand, should anyone read shit like this?

Conversely: The Manipulated Man and The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality. The first seems like it's worth a read. The second looks almost as toxic as DAMN.

There's a decent chance your student will get into law school, but it will be one of the predatory ones that demands nothing but money and offers nothing but a degree. If a student comes into my office and mentions law school I pull this book off my shelf and tell them to read it. Going to law school is the worst possible fate you could wish on your student.

Here's a book that mentions the "Ferguson Effect": https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

​

Police group director: Obama caused a 'war on cops': https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-war-on-cops-police-advocacy-group-225291

​

It's another "Us vs. the Libs" issue

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276174

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1439193886/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government/dp/1608190064

https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081

https://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446


Those are the books that you should read.

Here are also some good resources:

Paul Craig Roberts worked in the Reagan administration: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

This is a good multi-part article excerpted from one of the books above: http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/09/16/part-1-mr-george-bush-of-the-central-intelligence-agency/

Michael Glennon’s abstract about his book: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf

A PDF of the “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” book if you don’t want to buy it: http://resistir.info/livros/john_perkins_confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man.pdf

This is when the reporter asked Bill Clinton about Mena: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDMktUYvC7k

Article on the coup attempt in France: http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/20/jfk-assassination-plot-mirrored-in-1961-france-part-1/

All of whowhatwhy.org is very good. There is probably a lot of good information there most haven’t heard of. The main guy, Russ Baker, is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist.

Bet you didn’t know that Bob Woodward was a state intelligence asset/disinformationist? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/710466456941686784

All part of the record…. Enjoy.

i am not a german and honestly look around you and ask yourself, was this first invented in the US?

and it was, 80% of the time. look at your calender on the wall for example, the coating, the production methods, the chemical refinery of the colors, the software it was made of, the software of the production machines, the printers, the cutting machines, the delivery systems, .. that just one fucking calender

from social progress to technology to arts to science - the US is leader in every single one of these areas. the EU is very close but it is not formally one country so no. you would bend over and let a dictatorship known for the production output of socks fuck you?

that is hilarious

i recommend you:

Ian Morris: Why the West Rules for Now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnqS7G3LmMo

Peter Watson - Ideas: History of Humankind
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0753820897/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i17

Peter Zeihan Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feU7HT0x_qU
the book to it - https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685

Andrew Moravcsik - What is a Superpower? What is Power? Why the EU is the 2nd Superpower of the 21st century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOPPyGyeh-o&t

The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law is a good one. Amusing and practical, and very on point. I received it as a gift from one of my mentors early on in my career and thought it was a wonderful aid.

I would also look at templates and examples of court documents on Practical Law's "Standard Documents" portion of its website (along with the website in general). Very, very good baseline materials and law on several important topic areas for the modern practitioner.

Denne boka tar for seg dette: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396
Skrevet av broren til Tino Sanandaji.

Han argumenterer for kulturen som har blitt formet i Skandinavia på grunn av mange faktorer, blant annet kjipt vær/temp og mangel på mat.

Dette har gjort at det nordiske samfunnet historisk har vært homogent(ikke nødvendigvis i etnisitet, kultur er viktigst). Folk har villet det samme, og trukket i samme retning. Tillit innad i samfunnet har vært veldig høy. Det har vært høy arbeidsmoral og bra samarbeid. Et eksempel er at det for mange år siden ikke bare var å hente seg mat i skogen. Man måtte planlegge/rasjonere maten for vinteren med hardt arbeid på sommeren og høsten. Alternativet var døden.

Det argumenteres for at den nordiske modellen fungerer bare i Norden på grunn av den kulturbakgrunnen vi har.

If you want to be more critical about $ and law school options, just read Don't Go to Law School (Unless). It's written by an actual law professor who shows you how to analyze the choice to go to law school and where best to go.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6

> As an aside, it's generally impolite to proffer accusatory statements, then say "let's have a civilized discussion." It is, however, ironic.

I apologize, it was 6am and I was probably far too tired to be using reddit... Had yet to even open my 1st red bull of the day.

Re Source (1) I don't own the book so I can't really comment on it :)

Re Source (2) This guys is really, REALLY out there... he seems to want to play both sides of the ball in order to get more clients. It's the women's fault for filling them and lieing, it's the states fault for taking away your kids, how come no one cares about the men, NO ONE FOLLOWS THE LAW. He then gets his legal license suspended for helping a client kidnap her daughter and not report it to the court, and then as she is lieing in front of the judge he doesn't correct her or bring it to the courts attention. Source.

Every source in his article links to another site that somehow is related to each other and none from a reputable non-issue related site. Even where he quotes people, he doesn't quote anything that can be proven he quotes another book that said person X said this. He backs it up with what happened in a hearing with a judge, yet there is no way to fact check it. Hell if this really happened all he had to do was get the court transcription and he would have some proof instead he makes it so you have to believe what he says.

That all being said, he states what he has heard a lot, but no facts. The whole argument that Restraining Orders are just used by women to attack men is false, we all know that because there are so many cooperated cases. The argument that women are to blame just as much as men are when a physical altercation occurs blows my mind.

As a male growing up I was always told that you do not hit a women. I have never once been in a situation where I felt I needed to (or ever did) no matter what I was told because I would likely send one to the hospital or worse. I bounced for a number of years having to break up girl fights when the happened and have had women attack me. I was always able to either resolve the issue or remove myself from the issue without having to raise my hand in anger. Why bring this up you ask, because pretty much every site you have linked too is all about 'mens rights' and how they are being trampled on by women.

Are there people that are abusing the system, I am sure there are. But in order for a system to be broken there has to some type of evidence that it is. The argument of all these people say that there is a problem means jack to anyone but those who agree with what they are saying.

By all means if there is proof of an issue then I will agree things need to be done, however just repeating the same biased crap that others say will get the same response from me... bring me the raw numbers.

> it overwhelmingly seems directed at African Americans.

No, there are a ton of problems with policing in the US - but there is very little evidence that it is racially based.

To be fucking blunt - the numbers do not lie:

• Of all the people who have been killed by police in the United States in recent years, about 42% were white, 20% were Hispanic, and 32% were black—even as blacks committed nearly 39% of the types of serious crimes most likely to result in a violent confrontation with police.
  
• In 2015, there were 38 unarmed blacks and 32 unarmed whites who were shot and killed by police. These figures are roughly proportional to the respective numbers of violent crimes committed by blacks and whites nationwide.
  
• The likelihood of a police officer being killed by a black male is 18.5 times greater than the likelihood of an unarmed black male being killed by a cop
  

You're going to kick yourself.

I also recommend Plain English for Lawyers.

I would look at Law School Transparency. That website will allow you to get an in-depth look at the employment outcomes at each school, as well as the cost of attendance. Outside of the top 20-ish schools, every school is a regional school, and so location, employment outcomes and cost of attendance are more important than ranking.

In my opinion, you should totally ignore US News rankings outside of the top 20. Schools can do things that harm their students in order to boost their ranking. For example, a big part of the reason that Wake Forest is ranked above UNC is that Wake Forest charges higher tuition. This means that their expenditures-per-student are higher, which boosts their ranking.

I found this book to be really helpful. Just be aware that the job market situation is not nearly as dire today as it was when it was published, and so there are now more law schools that are worth attending.

after you finish law school, do not start living like a rich lawyer.
continue to live like a broke person and aggressively pay down your college debt. don't buy a BMW or move to an upscale part of town. keep your expenses low until you pay off the debt. afterwards, you'll potentially be earning a $100k+ income and have no debt ... that's a very strong position to be in.

if you haven't read Paul Campos's book Don't Go To Law School (Unless), I urge you to read it. It's one of the most balanced and realistic examinations of the costs and benefits of law school. I know several people who went to law school and regretted it because they didn't have all the facts and had naive expectations. https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6

You really need to read this book.

> Fair argues that the Pakistan Army’s revisionist agenda is restricted not only to wresting Jammu and Kashmir from India but also in preventing India’s “inevitable if uneven ascendance” in South Asia and beyond. Unlike conventional armies which seek only to protect territorial boundaries, the Pakistani Army, Fair argues, has taken upon it to protect the country’s ideological frontiers as defined by Islam.

> Seen from Pakistan’s perspective ceaseless attempts at taking Kashmir by force appear rational even if they are not so in terms of the real world challenge it faces from India. Fair argues that for the Pakistan Army, defeat does not lie in its failure to win Kashmir despite its numerous unsuccessful attempts; defeat will be the point when it stops trying. Therefore, failed attempts are just “honourable and brave Muslims” fighting against “meek, pusillanimous and treacherous Hindus”. Fair, who has extensively researched the Pakistan Army’s publications, has found this to be the common theme in writings of senior army officers. Pakistan Army Green Books are replete with arguments of why the Hindu Indian army poses a threat to a resource-wise weaker, but conviction-wise stronger Muslim Pakistan. Even though this portrayal is incorrect, as the Indian army is multi-religious, it is accepted and propagated because it fits in perfectly with the Pakistan Army’s ideological fight.

Here is the amazon link for 72-81:

10 Actual Official LSAT PrepTests 72-81

The rest can be purchased individually on amazon for about 8 dollars each.

They are cheapest if you buy the books of ten instead of single preptests. The titles are a little confusing, so check to see which test numbers are included. Here are the three most recent (and most relevant):

Preptests 72-81

Preptests 62-71

Preptests 52-61

According to "The Good Book", as a friend of mine calls it, the Springfield M1A, DSA FAL, rebarreled Garand, or HK91 (In that order, I think).

It's been a while since it was updated, so there maybe new info to consider.

Edit: lol.. I don't know how I missed "AR-10 style".. Oh well. Sorry about the irrelevance.

Have you seriously not heard about the abysmal legal employment market? And yes, that includes for grads of top 20 schools.

What did you major in? Computer science, STEM, etc. are where it's at if you want to make a good living. My best friend from high school did computer science and he's killing it while I live below the poverty line with my top 20 law degree.

Edit: if you still unbelievably want to think about law school, read this: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6

Law school is just a VERY VERY risky proposition and if you don't do ALL of the right things, there is no safety net on which to land. I speak from my own shit life experience.

No I don't, bootlicker. And I'll tell you why

The prison industrial complex has been the topic of music for decades. It's been in documentaries, and television and books and more books and scandals and more scandals and if you think all this shouting is new then know we're translating it back into jukebox and old lady's language, because at the end of the day we all know. We bullshit or we ignore it or we bullshit again as we hang on to our "I voted" stickers and tell us that if we all just stay calm and debate it out then next year it'll be different, year after year, literal decade after decade.

But one day the ghetto next door will run out of little black boys. You'll watch as a neighbor gets snatched, as well meaning college kids get beat by those protecting "law and order," and maybe someone you know gets hashtagged, and finally you understand that it's "civility" itself thats the problem. And when you're there we'll be there with you, at your side, making sure the bootlickers who stood by and let the happen don't get to plug their ears on us.

Don't Go To Law School (Unless)

A sad little isolated world one faithful reader must live in.

>Could you elaborate on how a social contract makes following laws an ethical matter?

Not on Reddit, I don't have anywhere near that kind of time.

http://smile.amazon.com/Locke-Treatises-Government-Cambridge-Political/dp/0521357306

http://smile.amazon.com/Social-Contract-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486426920

http://smile.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781

These three books are a great place to start. Consider me your intro to political philosophy professor.

For political science, I liked "Why Nations Fail". For political theory, the 1-2 punch of "A Theory of Justice" and "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" is obligatory. If you ever just want to cry, there's "A Problem from Hell."

The political problem I'm most interested in is how to conduct votes. www.equal.vote has some really good information about how different voting systems work and how the voting systems used in all developed democracies are not optimal. Best of luck.

>I don’t regret having one, just extremely ashamed of being sexual and communicating it to girls and also showing it to the world. Attracting girls’ attention and whatnot isn’t very hard but progressing things to dating, holding hands and eventually sex is impossible. I can’t even call them or message them on Facebook or Whatsapp because I just feel like an idiot for doing so. Making a move in clubs and bars is also difficult although I once got close to leaving with a girl but she didn't want to. I got made fun of a lot growing up for not having a girlfriend and this made me feel like i do not deserve one. It doesn't matter if I've got the green light to go ahead I just feel really ashamed do it. Even something like looking at a fit girl wearing a short skirt makes me feel bad for checking her out and that I shouldn’t be doing it.


I know what you mean. I've been there myself, but even when I was there I was entirely self-aware of my shame and I was skeptical of the validity of my emotional reactions; I realized they were ingrained. Being aware of your emotional reactions allows you to be emotionally proactive. Your sex-negative problem is mostly an emotional issue, and not much else, right? I've been there. I wouldn't doubt that you are also decent looking and have both latent and actualized social skills. Most intelligent introverts have a lot of potential to be who they want to be because they know themselves more deeply than others. You must use your introverted nature to your advantage and recognize the differences in others and yourself. In all honesty, there are an infinite number of unwritten rules; everyone's abstract/emotional logic is different. Many of them are foundational and predictable, however; including yours and mine. Like anything else, being emotionally predictable is not a black/white issue. It is a grey area, and you have to balance your reliability with creativity.


Being made fun of for not having a girlfriend is just as sexist as being made fun of for not having a boyfriend; gender equal too. Were you ever shamed for not having a boyfriend? It's clearly a matter of groupthink and extroverted style; not for everyone. Dating relationships, for extroverts especially, are often attention-getting and showy. They wear their relationships like trophies won. Usually introverts prefer a more private relationship because they have less social desire and are often shamed because of it. Introverts are “themselves” more often in private. Extroverts are “themselves” more often in public. There is no shame deserved either way, regardless of popular opinion. Both styles have their strengths and weaknesses, and you should try to introject some of the traits that you enjoy in others; regardless of type. That is how you become balanced.


>I’m receiving counselling from a pastor who advocates the whole “no sex before marriage” thing and believes that people should only date to get married and sex is only for making kids which is stupid IMO because I do not plan on getting married anytime soon.


Counseling from a Catholic pastor? Watch out, that is one of the most notorious sex-negative societies out there. They own the abstinence-only charade while they parade horribles. Marriage is not the answer to anything; it is an institution of the state. Anything else attached is sentimental.


If you haven't already, I recommend doing an in-depth study of animal sexual behaviors; especially the most intelligent animals. All animals have sex for pleasure, but some animals are only driven to have sex at certain times of the year; humans are on a 24/7 system.


>I’ve tried the no fap route and gotten very high days counts but that hasn’t really helped me at all.


Sexual frustration doesn't help anyone. If you are mindful, then you can use your libido to further your goals, but it is not an all-cure.


>Got any sources to help overcome sex-negative perspectives? I’m interested in recreational sex not baby making sex.


Absolutely. I recommend starting with actual sex science and learning about male and female psychology and neurology. Then work your way into reading about sex culture. You should also study developmental psychology as you will probably need the clinical context in order to objectively self-evaluate your childhood influences; it is necessary for self-therapy. The best therapy will always be self-therapy; no one will ever know you better than yourself.


Evolutionary Science and Morals Philosophy:

The Selfish Gene

The Moral Landscape

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?


Sex Psychology, Science, and Neurology:

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex

The Female Brain

The Male Brain

Why Men Want Sex and Women Need Love

What Do Women Want

Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)

Sex: The world's favorite pastime fully revealed


Behavioral Psychology and Abstract Economics:

How Pleasure Works

Freakonomics

Quiet: The Power of Introverts In A World That Can't Stop Talking

Thinking Fast And Slow

We Are All Weird


Developmental Psychology:

Nurture Shock

Hauntings: Dispelling The Ghosts That Run Our Lives


Empathy Building:


Half The Sky

The House On Mango Street

Me Before You

The Fault In Our Stars

Also check out James Hollis' Understanding The Psychology of Men lecture if you can find it.



Movies: XXY, Tom Boy, Dogtooth, Shame, Secretary, Nymphomaniac, Juno, Beautiful Creatures, and The Man From Earth.



All of these things are related, but it is up to you to make the connections; pick and choose which material suits your interests best. These are the things that came to mind first, and they have all influenced my perspectives.

i believe in libertarianism on a case by case basis, not as a dogmatic principle that must be followed.

For example, our foreign policy [should clearly be restrained] (http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-American/dp/0805075593)

[Affirmative action harms blacks] (http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-%C2%92s-Universities/dp/0465029965/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407799886&sr=1-1&keywords=mismatch)

Drug legalization would clearly not result in a society filled with addicts

Farm subsidies are useless and increase income inequality

Taxi licensing harms the poor

[Untolled highways make our country dependent on oil and harm those who cannot afford cars] (http://www.amazon.com/Asphalt-Nation-Automobile-Took-America/dp/0520216202/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407799997&sr=1-1&keywords=asphalt+nation)

[Student loans inflate college tuition] (http://www.amazon.com/Going-Broke-Degree-College-Costs/dp/0844741973)

And so on and so forth. Each government program should be attacked on its merits.

I was attracted to libertarianism because it challenged the assumption that every problem can be solved at the moment if we put enough effort. Poverty and greed are elements of the human condition that will always be present, not things that can be solved by legislation.


Most problems is this country nowadays (sprawl, high rents, unemployment, mass incarceration, student loan debt, income inequality) are either wholly caused or exacerbated by government.

Seconding those, and I'd also suggest William Rehnquist's history of the court. It's less of what you're looking for than the books VIJoe suggested, but it provides some interesting contexts and gives a clearer idea of the nitty-gritty of how the court works than most anything else. For obvious reasons, it doesn't cover much in the way of specific cases during his tenure on the court, and has a few problems with bias but it's an interesting read nonetheless. (If you want a good supplement for much of the Rehnquist era, Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine is an entertaining read that gives good context. Some of it should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's worth a glance.)

I haven't read it yet and can't speak to how well it fits the OP's criteria, but I hear very good things about John Paul Stevens's recently-published memoir.

If you want to go really in-depth and particularly technical with this sort of thing, I'd recommend picking up a few of the Examples & Explanations books that law students use as study aids. They're a hell of a lot more dry than any of these recommendations, and they'll include a wider range of cases than you're looking for, but you might find them interesting.

However, note that important legal cases that lead to serious revisions of legal principles are often more boring than painting grass and watching it dry as it grows.

Not really. The promotion of "health" is explicitly stated within the definition of police power. You should read Chemerinsky he'll really explain Con Law to you.

But that's interesting that you are making an appeal to morality considering that you are morally OK with the government murdering people so that you can have a few cents cheaper gas, but you're aren't OK with the government using its explicit powers of taxation and police powers to provide adequate healthcare to the public. I get that utilitarianism is perhaps too coldly rational for you, but that doesn't even comport to deontology. Even Kant would be like, "Na bruh, that doesn't make any sense". It sounds to me that you are trying to twist objectivism into a moral framework, but objectivism is rejected as infantile by basically all schools moral thought, and even beyond that objectivism is premised on "ethical egoism" the logical conclusion of which leads most kindly to amoralism, but in practice to immoralism. So it's hard to argue objectivism is a moral philosophy beyond the term "moral" being a catchall for all schools of thought that deal with the interactions between people.

Buy Erwin Chemerinsky's supplement and don't look back. I used it during law school and during bar prep.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Make sure he insists on a paternity test, no matter her threats or BS. It's a long shot in this case, but at least he'll know for sure if it's his.

Life often serves a shit sandwich and it looks like he's got 18 years of them inbound.

> This is making me reevaluate my stance on a lot of things...

For some meaty reading check out Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. 4.8 stars, and a used copy at your door for 15 bucks.

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature also sticks in my mind as an eye-opening tome.

Finally, Lex iniqua lex non est. "An unjust law is no law at all."

Your friend will be told many things, and many threats will be applied...he can choose to submit - or not.

We all have that choice.

Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Curmudgeons-Guide-Practicing-Law/dp/1590316762



>I don't have all the documents they asked me to bring.

What documents are these? It's Sunday. Why cant you go get them?

Seems to be a book. Would like to know where she got her numbers though.

E: link to purchase book for anyone interested: https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

Experience doesn't necessarily make him a great writer. Still, don't let him bring you down or demoralize you. Especially since you're trying to improve your writing. It sounds like a normal control thing; in my experience, lawyers rewrite things for no reason except that it's what they learned in law school or it's just what's worked for them in the past. And lawyers hate changing their writing style—since Bryan Garner's tips from TWB are the "new" style that most practicing lawyers don't really care for, he may disagree with some of it. Ask him for recommended reading and see what he says. (I had a similar experience and I can understand how it's incredibly frustrating.)

But in the short term:

1. Keep in mind that random briefs (on random topics) for one attorney during one summer don't reflect your entire writing ability. Nor is his judgment of your writing necessarily accurate. If you can, ask someone else (friend/atty not at the office) to look at a copy of an early draft that you think is good and see what they say.
   
   
2. Figure out however he wants you to write, in whatever format, and stick to it. Don't bother trying to change his mind. (Sounds obvious, I know, but the point is that you can write how he wants you to at work, and develop your own style on your own.)
   
   Long term, I recommend these for improving brief-writing skills:
   
   
3. The best book on brief writing is Winning on Appeal by Ruggero Aldisert--a fed app judge
   
   
4. For some of the best examples, read the Solicitor General's briefs that are all available online
   
   
5. I found the no-longer-secret Supreme Court Style Guide to be helpful and interesting
   
   
6. Also, not super helpful, but interesting is the OSG Citation Manual
   
   
7. Another good resource is The Art of Advocacy
   
   
8. And Plain English for Lawyers
   
   Good luck!

I am sorry I cannot help you more. But, just as a heads up the idea of "legal speak" is being pushed out of the legal industry. The book Plain English for Lawyers could help your writing potentially if that is something you are wanting to improve. Legal writing is less about using terms such as "henceforth, therefore, notwithstanding, etc." and more focused on being concise and clear in your writing. Best of luck to you.

Pamela Morgan on Inheritance Planning for Crypto-Assets

Relevant: https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116



Excellent book to help plan beyond just your own access to your hard hodl’d funds.

This might sound mean, but I'd recommend Paul Campos' book "Don't Go To Law School (Unless)". It really made me think about the decision I was making, why I wanted to go to back to school, etc - it's so easy to lose sight of that in the slog of the admissions process and in sifting through schools' various sales pitches.

this book has been helpful for a lot of people. Also, corporate and sports law are pretty competitive areas of interest. I’m sure someone else on here could offer you more advice/info on that area of law.

Friend. Before you ask an American woman to marry you, I strongly recommend that you sit in your county's Family Court hearing room. The hours are usually Monday through Wednesdays, 9a to 12p. It's also free. Sit up front to better hear the judge.

If you're brave, ask fathers in the hallway, 'How's it going?'

If you're disinclined to visit, read 'Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family' by Dr. Stephen Baskerville.

The fact is that you're just woefully uninformed. It positively oozes out of your comments. You would have to spend a few months just educating yourself on the issues, reading a few books, watching a few videos, poring over a few blogs, to get a grasp of what this is all about.

Honestly, trying to educate you in the comments of this self-post would be like teaching calculus to someone who doesn't know basic arithmetic. You just have to educate yourself.

I can give you some resources to start, but I can't make you read.

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448/

http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943/

http://www.amazon.com/Until-Proven-Innocent-Correctness-Injustices/dp/0312369123/

http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

> But the father was an adult

But the mother is an adult two. We have a system where, all too often, the mother gets all the decision power, while the father gets all of the court ordered financial responsibility. This simply isn't fair.

> And no one is going to be destitute paying child support, it's normally based on your income.

You would think this is true, and it would certainly make sense, but it simply isn't the case. It is a common practice to base not on income but on 'potential income' - often what is assessed is a huge part (>50%) of pre-tax income, sometimes it is actually more than the total income. (nevermind the horrid job market, 'potentially' you could be making more, so we'll base our judgement on that).

An example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/29/us/dead-broke-dads-child-support-struggle.html

"Nearly two-thirds of the poor fathers tracked by the study had child support orders that demanded more than half of their income."

This isn't really a man-woman issue; the fact is that our family court system is totally broken, commits outrageous abuses, and needs to be totally replaced.

But I suppose that's a different discussion.

I do suggest at least reading the reviews of the seminal 'Taken Into Custody,' to see what the other side has to say for itself.

http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/983292.Taken_Into_Custody

The idea of people losing privileges, being removed from the world permanently, etc. is a relatively recent idea. We should meet it with skepticism. I'm certainly not the first to propose this, and prison-default thinking is outdated.

Congrats!

Success in biglaw is so much more than doing great work. Find a partner in a strong practice area who can be your advocate at the firm. Seek out cases with him/her. Let him/her run interference with other partners who may not care if you burn out after one year. Also, learn how to say no to work. Hint: don't say "no."

Pick up a copy of The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law. It's an excellent book about firm life that contains a lot of invaluable advice for new lawyers.

Plain English for Lawyers is a great book and pushes us in the right direction. Not for simplicity's sake, but because being understood and persuasive require clear meaning.

I don't have a favorite, I have a long list of favorites. Listed below is a good starter selection. Lucifer's Hammer is the book that probably most directly led to the path I am on today. I have always liked science fiction and read it long before I would have ever called myself a prepper.


Fiction, to make you think:

• Lucifer's Hammer by Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven
  
• Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse by James Wesley, Rawles
  
• Lights Out by David Crawford
  
  Self Defense:
  
  
• Boston's Gun Bible by Boston T. Party (Kenneth W. Royce)
  
  Sustainable Living:
  
  
• The Encyclopedia of Country Living by Carla Emery
  
• Gardening When It Counts: Growing Food in Hard Times by Steve Solomon
  
• Ball Blue Book Guide to Preserving by Altrista Consumer Products
  
  Health and First Aid:
  
  
• Where There Is No Doctor by David Werner, Jane Maxwell and Carol Thuman
  
• First Aid -- Responding To Emergencies by the American Red Cross
  
  Free Your Mind:
  
  
• The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose
  

I really like Andreas antonopoulos’ The Internet of Money Series. I support him on patreon too and have learned a ton there. https://www.patreon.com/aantonop
Jimmy Song’s programming bitcoin just came out and is good!
I also used Pamela Morgan’s cryptoasset inheritance planning to make sure my crypto is secure and my family will get it if something happens to me.

For anybody who doesn't know who this is, but kind of remembers the voice, it's DDJ from Turd flinging monkey's channel. He's been doing mgtow content for a long time, just not on his own channel until recently. He wrote a book and you can pick it up here

https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality-ebook/dp/B071SG95CN

btw the author name is obviously a pen-name for anyone wondering.

They need to make this one into a film. https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality-ebook/dp/B071SG95CN/ref=pd_sim_351_3/141-3706200-7927236?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B071SG95CN&pd_rd_r=b94353c4-385a-11e9-8361-31a05a5f3960&pd_rd_w=XHIPa&pd_rd_wg=QMK8K&pf_rd_p=90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=3KZJPEC5AJ8E0YBC0QJF&psc=1&refRID=3KZJPEC5AJ8E0YBC0QJF

Does her book has any proofs or tales quoted out of context?


Attention whoring is the term we should for such writers.


If her book is good enough, with research, valid data, it will auto sell, without need of any media marketing.



People might be interested in this book:


http://www.amazon.in/Fighting-End-Pakistan-Armys-Way/dp/0199892709

Reminds me of "Half The Sky"

> The social contract is a book by Jean-Jaques Rousseau.

Holy fuck. Seriously? So whenever some humanist says to you "well we should move society forward because of the social contract" you thought they were talking about some book written a couple hundred years ago? Jesus, I'm sorry.

Maybe do some reading and catch up on what's happened in the past 250 years:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#H3

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408065363&sr=1-1&keywords=A+Theory+of+Justice

>Secular humanists believe we have a duty to help all humans improve their lives, correct?

Sure, but this in no way entails that human life has a purpose. That some moral claims are true doesn't alone entail that any teleological claims are true.

The question of desert is central to considerations on justice. Two easy places to get an introduction online are the SEP’s entry and the IEP’s entry.

If you’re looking for particular texts, as far as the contemporary liberal tradition is concerned I recommend the contrast you can find between Walzer’s Spheres of Justice and Rawls’ A Theory of Justice.

In short, for Walzer desert and distribution should be considered based on a plurality of standards which he refers to as complex equality. Thus, ideas such as the right to vote and health care, as distinctly different social goods, should not be considered under the same ideas of desert and distributed according to the same principles. Whereas, by most readings, Rawls takes the route of making desert largely (or completely) inapplicable to matters of distributive justice, which is an interesting and ongoing debate in political philosophy on just how, if at all, desert matters for Rawls.

(Edit for type-o’s.)

The LSAT is carefully designed to determine which minds can succeed in law school. Start by taking a timed full exam on your own at home (it's called a "diagnostic") and seeing how well you do. Follow these two links...
https://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0998339784/
/r/LSAT
...And check the admitted applicant profiles for the universities you're interested in.

Dude, your clown nation of Islamic republic of Pakistan fosters a zoo of radical islamic terrorists and exports them to all countries in the region and beyond.

To understand how fucked up your clown of an army please read Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War.

If your clown army has been fighting them for 12 years, as you claim, they must really be incompetent. Why the fuck are they fight then for 12 long years? You cant have it both ways. You cant say you are fighting them and then claim plausibl denaibility. Some one in your fucked up country is giving them safe haven. Just like OBL, just like MO.

People of Pakistan are being taken a wild ride by the pakistan elite/army and the religious Islamic nut bags are just fuel on the fucking fire. Wake the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the book Half the Sky and then the subsequent documentaries are what really brought the issue to the forefront of serious women's issues that need to be addressed. Because it's essentially been eliminated in America, not to mention the obvious taboo of talking openly about vaginal tearing and leaking feces through the vagina, it's an issue that a majority of people are completely unfamiliar with. I've even seen several TIL's about it in terms of how gross it is and the comments on the posts would belong in /r/imgoingtohellforthis if they had any idea just how deadly, miserable, and prevalent this condition really is.

Louis CK also donated profits from his self-funded album to the Fistula Foundation, bringing even more awareness.

As others have said, tertiary education is already over-subsidized and that has lead to a price inflation. Individuals make more reasonable and well reasoned decisions when it comes to educational choices when they have to face the costs of those choices. The labor market earnings premium for high-education in the US is high enough to establish a lending market.

The US already have the most progressive taxation system in the world. Those high-income households pay for most of the government funding and at a higher proportion than in other developed countries. If the fiscal system isn't more progressive overall is because most of the funding is then spent in subsidizing the middle class, especially old people. Your proposal would just add to that, except it'd benefit the grandchildren. Not everybody goes to university; and those who go tend to come from better-off families and they'll reap immense individual benefits - hence they should pay for it.

The worst part of your proposal is the cap though. Have you heard about what's happening in Venezuela with the toilet paper shortage? That's what would happen with high-level superior education in the US if you institute a price control system. The US universities are the envy of the world (unlike, by the way, the almost fully subsidized and "free" primary and secondary schools), no good reason to put an end to that.

I don't agree with a standardized admissions system. Universities are diverse -in size, selectivity, pedagogic methods and mission- and they know better than anyone what are the better predictors of academic success for their own students.

Still, my comment isn't totally negative: I fully agree with ending affirmative action. Not because of fairness concerns, but simply because it isn't working and it hurts minorities more than it helps. In a perfect world, this book -Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It - would be a bestseller.

> Tell me whether you agree, the changes you'd make to the plan, or how these are the naive, unrealistic ideas of a young OWS poo-flinger.

Not sure if they're naive, but they're dangerous and counterproductive to your stated goals.

Where the government resources should be applied is to make sure that poverty doesn't stop people from going to university. Income-contingent loans and scholarships. And, essentially, strengthening pre-university education. That's the real drama: many schools in poorer areas completely fail to bring their students to university entrance standard. Those who get there via affirmative action, end up dropping out to less demanding majors (and less rewarding in the professional market, inhibiting their upwards social mobility) or entirely out of college. If you're worried with social mobility, keep in mind that the US problem is the mostly the upward social mobility from the lowest quintile. Your plan would do nothing to help that youth, especially when standardized tests have such a high correlation with family background and high-school education. If you truly want to help the poor, subsidizing those who currently aren't even in conditions of going to university is better than subsidizing the tuition fees of those of better-off backgrounds who already do.

At the outset, please note that this topic is exceedingly slippery. I am convinced that the most efficient way to understand these issues is through the study of philosophy of ethics.

> Where do atheists get their [sense of] morality?

Nature, nurture, and the phenomenological self-model.

> What defines the "good" and "bad" that has
permeated much of human society?

Easy: notice that personal definitions of morality between individuals immersed in the same culture tend to strongly overlap (e.g., most moderns consider rape to be "bad").

From this considerable volume of data, it is fairly simple to construct principles that adequately generalize these working definitions, such as "promote happiness", and "mitigate pain".

> [If you're not caught, why not murder? Why donate to charity? Does might make right?]

These questions appear to have both practical and intuitive solutions.

What are you trying to understand?

> How do atheists tend to reconcile moral relativism?

What do you mean?

> Barring the above deconstructions, how do atheists account for morality?

Moral theories largely attempt to bridge the gap between descriptive facts and normative commands:

• Kant argued that norms are not discovered via our senses, but are simply axiomatic principles.
  
• Rawls argued that norms are the product of a hypothetical agreement in which all ideally rational humans would affirm certain values (Social Contract) if they didn't know their fate in advance (Veil Of Ignorance).
  
• Mill argued that norms are best expressed through the need to increase pleasure and decrease pain.
  
• Parfit argued that these three approaches don't really contradict one another.
  
• Nietzsche argued that norms and artistic tastes are the same.
  
• Mackie argued that norms are human inventions that include social welfare considerations.
  
  

I'm actually a minarchist who believes in a particular kind of restricted natural duty theory of social contract (Kant's justification for the state), but I was an ancap for a long time so I think I can give a good crack at an ancap answer.

>The social contract doesn't exist as a single legal document that one writes up and then signs, to be stored away for future reference.

As you say, the social contract is very clearly not a single historical event which establishes consent. However, this is one very common way of arguing for a particular kind of social contract (in particular, it's a common libertarian way of arguing for a social contract), so it's not as if ancaps are just strawmanning the position.

The general problem seems to be establishing:

(1) what the contract actually is

(2) how it's established

If the social contract is supposed to operate like any other contract, so that you 'consent' to the terms of the contract by an actual act of consent, then there are some pretty clear problems. For one thing, it's hard to identify what specific actions constitute consent - and, if you didn't perform those actions, would that constitute non-consent? For instance, if using government roads means that you consent to the government, then does not using those roads mean you don't consent? Second, it seems like the only way that a lot of these conditions for consent can "get going" in the first place is through something you did not consent to - for instance, in order for the government to begin to provide services for the "first citizens" who benefited from those services, the government probably coerced those citizens to make that provision possible (for example, by taxing them, or by preventing competing organizations from providing the same services). This is most clearly the case with law/security/defense.

For example, if the US government commanded the obedience of native Americans because they were "residing on US government land", this wouldn't be legitimate, because the only reason the US government "owns" that land is by conquering and subjugating the non-consenting Indians; so the conditions for consent depend on a coercive act, which invalidates the state's claim to those conditions.

This general approach to social contract theory, which establishes some way of providing actual consent, is called a transactional consent theory - the idea is that people have certain moral rights in a vacuum, but that that transact or transfer those rights to the state by an act of consent. There are other credible approaches to justification of a social contract, but I think it's pretty clear that the transactional model (which most libertarians criticize) is not one of them. It ends up boiling down to "you relate to the government by X, which means you consent", and libertarians saying (probably correctly) that "the only reason X exists is because the government coerced me prior to establishing X!"

> It exists as a state of relationships between people, communities and societies. We observe it's natural convention at work when we interact with our friends as opposed to strangers, family members as opposed to foreigners, and as one nation in contrast with other nations.

This is a more 'associative' theory of political obligation - the idea is that, because you exist in some unchosen association with other people, this establishes some sort of collective obligation for people due to this association. But it seems like the problem with this theory is that, absent some more ethical work to flesh it out, it's only begging the question: we have a political obligation to people based on X association (family, clan, race, nation, humanity, etc.) because... why, exactly? It seems like the answer is just "because of the association" (we can talk about all the details of that association - the fact that you share certain characteristics or have a shared history, or because you tend to cooperate together, or something else), but, again, it seems like it builds the conclusion ("unchosen associations imply obligations") into the premise.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that, because I think it is possible to mount a compelling defense of an associative theory of political obligation (it's actually a theory associated more strongly with conservative political philosophy - although your flair says you're a socialist, the best sources for this sort of theory are, imo, Aristotle and Edmund Burke). But it's not very compelling for most people today, because people today generally think that consent is a morally important factor for the sort of stuff that the state does, and the social contract is supposed to show us that consent actually exists. This associative theory might establish that we have a duty to obey the law and the state has a right to command us, but it doesn't establish that this relationship is consensual (for the theorists I have in mind who advocate this theory, however, consent simply isn't important for establishing political authority or obligation).

>In any country you live in, certain rights are accorded to you as a citizen that aren't available to other people who aren't.

First, ancaps will disagree with this characterization of rights. Ancaps think (and I do too, even though I'm not an ancap) that rights are logically and historically prior to the state: even if there exists no state, you have certain rights, and these rights don't depend on their being secured to be morally important (for instance, even if you have no way of defending yourself and you live in a stateless island, it would still be a violation of your rights for someone else to kill you).

Second, it's unclear what the sort of positive rights you're talking about have to do with the social contract without at least some further explanation. The mere fact that you are given special privileges doesn't seem to imply that your relationship with the person who grants those privileges is consensual - for instance, you might be accorded rights to water use against your neighbors (so that your neighbors can't use some water, but you can) because of a local warlord who prefers you to your neighbors. But this doesn't mean that everything else the warlord does to you is consensual; all it means is that he's nicer to you than everyone else.

>When someone talks about the social contract, this is simply what they're referring to (1).

Yes, yes, we all know who John Rawls is. However, the defense of social contract theory which you've provided is actually not much like John Rawls's theory of justice at all. If you're going to condescendingly posture yourself as better educated than we stupid libertarians, at least be better educated.

>Claiming that you're not part of a larger social system because nobody presented you with a piece of paper is just a straw man argument, you understand it in your public and private behavior every day.

See: all above.

At least for Anarchists or other left-libertarians it should also be important to actually read up on some basic or even fundamental ethical texts given most political views and arguments are fundamentally rooted in morality (unless you're a orthodox Marxist or Monarchist). I'm sadly not familiar enough with applied ethics to link collections of arguments for specific ethical problems, but it's very important to know what broad system you're using to evaluate what's right or wrong to not contradict yourself.

At least a few very old texts will also be available for free somewhere on the internet like The Anarchist Library.

Some good intro books:

• The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau
  
• The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James and Stuart Rachels
  
• Ethics: A Very Short Introduction by Simon Blackburn
  
  Some foundational texts and contemporary authors of every main view within normative ethics:
  
  
• Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotles for Classic Virtue-Ethics. Martha Nussbaum would be a contemporary left-wing Virtue-Ethicist who has used Marx account of alienation to argue for Global Justice.
  
• Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel (or Emmanuel) Kant for Classic Deontology. Kantianism is a popular system to argue for anti-statism I believe even though Kant himself was a classical liberal. Christine Korsgaard would be an example of a contemporary Kantian.
  
• The Methods of Ethics by Henry Sidgwick for Classic Utilitarianism. People usually recommend Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, but most contemporary Ethicists believe his arguments for Utilitarianism suck. 2 other important writers have been R. M. Hare and G. E. Moore with very unique deviations from classic Utilitarianism. A contemporary writer would be Peter Singer. Utilitarianism is sometimes seemingly leading people away from Socialism, but this isn't necessarily the case.
  
• Between Facts and Norms and other works by the contemporary Critical Theorist Jürgen Habermas may be particularly interesting to Neo-Marxists.
  
• A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. I know Rawls is a famous liberal, but his work can still be interpreted to support further left Ideologies. In his later works like Justice as Fairness: A Restatement you can see him tending closer to Democratic Socialism.
  
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche for... Nietzsche's very odd type of Egoism. His ethical work was especially influential to Anarchists such as Max Stirner, Emma Goldman or Murray Bookchin and also Accelerationists like Jean Baudrillard.
  
• In case you think moralism and ethics is just bourgeois propaganda maybe read something on subjectivism like Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong by J. L. Mackie
  
• Or if you want to hear a strong defense of objective morality read Moral Realism: A Defense by Russ Shafer-Landau orc

Three books I'd suggest, in the order I'd read them:

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek

Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

Outside the libertarian canon, Rousseau's On the Social Contract and Rawls' A Theory of Justice should be on everyone's reading list. Rawls and Nozick are probably the two most influential political philosophers of the late 20th century and understanding their arguments about the justification of property rights and the original position are the ABCs of modern political debate.

Well, I would highly recommend renting some textbooks on American politics, American political history, and American political theory. Perhaps start here and work your way up: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-American-Politics-Samuel-Kernell/dp/1568028911

If you find textbooks too dull, then here is a good list of books to get you started:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Federalist-Anti-Federalist-Papers/dp/1495446697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453181599&sr=1-1&keywords=federalist+and+anti-federalist+papers

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Penguin-Classics-Tocqueville/dp/0140447601

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Inside-Secret-Supreme/dp/1400096790

http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Electoral-Connection-Second-Edition/dp/0300105878

http://www.amazon.com/What-Should-Know-About-Politics/dp/1611452996

http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-between-Education-Technology/dp/0674035305

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491534656

*If you actually take the time to read these, you will be better informed than 99 percent of the voting public. <-- And after you read these, that sentence will terrify you because you will realize each of these books is just an introduction, and the world is being run by technocrats. JK, but not really.

Edit: But really.

Chereminsky's Con Law supplement.

It will explain the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the Constitutional amendments excluding amendments 4 and 6 as those are covered in Con Crim Pro. It will talk about the 5th Amendment however which covers the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. But it just explains the law and how the courts apply it, it will not teach you how to think like a lawyer. It will just demystify the confusion regarding Constitutional law and you would have to apply the current facts from the situation at hand to figure things out on your own.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527540913&sr=1-1&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law

The Chemerinsky is excellent and very readable. Highly recommend.

Consider this:

• A lot of people take the LSAT unprepared, bomb, and retake. This drives down the average.
  
• The sample of people who subscribe to a forum is unusual, and is skewed towards high scorers.
  
• Within that sample, the people who post are even more unusual. Hundreds of people visit this site every day. Only a handful post.
  
• People who post are more likely to be happy about their score.
  
  I expect scores reported here are largely accurate, for those reasons. Maybe that's not true, but it's at least plausible.
  
  As for your other points. I strongly, strongly, strongly suggest you read this book:
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity/dp/1480163686/
  
  You sound like you view getting into law school as the goal. It's not. The goal is to get into a law school that will make your life better, not worse.
  
  I'd say at least 30-50% of those entering law school this year are destroying their lives. Maybe another third are improving their lives. I wish that weren't true, and that's why I'm giving you this information.
  
  We're in a weird, weird time for law school right now. Tuition is high, very high, yet the job market is down. Law school used to be a good automatic bet. It isn't anymore.
  
  Don't do it just because you feel your life sucks now. It'll suck worse with $160,000 debt and no salary to pay it off.
  
  Why am I saying this? Because I'm a big meanie who hates LSAT students?
  
  No! I make my living from LSAT students. I need to warn about this stuff. I can't just send people off to the slaughter, make money, and pretend nothing is wrong.
  
  In 3-10 years, I expect a bunch of these schools to close. Tuitions will fall. People will get the message that law school wasn't what it used to be. And things will adjust, I hope. But for now, I warn.
  
  p.s. Consider the very real risk that if you go in to a school that takes low scores, that school will not exist a couple years after you graduate. This Boston Globe articles describes several schools on the verge of closing:
  
  http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/05/law-school-enrollment-fails-rebound-after-recession-local-colleges-make-cuts/fR7dYqwBsrOeXPbS9ibqtN/story.html
  
  
  ---------------------
  
  I wanted to emphasize that I'm not saying this to be mean. I've had LSAT student cry in front of me. I know how hard it is.
  
  And I've been poor. I know what that's like too.
  
  But what I'm saying is....none of that means you should go to law school. There are always other options. And there are some options, some schools, not worth considering.

Definitely figure what the day-to-day is like for professionals in the field you want to enter.

As for law school itself, I recommend Campos' 'Don't Go To Law School (Unless)' and Top-Law-Schools forum.

Reminder: the law school industry preys upon people who make decisions hastily and suck at data analysis. Do your research before you commit $200k and three years of foregone wages.

Then go to neither. Read this book http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity/dp/1480163686/ref=sr_1_1, retake the LSAT and get a 170, apply earlier in the cycle, then maybe MAYBE go to one of those schools, if they offer you money and you feel great about it.

A great book to read concerning the family courts is "Taken Into Custody" by Stephen Baskerville. He is widely regarded as an authority on the toppic.

https://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943

Aslo, you may want to reach out to these guys. They are a great resource.

https://nationalparentsorganization.org

Good luch and knock em dead. I love it when students come here.

His name is misspelled in wikipedia, his name is Wilbur Streett you might find this useful:

http://www.ncpforce.com/avenger.html#wstreet

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/11/series-tortured-for-child-support-arrears-12/

And he is mentioned briefly in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943

EDIT: There doesn't seem to be any official records online so you might want to request some yourself, read about it here http://www.co.middlesex.nj.us/publicrecords.asp

EDIT 2: There seem to be some videos on youtube so just search his name and they might be of help.

Prison "reform" is an oxymoron. This article doesn't describe ANY of the measures Webb will supposedly introduce. The point is that modern prisons have served an important purpose since the 1960s --- when economic crises and lobbying forced the government to drastically reduce/abandon corporate taxation, there was no longer a tax base for Great Society and New Deal programs used to support/co-opt marginalized impoverished groups like minority single mothers. Historically, however, these groups are prone to cause problems and revolt, and this also became an issue in the 1960s (the Watts riots were the first BLACK-instigated race riot). So what does the United States do with its surplus humans? This increasingly becomes a problem as globalization forces jobs oversees and creates more people with no place in US society? Solution: Lock em up --- you can even boost local economies with prison-building contracts and by hiring guards and other contractors. Two birds with one stone! The US will never seriously tackle the prison issue. I believe in prison abolitionism --- incarceration has NOT always been the way society has dealt with marginalized groups and 'criminals'... Prison abolitionism is about finding alternatives (better education, [mental] healthcare, decriminalization of drugs) to vastly reduce the number of incarcerated and actually challenge the government and corporate interests that make up what many call the contemporary 'prison industrial complex.'

For a great summary of the critique of the contemporary US prison system and an outline of prison abolitionism, check out Angela Davis' 100-page "Are Prisons Obsolete?"
http://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolete-Angela-Davis/dp/1583225811/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230610533&sr=8-1

Are Prisons Obsolete? by Angela Davis. Good place to get a start and to get a great source.

Can't go wrong with Foucoult either.

The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
http://www.amazon.com/The-Curmudgeons-Guide-Practicing-Law/dp/1590316762

You might want to read Boston's Gun Bible for some great info and comparisons on battle rifles- particularly addressing the differences between the FAL and the M1A.

Also, pare off a bit of your budget for a Marlin 795 or Ruger 10/22 so you can actually get down your rifle technique before going .30cal.

DON'T PUT YOUR PIN ONLINE! NEVER
https://youtu.be/W3XADagE6P8

Splitting half is really a bad idea. The chance that you loosing one is high risk. If a robbery occur hackers can brute force the rest of the words in weeks.

Keep your words in a bank account is the worst. They can get seized and stolen. Not your keys not your money. And you just give them away. Keep your seed safe in multiple places.
https://medium.com/@lopp/metal-bitcoin-seed-storage-stress-test-part-ii-d309e04aefeb

Read and execute Crypto inheritance planing. https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116

There is a book, "Cryptoasset Inheritance Planning", by Pamela Morgan.

https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116

You have to take into account both the security issues AND the legal issues. Whether you like it or not, your government's inheritance laws will affect how you pass on your assets.

If you have any substantial amount of crypto, you should discuss estate planning with an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

What you're talking about is a really huge decision. I would recommend thinking about your motivation for going to law school and if its worth taking on all the potential debt. Give this book (https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6) a read before quitting your full time job and moving away from your serious gf.

Take a diagnostic test under timed conditions and figure out where you're starting from. If you have to apply this cycle and want to get into the top law schools--I would say, yes, quit your job and study full time if your goal is 170+.

More people should read this book before even taking the LSAT. Would save a lot of heartache to a lot of people.

I don't hate SJWs. I think they are stupid, and use their philosophy and their support group to justify doing some really nasty shit, convinced that they are right. But I don't hate them. I judge individuals by their words and actions. If I meet a SJW that can't even defend (or often define) the positions they take, then I think they are an ignorant idiot. When I meet someone who tries to justify judging all people of a group together, and then claim that it isn't racism (or my favorite; racism is good) then I will judge that individual to be an ignorant bigot.

All social "privilege" is contextual. All of it. Be a white guy in Sudan, and see how much advantage it gets you.

Even more relevant, SJWs do not want to discuss the privileges that matter most. Which are money and a good family. In any situation, being raised by an educated family and having a trust fund is worth more privilege points than the colour of your skin.

As for the historical treatment of women? I think that you are getting the wrong end of the stick there. Women were never property in a way that men were not. Not in any English speaking nation. Not in Europe, at large.

You had serfs, but they were not chattel, and men were serfs too. There were chattel slaves but, again, as many men were enslaved as women.

If you actually want to learn something of the history you could watch this video.

If you want a short book to read with exhaustive citations you could read this book.

Or, you know, you could continue to excuse people who hate men for being born men. Whatever makes you happy.

Get yourself a copy of the book The Feminist Lie, which is written specifically to counter feminist talking points with an exhaustive number of citations.

I’m assuming it’s Don’t Go To Law School (Unless). https://www.amazon.com/dp/1480163686/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_RbzpDb9EJA3TQ

Don't Go to Law School Unless

Because she's the breadwinner. That's all it's really about. However, the problem is lots of courts treat the case as though dad is the primary breadwinner.

You should read the book Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville. It goes into great detail how fucked up family courts are and how states getting federal money for CS collections is gargantuan conflict of interest. It's in the state's best interest to not grant custody arrangements that would result in little or no child support, so you've got a system that's greasing it's own pockets by busting up families and systemically placing children with the lower earing parent. Historically the lower earning parent was the mother, but it's not always the case.

> Although marriage rates have dropped among young adults, it is important to note that most young adults will go on to marry later in life. T

The marriage rate is declining in the USA and other Western countries. You knew that. But what exactly does that mean? Men and women are still marrying. Marriage will continue, won’t it? Let’s take a look at the data for the USA.

The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia publishes an annual report titled The State Of Our Unions which includes data on US marriage rates since 1960. From 1970 through 2008, the US marriage rate has declined from 76.5 to 37.4 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women — see the chart below:

It’s immediately obvious that the decline of marriage can be divided into two distinct periods. From 1968 through 1977, as the seismic shocks of the sexual revolution and the Vietnam war rolled through our society, the marriage rate tumbled from 79.1 to 63.6. Then from 1980 on, the marriage rate settled into a steady decline to arrive at 37.4 in 2008.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/08/the-end-of-marriage-2/

> No Fault Divorce - why is this a strike against marriage?

The reason marriage doesn’t exist is relatively simple; it’s not a contract so it is thereby nothing. The talk of marriage being a “covenant” or something “divinely ordained” is all well and good on a relational or even spiritual level, but on a legal and political level, it’s nothing more than a contract; A contract that binds two people together, ostensibly for the purposes of raising a family.

Legally speaking, contracts–as all contract law states–must hold both parties accountable to the stipulations of that contract. So if one party violates the contract, the contract is now void and the other party can sue for remittance. If the two parties agree to a dissolution and the terms of that dissolution voluntarily, then so be it. But what cannot happen is for one party to break the contract for no reason and be rewarded for it by the other party. To call such a thing a contract is to commit a vicious act of violence against the English language itself.

And here’s where “marriage,” as practiced today, fails miserably. Today we have a regime of unilateral or “no fault” divorce. One party (usually the woman) can divorce their spouse for no reason and be rewarded for it with the kids, the house, child support and perhaps even alimony. Fortunately for the man being divorced, the courts are usually gracious enough to let him keep the mortgage.

I can think of no better resource on the American family courts than Stephen Baskerville’s book Taken into Custody. He documents how fathers (and occasionally mothers) are routinely separated from their children, forced to pay exorbitant sums of child support, forced to pay for attorney’s, psychotherapists and social workers they have not hired, jailed without trial for being poor (the modern resurrection of debtor’s prisons), prohibited from publicly discussing the trial and an assortment of other outrages.

This process was not agreed upon up front as a method of arbitration, nor is there a stipulation in a marriage contract for it. Indeed, who in their right mind would sign a contract if it was explicit and honest about how the divorce process would go down? Instead, the extraordinarily corrupt family courts do whatever they want through simple fiat.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/07/08/marriage-no-longer-exists/

> Adultery should be a CRIMINAL offence? You really want to make, at the very minimum,

No, but it should be a serious breach of marriage, when someone commits adultery, and not treated as a non-issue in case of divorce as is happening a lot with no-fault divorce.

> Alimony - in exchange for money, you want the other party to furnish sex. This is prostitution and is illegal in most states.

No, what needs to end is unreasonably high alimony payments to an ex.

> Paternity fraud - kids see you as their father if you act as their father. So what if later you find out you didn't furnish the actual sperm?

No, when a man is tricked into raising children that are not biologically his, the psychological impacts can be disastrous, and that is not what he signed up or agreed to do unless she told him upfront.

Currently, women are not required to tell a man that he is not the only possible father of a child. This has creted a large problem, where men nation wide are being duped in to accepting responsibility for a child they may not otherwise taken responsibility for.

It's estimated that tens of thousands of British men are raising children that they believe to be their own, but aren't!

The lack of Paternity Fraud legislation is devastating not only to the fathers wrongly named but also to the lives of all children within a family where this horrendous deception is allowed to occur.

Angela Davis wrote a really interesting book on this Are Prisons Obsolete. Lots of discussion punishment vs. rehab and how the current system came about essentially to continue to oppress people and ignore the social systems that cause crime.

Her autobiography on how she was on the run from the FBI for her connection to the killing of a judge and her prison experience is also a really good read.

One theory is that we should get rid of prisons altogether.

http://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolete-Angela-Davis/dp/1583225811

My opinion is that improvements to the prison system will come from improvements to our legal system. End the drug war and reduce sentencing for non-violent, non-fraudulent offenses. When there are fewer prisoners, our penitentiaries will be better off.

Also, in terms of policy, disenfranchising those who serve time only ensures that the people who experience prison will not be able to give feedback on it. Everyone deserves the right to vote, no matter what they've done.

Secondly, prisons should not be run by private companies. Imprisoning people should not be profitable. If the state wants to enact policies that require the imprisonment of its citizens, then it should be prepared to handle the cost of doling out that punishment. Then maybe laws would more accurately reflect the reasonableness of sentences to their crimes.

OP, I just did a timed preptest with a 173 yesterday that has been falling into a larger trend, so I'm feeling the fire and if you don't mind I'll share some of my experiences to help you. Because frankly, it's a rough world out there and we need to help each other.

1. I was going to take the test in June, but the week before the test I was only hovering low 160s. I withdrew and am applying for October, since then my average has steadily increased at a linear rate. If the week before the test you are unsure, I heartily recommend that you withdraw and redouble efforts for the next test.
   
   
2. I now keep an Excel sheet where I keep my score, raw score, and fractional breakdown of each section and a running tally of my average. The far right column I list weaknesses that kept me from doing my best on that particular score, both in terms of the test itself but also in terms of the context I took the test (for example, I have personally found that being strung out on caffeine results in a far worse drop in score than simply having not enough sleep). I strongly believe that my diligent efforts to record my progress has been responsible for my sharp increase in scores recently.
   
   
3. I have done both the PithyPike method and also simply drilling tests sequentially. I think PithyPike is a great method for a foundation to the LSAT, but the drilling of tests has been best for me. YMMV.
   
   
4. I personally think the LSAT does just test you on the LSAT, but that is really irrelevant to how you should deal with it. The reason why is it's also the biggest predictor of your career in law (out of the LSAT, your law school, or the bar exam). You really shouldn't coast at any point on your path to this career, but you simply cannot afford to coast on the LSAT or you will hamstring your career before you even start.
   
   
5. I don't know if you've ever worked a corporate job before (I have), but to just about anyone fresh out of college and hasn't had that experience, they suck and they are by nature very competitive no matter what industry you are in. I thrive on that and don't mind hard work and long hours. If you can't swing an assistant/paralegal position because you live in the middle of nowhere, then a read of The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law can be helpful as a substitute to figuring out what life in law is like.
   
   In short, you probably need to go big or go home in this field, unless you get a non-conditional free ride somewhere. Johnnymd is right, though, at this stage for you your GPA is way more important than your LSAT, because the window for altering your GPA is much smaller than your LSAT, which you can do anytime.

What's a "trumpkin excuse"?

Anyways, educate yourself, it doesn't require a fancy degree and $200k in student loans debt:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/test-9

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/26/black-suspects-more-likely-to-be-shot-by-black-cop/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a-massive-new-study-on-police-shootings-of-whites-and-blacks-is-so-controversial/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-black-americans-killed-by-police/

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481293424&sr=1-1&keywords=heather+macdonald+war+on+cops

> I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious, but aren't we supposed to be a little pretentious as lawyers? Isn't that just assumed with the territory?

No, use plain english as much as possible, unless a term of art is unavoidable. Didn't they cover this in your legal writing class?

Check out Plain English for Lawyers by Richard C. Wydick.

THIS helped me tremendously. It's super short and super useful. I recommend it.

Two books I can suggest:

1. Wydick, Plain English for Lawyers
   
2. Kuney & Looper, Mastering Legal Analysis and Drafting

Cryptoasset Inheritance Planning: A Simple Guide for Owners https://smile.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116/

https://btc-help.lima-city.de/inheritance/index.html

also

https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116

also

> to lose, verb.

> loose, adj.

Thanks a lot, much appreciated.

https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116

On this point, I highly recommend Don't Go To Law School (Unless). It's not a fun read for those planning on law school, but I think reading it with an open mind is important.

Archives for this post:

• Link: 1 (twitter.com): http://archive.fo/uR9MW
  
  ----
  Archives for links in comments:
  
  
• By ARealLibertarian (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.fo/zS0hq
  
• By TacticusThrowaway (kukuruyo.com): http://archive.fo/Rt0Nx
  
• By ScatterYouMonsters (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.fo/zoxpK
  
• By ScatterYouMonsters (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.fo/J5vZt
  
• By YetAnotherCommenter (avoiceformen.com): http://archive.fo/BcaRL
  
• By Brimshae (reddit.com): http://archive.fo/RnwT2
  
• By ScatterYouMonsters (nwhp.org): http://archive.fo/PeJp6
  
• By TopBloke99 (en.m.wikipedia.org): http://archive.fo/UjBVg
  
• By TopBloke99 (amazon.com): http://archive.fo/iMnw5
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.1, I can't be reasoned with, I can't be bargained with. I don't feel pity of remorse or fear and I absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until unethical news is dead. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality-ebook/dp/B071SG95CN
didn't take gamergate, the consequences of feminism alone push people to make the case against them.
The consequences of feminism becoming toxic are readily apparent all around us. From mattress girl to the barren feminist women of merkels europe opening the door to invasion for rather sick reasons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXrjaOLqH2g
Its become a problem impossible to ignore, its no longer just annoying, its becoming destructive to western civilization.

https://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446

>>terrorists living in Pakistan who came from Afghanistan caused the attack

Number of sources of your claim is NULL.


Keep believing your ignorant propaganda fed to you


>>Kashmir is a very complex issue Pakistan army is wrong in using terrorists but both countries claim the territory to be theirs.

HAVE YOU READ THE UN RESOLUTION, ALL THE CAUSES ?

Not even a SINGLE PAKISTANI HAS EVEN READ THE UN RESOLUTION AND ALL THE THREE CLAUSES OF IT, OF 1948.


Kashmir is not a Issue, There is no BOTH, It is India.



period, nobody has any right on Kashmir expect India



--
This is what the Pakistani Propaganda is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aoYNQrOOu0


Full video link below.
--





Here is something to counter Pakistani Propaganda about the fictions lies floating around in Pakistani Minds.



Pakistan begged the USA for it's intervention into Afghanistan in the pretext of Indian incursion.


Most pakistani claim that, the USA's war is has left Pakistan as a victim, but that is far from truth, Pakistan Begged the USA in 1970.



Glad that It will Clear something up.

You see Pakistan Is not a country and it's people are dumb and brainwashed, not few, but all of them, by the army.


It is a feedback loop, first they brain wash and then they act to justify their actions.

Hence Pakistani people will remain dumb and brain washed by army run schools.

https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-End-Pakistan-Armys-Way/dp/0199892709/175-6009192-9167659?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3DIOjTmX0M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjnrETPDuls

Wow. Thank you for the recommendation.
Link to book for anyone else interested: http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-End-The-Pakistan-Armys/dp/0199892709

Half the Sky

Full Frontal Feminism

Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn.

This one. It's quite a bit more of a political philosophy book than an ethical one, so if he wrote more about ethics, I think it's elsewhere. This is probably most famous for his justification for income redistribution.

> In the US, police often lock people up for minor drug crimes. They also are in the habit of confiscating money without warrant - its called 'asset forfeiture' (google it, it sucks).

> These things are funded through tax dollars, presumably as a part of the 'social contract'. If this were a free market, very few people would be willing to pay for incarceration for minor drug crimes. Neither would they pay for 'asset forfeiture' services. This is only possible with a monopoly on violence and only justifiable through the 'social contract'.

We already agree on that, and so my choice as a citizen is to do something about it. Moreover, the only reason you or I have a right to complain in any sense is because we're able to appeal to violations and double standards in the moral norms of our society. Without it, the only thing that would make anything permissible or not is whether or not you're able to get away with it.

> Presumably we elected some people at some point that thought these things were a good idea, but surely a vote doesn't justify either of these bad behaviors. Therefore, the social contract is also insufficient as justification.

To the extent we vote for representatives, we hope to get what we vote for. The social contract doesn't imply justifications for bad behavior (which is why we can point to violations of them, and do, as you just did). If you want more insights and examples of the logic we're discussing you can read more into it (1, 2).

ttk a lot of what you wrote kind of circles around John Rawls' concept of the Veil of Ignorance as a methodology for determining what's "fair." Specifically the part about things seeming fair or unfair depending one whether you're a vault-builder or a vault-breaker. The Veil of Ignorance approach would mean you design the rules assuming nothing about which position or role you would assume in the outcome, and for maximum fairness assume yourself to be the least-advantaged. That's what you essentially did with the griefer scenario.

>Had a quote from the article here but autowikibot made it redundant

Read some Rawls, homey. You seem largely on-board with parts of his outlook already and it might interest you to read the most-cited formulation of it.

• Frederic Bastiat's Economic Sophisms
  
  
• John Stuart Mill's On Liberty
  
  
• Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent or On Anarchism
  
  
• John Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Justice as Fairness: A Restatement
  
  
• Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Hell yeah brother. Rising 2L here. Started practice tests getting a 145, first real test 155 and second test 161

Different people will tell you different things. Some people work well with courses others with tutors others with books. Taking a logic course in college helped me study as well.

The advice I was given: take as many practice tests as possible. Like 25 is where you become the most effective. By 25 tests you get the lay of the land and the question types and can anticipate patterns.

Links for books with past test here

10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests Volume VI: (PrepTests 72–81) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0998339784/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_rNH7CbS8G3Q30

I found the LSAT powerscore study bible also helpful brand of books. Link to those here

The PowerScore LSAT Bible Trilogy https://www.amazon.com/dp/0990893405/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_.NH7CbKEDHM6J

Finally, where you can always improve your score the most is the game section. BEFORE you take any practice test, make 4 of 5 copies of the games section of the test. Do a Timed cold run through. Then once you are finished, go through it. Go on the site 7 sage, they are good for games and other things, also have a good YouTube channel (link below). Watch how he does it, then try it again. Fail and then watch him again and try on another copy. Get them wrong and then try again. Do this until you can go through and get everyone right. By doing it multiple times you get the games down pact and can move through them Quickly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gorK9SLc2as

Good luck kid. I found the LSAT immensely frustrating. You eventually hit a wall where improvement becomes difficult. Keep grinding and you will get there. PM how you do, and where you end up going

r/lawschooladmissions is cool group but veryyy discouraging tbh. Take your time be confident but apply yourself. Good luck

Thanks! Honestly I practiced exclusively for the logic games section. I gave up on studying for the other sections within a week of buying my first practice book - just drill them like you've never drilled anything before, so that you don't get the 'wait, how can I diagram this?' shock that can kill you from the starting gate when approaching a problem. I didn't have a particularly sophisticated routine to study with, frankly that was it - I'd strongly recommend the published LSATs as your main if not exclusive resource once you've had a basic introduction to diagramming (this was mine,) but would be happy to answer any further questions.

Great questions!

The Self Study package doesn't include any practice test books, but does include copies of our Type Training material which are 20 tests' worth of questions grouped by concept/type. So if you bought the three Type Training books for LR, LG, and RC for PTs 1-20, say, you'd have every question from those exams, although not in individual test form: instead those collections are designed to allow people to focus intensively on singular ideas, like Weaken questions or Science passages or Advanced Linear games, so that you can really drill down on the specific areas giving you trouble. So they're real questions from tests, but not great for taking as full tests, if that makes sense.

Instead, your best bet is to purchase the deeply-discounted (relative to single tests) 10 Actual books that LSAC has released. If you get the two latest editions of those you'll have 20 very recent exams in full, and that'll run you about $45 or so on amazon last I checked. That's far and away the cheapest and easiest manner to buy real tests.

Then our plans themselves reference tests from those collections directly as recommended PTs to take at specified times. We even go so far as to tell which tests to use for the experimental section on five-section PTs! So it's all very clear and orderly once you're in the thick of things :)

Finally, the Workbooks were all designed to correspond exactly with the Bibles, so each Bible chapter will have a supplemental Workbook section devoted to it with tons of drills and exercises and examples to help you perfect the approaches advocated in the Bibles. And again the Study Plans are extremely detailed in how they instruct you to move through the various resource and combine them for maximum effect. It feels like a lot upfront but once you begin working through it with a Plan in hand it starts to fly by...or at least it seems to move more quickly/efficiently than people expect given the volume!

The Five Types of Legal Argument is a good primer on what types of arguments are used in the courts that generate case law. Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law is an excellent resource for constitutional law, which is some of the more interesting stuff. The Nine is an easy read and a good introduction to the personalities and major decisions of the Rehnquist court and early Roberts court. Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law is another good one; it explains the general architecture of criminal law and its development. Those might be available at libraries near you. If there's a law library in your area, you can always grab a legal encyclopedia (like American Jurisprudence 2d. or Corpus Juris Secondum) and a Black's Law Dictionary and flip around until you find something interesting. And as others have mentioned, BarBri is a good resource.

Manhunt by Peter Bergen is about the ten-year hunt for Osama bin Laden by the United States government, written by the only Western journalist to ever interview OBL. It's hard to find someone involved in the hunt whom he didn't interview, and the result is fantastically fair and even-handed.

If you're looking at something a bit more big-picture, The Art of Intelligence by Henry Crumpton is a solid overview of modern intelligence operations as framed by his career. It's not for cynics, but it's a good read nonetheless.

I also went on a Supreme Court-related kick this summer after the Obamacare decision. The definitive look at how the Supreme Court functions comes courtesy of Bob Woodward's The Brethren. He wrote it 25ish years ago with Supreme Court insiders (including a former Justice) as sources. The subject matter is a little historical (he covers the Burger court from 1969 to 1975) and at times a little technical (I'm a SCOTUS dork and even I had to look a few things up) but if you're interested in how the Court actually works, it's essential reading. I highly recommend the chapter on the 1973 term - Woodward devotes at least 50+ pages to their ruling in United States v. Nixon (the Watergate case) with a blow-by-blow account of Watergate from the Supreme Court's perspective. If you're a constitutional dork like me, it's both heartening and heart-pounding.

For a more recent perspective on the Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine is worth checking out. He writes about the Rehnquist Court from about 1992 to 2006, and while it's neither as well-written nor as neutral as Woodward's book, it's still pretty insightful about the current Court's jurisprudential disposition.

To go in a direction other than the "don't go to lawl school!!!!" and super-serious commenters, if you want something accessible to give you some exposure to legal issues, I would absolutely recommend The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin. It's an easy read and a good mix of law and institutional politics.

Yes, and I was responding to your idiotic post--the fact that I replied to it should have clued you in to the fact. I know the internet can be confusing and scary, but do try to keep up.

You're as good at basic logic as you are historical analysis, and as good at that as you are competent in constitutional law, which is to say not at all.

In fact, in general, [this might help] (https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=S176159B2ZPNW43TYMT2), although on second thought [this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag) might be more on your level.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479

Chapters 6, 9, 10, and 12. These will help you more than bickering with folks here.

This 100%. As for it being expensive, I rented on Amazon and it was really cheap:

LINK

Yeah, linked below. Also, your school or local library probably has it - no need to drop 80 bucks.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MXX5ATEWXSF0XG2YTW3V

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile

Not for lawyers, but for law students. So it's perfect for self learning. Chemerinsky is considered a top con law scholar.

Many inputs got the world to 7.7 Billion.
But the limits of population levels are mostly politically based. e.g., water/food shortages vs. proper water/food usage or Reclamation cost vs. the technological investment.


The past efforts of population control by the likes of the Ford Foundation, World Bank, and Rockafeller Foundations combating Communism, which resulted in the focus on the poor in India and Asia has the all too common "unintended consequences." Read "Unnatural Selection" by Mara Hvistendahl 2011(?)


I also find that Climate groups also have a large component that feels population levels are too high. Thus wanting elective and even non-elective family sizes. Which I find cynical and sad.


So, in the end, the population by 2100 will begin to decline, which is a modern first. Now I hear that the economic model of continuous growth and consumption must change or a Malthusianism must be regulated or replaced. But until then we'll have winners and losers of societies that are perceived to overgrown, too large, or dangerous. \

I feel that we, as people, are the Ultimate Resource. And that there are little limits to humanity as a whole. Look at one mans efforts: Elon Musk. Changed the world, will likely populate a planet.


Currently, if we can even sustain populations at 2100 thereafter will require many changes in a long history of geopolitical thinking. e.g. In the book Accidental SuperPower, the author noted that Russia invaded Crimea and Ukraine due to the next military-age male population being the smallest since the late 1800s. Thus they had to act now to provide a buffer to historical invasions.... Shits fo'reals!

I second this. Before I left the church, I never gave much thought to this since it seemed to be a given. One book that I have read after leaving the church has, in fact, transformed how I see the U.S.

https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685

In short all of the advantages that have allowed the U.S. to be in the position that it is in is rooted in is unique geography that is not found anywhere in the world. I do not agree with all of the authors conclusions on the implications of those advantages but it is worth a read.

Check out The Accidental Superpower for the population / demographics stuff. Peter Zeihan.
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685

For the oil stuff, http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/russia/publication/rer
Way more data than needed but suffice to say that petroleum revenues in any given year represent about 1/3 to 1/2 of Russia's federal budget, 1/2 of exports, and about 10% of total GDP. That's not Saudi Arabia levels of dependency, but it's up there.

This article needs to back up its sources. Or we should just read the book http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446 and scrutinize these details.

Otherwise please don't succumb to hyperbolic language and sites

Oops. Now fixed---but here it is again.

Yeah, I like a squared end to my sideburns, and I have no trouble getting that with a slant.

https://www.amazon.ca/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446

> Yeah, it's counter-intuitive. Why would you go against consumers this way?

You're not seeing the larger picture.... this isn't about consumers, this is about control of world markets. You're missing the larger historical context, the NSA is all about control and management of information for corporate profits.

Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.

This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

The real news:

http://therealnews.com/t2/

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r

http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

Look at the following graphs:

IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

And then...

WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM

Free markets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

Important history:

http://williamblum.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4

I don't know how gerrymandering causes the hyperpolarisation so I can't speak to that, but the first bullet point worries me a great deal.

I think it partially falls on the failure of the Fourth Estate. Lots of people talk about media bias, however, I think it's total media failure that is the bigger concern.

The other part is of course a government shrouded in secrecy. This book was a really interesting read. If it wasn't written by a political insider and didn't have glowing reviews by well respected professors and journalists you would call it crazy. The book has over 800 citations though and is a fascinating perspective.

And for those reasons that Big Security apparatus that does not get voted in or not therefore does not care about your vote. But it does want to know everything about you. Because it can.

National Security and Double Government (2014), by Michael J. Glennon

I read UNSCR 80 [http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/80].

India was an abstention. India never agreed to it.

What India did agree to was the original resolution 47 [http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/47] according to which Pakistani nationals and armymen should withdraw from the state.

In her book Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, [https://www.amazon.ca/Fighting-End-Pakistan-Armys-Way/dp/0199892709] Christine Fair writes:

"...it is also true that Pakistan never fulfilled the first requirement, to demilitarize, on which the rest of the process hinged (Ganguly 2001; Nawaz 2008a, 2008b; Whitehead 2007). Oddly, while many Pakistanis continue to insist that the plebiscite be held, Pakistan was not enthusiastic about the idea when India first suggested it in 1948(Wirsing 1998). Equally important, most contemporary Pakistani commentators have forgotten (or simply choose to ignore) that Pakistan-not India-failed to fulfill the first, necessary, (if insufficient) condition for the now much desired plebiscite, making Pakistan unable to blame India alone for its failure to meet subsequent obligations. It should be noted that in my varied interactions with Pakistanis in and out of uniform, I have never met a single individual who can recount what UNSCR 47 actually demanded of both states even though many Pakistanis continue to insist on its implementation."


It may be noted that even if India were to agree to a plebiscite as per UN resolutions, it has to be held in the whole of the state, which includes the part under Pakistani control and the part ceded to China. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Pakistan_Agreement]


The Sino-Pakistan Agreement (also known as the Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement and Sino-Pak Boundary Agreement) is a 1963 document between the governments of Pakistan and China establishing the border between those countries. It resulted in China ceding over 1,942 to 5,180 square kilometres (750 to 2,000 sq mi) to Pakistan[citation needed] and Pakistan recognizing Chinese sovereignty over hundreds of square kilometers of land in Northern Kashmir and Ladakh.


I realize that there's some controversy regarding this. Pakistanis claim that they never controlled those lands. Whether or not they controlled it, it formed part of the land under consideration by UN. Chinese have told India that it was an agreement between two sovereign nations and to forget about it.


Why did Pakistan cede a huge part of the land it regards as unfinished agenda of Partition?


Why has Pakistan annexed the area of Kashmir under its occupation? Why did it assume that this is what the population wants? Why did it not hold a referendum ?

If the plebiscite were to be agreed:

(a) would they get the land back from China?

(b) unpopulate area occupied by them of their own nationals and allow only Kashmiris to participate?

In 1954, Pakistan and US signed a mutual defence assistance agreement. Nehru withdrew the plebiscite offer to Pakistan. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Kashmir_conflict#1950]

Why didn't Pakistan agree to the terms of the UN council resolutions from 1950 to 1954?

Why does Pak offer "moral" support to those who conduct terrorist acts in India? [https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/06/2011615113058224115.html]

Women, from the time they are born, are often at the complete mercy of men. Their fathers, uncles, brothers, grandfathers, cousins etc are usually the abusers of defenseless children. They can't fight back and might not be able to tell anyone, and worst of all they are often mind fucked into thinking it's ok. Women are viewed as objects by many men and many men grow up with the objective to obtain a woman via job, car, dating or if that doesn't work, raping, to have sex. Sex and control is the end game for rapists, if a woman doesn't go willingly then they'll take what they want. If a woman, and there are some, had this motivation, it would typically be a much harder task to over power a man and rape him, though it does happen, everybody can get drugged too. Anyway. What I'm getting at is the obvious physical overpowering factor, but also the idea that women aren't motivated to have sex for the same reasons as men and therefore go about things differently, mainly because women find empathy easier than men IMO. As far as empathy for rapists, most were abused themselves as children and grew up in terrible situations that they had no control over. When someone with massive trauma has no control over something in their life it can be extremely frustrating. For men, this often results in massive rage response and violent behavior brought on by festering thoughts and sick ideas that went unchallenged because literally no one ever cared about them enough to help them. They then go on to rape often because of a need to take control of their sex needs from women who, in their view, have denied them of sex they deserved so they control a person to feel powerful or whatever; that or they are just sick sadistic fucks. NO excuse for abusing anyone but hopefully this sheds some light on why. My gf and I worked in social work for years and dealt with both sides. But this is human history we are talking about here. If you're really interested I'd really recommend this book:

Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307387097/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_N25JAb756M1PQ

I've been trying to hunt down the source for the claim.

Apparently it's from this book.

I don't have a copy of the book so I can't read the quote in context, but from everything I've found online, she's talking about deaths during child births? Or something?

>“More girls were killed in the last 50 years, precisely because they were girls, than men killed in all the wars in the 20th century. More girls are killed in this routine gendercide in any one decade than people were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.

>The equivalent of 5 jumbo jets worth of women die in labor each day... life time risk of maternal death is 1,000x higher in a poor country than in the west. That should be an international scandal.”

this is the quote from goodreads.

Great infothing.

Recommended reading: "Half the Sky" http://www.amazon.com/Half-Sky-Oppression-Opportunity-Worldwide/dp/0307387097

looks like I was barely awake when I posted that, hah.

http://www.amazon.com/Half-Sky-Oppression-Opportunity-Worldwide/dp/0307387097/

You can do something about it by donating to charities that support girls' education in Afghanistan. Last week I gave $25 to The Asia Foundation's Afghan Girls' Education Fund. National Geographic is matching donations at this time :)

Afghanistan has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world and one of the largest disparities in literacy between men and women (source)

Girl's education reduces child mortality rates, increases womens' independence, increases equality, leads to increased women's rights, and increases the probability that her children are educated (Reference - PDF)

I recommend these related books:

Half the Sky

Three Cups of Tea

Stones Into Schools

Half the Sky

I'm obviously a Trump supporter. You can look at my post history and see that easily. I don't know what you think there is no evidence for, but your understanding of the facts on the ground is incorrect.

AA admits don't benefit from attending schools they are not qualified to attend:
https://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-%C2%92s-Universities/dp/0465029965?
What prompted this study is the authors noticed that although the admission rate of URMs fell in California after Prop 209, the graduation rate after four years did not. The same number of black and Latino kids were actually completing their degrees--because that is what standardized tests tell you: how prepared you are for a college education.

Non-Jewish whites v. Whites? Here you go. In the Ivy League white enrollment is around 40-50%, despite the fact that white people are still 60% of the US population. But what you never see is the breakdown of Jewish and non-Jewish white. Jews make up on average a little less than half of the white demographic at those schools, despite being less than 2% of the US population. This of course makes sense when something like 80% of the presidents of the Ivy League and innumerable administrators, including admissions officers, are Jewish. You never see those numbers:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

My agenda.... You definitely can tell I am a first generation immigrant from my writing. What kind of politician will hire me? You can compare my comments and yours to see who is more like professional propagandist!

Check out this book and see what you guys did to the minority.

https://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-’s-Universities/dp/0465029965

Most of the studies are just reviews of the colleges own admissions and performance data.

This book goes into in a lot of detail

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465029965?tag=natioaffai-20

You also don't even need to do a study.

Here's an article about it

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action

Here's an excerpt from that article so you don't have to read the whole book.

>For example, according to data released by the University of Texas in connection with Fisher, the mean SAT scores (out of 2400) and mean high-school grade-point averages (on a 4.0 scale) varied widely by race for the entering class of 2009. For Asians, the numbers were 1991 and 3.07; whites were at 1914 and 3.04; Hispanics at 1794 and 2.83; and African-Americans at 1524 and 2.57. The SAT scores for the Asian students placed them in the 93rd percentile of 2009 SAT-takers nationwide; the African-American students, meanwhile, were at the 52nd percentile.

> This has the predictable effect of lowering the college or professional-school grades the average minority student earns. And the reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students perform in the range that their entering credentials suggest.

For anybody who wants to educate themselves on the matter, I highly recommend reading Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It

I wasn't claiming it was. Although I'm skeptical about whether any of the stated background is true.

My interest is in exactly what I asked: to try to determine if he would have been accepted into Harvard without racial discrimination in his favor. Because being admitted to Harvard is conventionally seen as a major academic and intellectual achievement, but college admissions in general tend to be very highly skewed racially under the current system. Mismatch is an excellent book on the topic.

1. It is true.
   
   > The disparity in the measured levels of academic accomplishment across racial lines was very high at these schools; median SAT scores for African-Americans at these campuses were, for example, more than two hundred points lower than median SAT scores for whites and Asians.
   
   http://www.seaphe.org/pdf/uclaadmissions.pdf
   
   >There's a reason his peers found these findings too specious to include in even the most unread of the UC system's law reviews
   
   What is that reason?
   
   
   
2. The author of the paper is the author of this book. Plenty of evidence inside. Please write to him about your criticism.
   
   http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Intended-Universities/dp/0465029965

I had no problems with ordering them.

Here's a link to one. Just look for the author Law School Admissions Council to be sure.

Amazon and Barnes and Noble both say October 4th.

This may not be relevant to you anymore, but in case anyone else comes to this page and is interested:

https://smile.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0998339784/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503856494&sr=1-7&keywords=10+official+lsat+tests

I searched the name of the book you recommended but couldn't find it. Do you know the authors name?

Wait are those 3 different books?

Edit: Yea I am dumb they are different books. Here they are on amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Justice-Education-Americas-Struggle/dp/1400030617

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Lawyer-Mentoring-Paperback/dp/0465016332

https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Action-Jonathan-Harr/dp/0679772677

https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/1400096790

If you want to veer off into the workings of the Supreme Court (a crazy bunch of individuals), there are some great nonfiction books. Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine looks at the dynamics of the Court from the Reagan administration on. Jeff Shesol's Supreme Power is about FDR's plan to pack the Court when they kept ruling his New Deal laws as unconstitutional. FDR is kind of a badass.

A book.

What classes specifically? Here are a few that I remember being helpful last semester:

• Conlaw: Chemerinsky book
  
• Crim: Understanding Criminal Law (if you're using the Dressler textbook)
  
• CivPro: Find the Freer/Barbri videos. Civ Pro E&E is also helpful in the weeks before finals
  
• Torts: Emanuel's Torts book
  
  ​

Chemerinsky without a doubt.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502763069&sr=1-2&refinements=p_lbr_one_browse-bin%3AErwin+Chemerinsky

Here's Chemerinsky, but it's not short.

There's a bunch of useful outlines/flowcharts that have been posted here and on /r/LawSchoolOutlines. If you use the search feature you'll find them.

Is this the one? https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile

As a percentage of GDP only two central African nations make less off of trade with other nations. The American economy is Americans buying goods and services from other Americans.

Global trade could end tomorrow and the US economy would chug along. Everyone else would enter a dark age.

https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685

Yes, but your reasons are completely wrong.

Just read “The Absent Superpower” by Peter Zeihan. It gives a much more in depth response than any comment here, by someone who has worked with many government officials.

https://www.amazon.com/Absent-Superpower-Revolution-Without-America/dp/099850520X/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2/136-7994388-8928145?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=099850520X&pd_rd_r=37ef741a-37a2-11e9-a692-13b9b4e07a01&pd_rd_w=iYmPw&pd_rd_wg=ex0PX&pf_rd_p=b98fa1a4-6e6e-4981-835c-7fb29e0f4dd2&pf_rd_r=6X1PVFDBWDN35BCXAA20&psc=1&refRID=6X1PVFDBWDN35BCXAA20

There is the absent superpower, but I also recommend the one that came before it:

https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685

Edit: No idea why the first one has such a longer link address

Sure.

https://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Bretton-Woods-University/dp/0691149097

And of course,
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685

this meme video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAjk7Xs4IEQ is based on his book maybe that helps

youtube algorithm know some shit since it has recommended me the video

Read this book before starting

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family

In case somebody comes in and has no clue, here's the link I guess http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943

Here is the letter Dr Canning sent to Derryn Hinch. It provides some useful links to reliable DV statistics.

Dear Derryn ,

Thanks for the opportunity to speak with your yesterday, sadly it appears your mind was already made up.

It’s not surprising the feminist dominated discourse around DV has done a fine job at promoting false statistics and deceptions for their own ideological benefits and to entice men like yourself into believing that women in general remain blameless victims, unaccountable in any way for their own situations and actions, and in need of your protection.

Apologies you confused me at the start of the interview by quoting raw numbers for sexual assault, my memory is pretty good but I was looking at the top of the list of ABS stats I had provided.

As promised here follows some references, I doubt you will seriously peruse them but perhaps one of your researchers may take a look.

The concept of legal malpractice for not advising taking out a Domenstic Violence protection order in separation / divorce proceeding was raised by Stephen Baskerville in his 2007 book Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, of course this largely relates to the situation in the litigation capital of the world the USA, but Australia follows suit in most thing. This book is well worth a read if you are at all interested in the degradation of the family and fatherhood and it potential impact on the future.
http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943/sr=1-9/qid=1168656132/ref=sr_1_9/102-0715661-8120912?ie=UTF8&s=books

Prof. Parkinsons senate submission which cites the view of magistrate regarding false allegations of DV is available here https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=f6c1e09d-3367-4ed1-b0da-aed26481ea59

The best summaries detailing the extensive data confirming gender symmetry in the perpetration of partner violence are Straus’s article I mentioned in the interview available at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf and Martin Fiebert’s annotated bibliography available at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

To summarise there is overwhelming evidence that is ignored by the feminist ideologues that women are as likely as men to be violent in intimate relationships, and that means they hit first. No one denies that “violence against women” is abhorrent, criminal and must be stopped, but from the equality perspective violence against men in all its forms should be seen in the same way.

There are virtually no services for men, and prevailing community attitudes deny men who are victims any empathy or acknowledgement. Please check out the Australian web site http://www.oneinthree.com.au you may be surprised by what you learn.

Women are half the problem and its time the small percentage of women who are violent are held to account just as the small percentage of men who are violent should be.

Derryn I would be happy to talk again privately or on air should you wish.

With good wishes

Greg Canning

I do agree with you, but there is another reasoning for punishment that is widely held by many people, and that is the concept of vengence/retribution/revenge. Eye for an eye, even though I do not, a lot of people do believe in this. We need to figure out a justice system that compassionately and constructively rehabilitates, AND satisfies society's need for retribution.

There is actually a movement to abolish prisons entirely.

This is a really good introductory read to the topic, Are Prisons Obsolete by Angela Davis. It is only like 130pgs or so, and it reads fast.

The War On Drugs: The Prison Industrial Complex - a documentary about the many ways people profit off of the U.S. prison system

"Are Prisons Obsolete?" by Angela Davis

• a book which poses very interesting ideas about abolishing the prison system completely

I highly recommend The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law for BIGLAW associates and summers.

Book wise: The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law https://www.amazon.com/dp/1590316762/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_7NK6Bb635GG00

It was down right raw. Some funny parts. I’m not a lawyer. Short read.

From my experience:
Always learn to create and build something. Not just operate it. You are valuable when you know how to build. It can be anything, build a building, a computer, a program, a team, a business. Anything.

Make your curiosity ample and wide. Specialize a bit but not too much. This makes you marketable.

Stay positive. Avoid nay sayers. Avoid negative people. They tend to hold you back.

Stay in good communication with those that are good at their craft. They will become something one day. You never know when you will need them.

At the office, recognize when someone is using you to make themselves look good. Find a way to get the recognition.

Aim for the office. The salary will follow.

Stay practicing your craft. It so true, while you are sleeping someone else is grinding and hustling to out perform you. Stay hungry!

Find a way for companies to pay for your trips. Like conferences etc. Keep your money.

Be acutely aware that most companies see new grads as cheap labor. You are hungry and have lots of time with no responsibilities. Means you can work long hours for cheap. Meanwhile most bosses go home. So do the math, your salary divided by your hours worked.

Follow most of this and you will be making very good money soon. Ignore it and you will be making someone else good money.

I make ridiculous good money at 40hr weeks. I enjoy my work. I have made mistakes and my suggestions avoid those mistakes.

Good luck!

The FBI statistics show that Blacks, although they only constitute 13% of the population are responsible for almost 50% of homicides. Other official statistics you can read more about in this book https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759 suggests that victims of violent crime report a disproportionate number of assailants being Black or Latino.

And much of BLM while histerically lashing against the entire police based on a few clear examples of racial basis. Their community meanwhile is decimiated by the gang warfare. And where are the black protests against gang violence ?

This is quite similar to the left lashing out to a few clear examples of hate crime against Muslims, white ignoring the plight of millions of Muslims under the tryanical Islamic theocracies.

So yes both are forms of pernicious regressive left that are ethically despicable and intellectually dishonest!

Regarding the Hitler bit, I was talking about the late 1920s and early 1930s violent clashes between Nazi and Communists within the Germany (not the much later pact between Soviets and Nazi Germany). And I am not saying the history repeats itself, but as the quip said it certainly rhymes!

It's already on my reading list. I'd recommend this one for you, if you haven't read it. I agree it's not something that will be solved over Reddit, that's for sure.

I'll end saying that making excuses for crime isn't the way out, in my opinion. You're stomping on ambition when you talk about vague systemic problems with no answer. The way out is to demand more, to be honest and to not condescend (lower the bar). Pumping money into education isn't solving this problem (bad performance). Bad culture is the problem.

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

> https://www.vox.com

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ - "publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes."

www.politifact.com - "The study is more than a decade old, published July 2003." But again,

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/punditfact-lies-again/article/2555481

I think you need to do better than that. None of these website you have linked are creadible and been known to push their own agenda.

What proof? Something that is done by credible sources will be nice.

As for the aclu link about the sentencing. Can you show me where in the report states if these black had a rap sheet or are repeat offenders as that WILL affect their sentencing time.

You should pick up this book and have a read, hopfully, it might change your mind.

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460412778&sr=8-1&keywords=The+war+on+cops

One other thing:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title36/USCODE-2011-title36-subtitleI-partA-chap3-sec301/content-detail.html

So what they are doing is essentially, against and law and they could all have the books thrown at them. Should they - I don't think so but it is nice to know when it suits their purpose, they can just ignore the law.

Although the book is aimed at lawyers, it should help accountants as well. It helps the writer to stop using wordy phrases that professionals tend to use.

http://www.amazon.com/Plain-English-Lawyers-Richard-Wydick/dp/1594601518

I'd like to recommend Boston's Gun Bible. It has a lot of valuable information for new and experienced firearm owners.

Boston's Gun Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/1888766069/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_U3nWub1D9XQM4
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1888766069/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_U3nWub1D9XQM4

Boston's Gun Bible. I've read this one cover to cover...the info on battle rifles is invaluable, even if much of the legal discussion and AR15 info is about 10 years out of date. About 1/4 of the book is a love letter to the M14 and FAL platforms, but the Garand and HK G3 are not left out either.

and this http://www.amazon.com/The-Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743270762

and this http://www.amazon.com/Bostons-Gun-Bible-Boston-Party/dp/1888766069

http://thefiringline.com

http://www.ar15.com/

http://www.glocktalk.com/

http://www.thehighroad.org/

boston's gun bible: http://www.amazon.com/Bostons-Gun-Bible-Boston-Party/dp/1888766069

the magpul dynamics training dvds

You should read Boston's Gun Bible.

And using force for political means is beyond stupid.

Some in the Democratic Party call Nordic Countries socialism.. I am saying they are not socialist by definition.

So technically yes it is brainwashing to believe Nordic Countries are socialism and that is a tactic of the left today in the USA..

I DO believe socialism is inherently evil.. and we shouldn’t be making romance with the word and theory. shall I explain? The definition of socialism is: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So if you are implying that believing socialism is evil by definition is a brainwashing then I have to strongly disagree. Its morality.. I believe in morality..

This means theft in my opinion.. theft.. I think it’s evil to steal something from someone who didn’t produce it and give it to someone who didn’t produce it..

Steven Crowder presents the argument very well in the video below.

Please watch this video because I don’t have the time to type it all... thank you.

I can not recall one true successful true socialist state.. the Nordic countries gained their wealth thorough capitalism and some one else in this thread explained it also.. about Norway’s trillion dollar energy fund.. there’s also a great book on the topic too..

Let me state one more time...
Socialism by definition is evil

https://youtu.be/xF2lFGyADtM

https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396

May I suggest a book about that specific subject?
Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism

WOW that's a lie.

1. [Highest taxes in the world] (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/which-countries-have-highest-top-tax-rates)
   
   
2. [Highest rates of abuse towards women] (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/violence-against-women-eu) in a developed country
   
   
3. [Free education is substandard globally] (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/03/uk-students-education-oecd-pisa-report), and a [second source] (http://www.oecd.org/pisa/)
   
   
4. [Highest rates of death from cancer for a developed country] (http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-cancer-frequency-country)
   
   
5. High taxes and average wages [triggered bank warnings over exploding personal debt] (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-22/denmark-s-record-private-debt-load-triggers-central-bank-warning)
   
   
6. [Productivity is substandard] (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV) spelling trouble funding thew welfare state in less than one generation.
   
   
7. Excessive anti-depressives consumption
   http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264183896-en/03/11/index.html;jsessionid=72onp8ie4ojr6.x-oecd-live-03?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/9789264183896-38-en&containerItemId=%2Fcontent%2Fchapter%2F9789264183896-38-en&accessItemIds=/content/book/9789264183896-en&mimeType=text/html)?&_csp_=45f4df11dc99cd2019aa9aa30865f74f
   
   
8. [Fallen] (http://www.economist.com/node/17039151) from fourth-wealthiest country in the world to the fourteenth-wealthiest country in just 23 years.
   
   
9. [Some of the highest] (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-socialist-scandinavia-has-some-of-the-highest-inequality-in-europe-2014-10) inequality in Europe, only the top decile of earners own between 65 and 69 percent of the country’s total wealth. Basically the rich are paying for almost the entire welfare system.
   
   
10. [Awful cultural norms] (https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon) like crappy tundra weather, awful food, piss poor housing availability, and a near impenetrable language.

https://www.amazon.ca/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396

I wish I had enough money to buy a copy for every Reddit user.

Yes, I'm Swedish.

Their are 8 major parties competing for power. Two blocks and one outsider.


There is the "red-green" block consisting of the Social democrats, The green party and the Left party (formerly the communist party) These currently hold power with a minority of the vote, supported by the "opposition".

Then there is the "Alliance" made out of the Liberal party, The Moderates, The Center party and the Christian Democrats.

Then there is the third option, the Swedish Democrats, whom have been isolated due to being labled a "nazi alt-right" party by the state controlled media (they want to limited immigration and have fiscal responsibility) Currently polling at 20-30% of the vote, depending on who ordered the poll.


I'm guessing that the Swedish Democrats will be the biggest party after the 2018 election, with about 30% of the vote. This will breakup the "alliance" and create a new left-center block consisting of the:
Social Democrats, Green party and Center party. Basically paving the way to hell with good intentions.

The future looks bleak.


If you're interested in modern Swedish political history I recommend reading this book:
Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism

There's a book specifically on this subject that you might find interesting - "Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism". The author is Nima Sanandaji, a Swedish-Iranian/Kurdish author, and the president of the think tank European Centre for Entrepreneurship and Policy Reform. He is also a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and the Centre for the Study of Market Reform of Education, both in London. He is a co-founder of the Stockholm-based think tank Captus, which he headed as CEO for several years until 2011. He has conducted research at Chalmers University of Technology, Royal Institute of Technology and Cambridge University, and holds a PhD from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (in polymer engineering). His earlier work, "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism", also deals with the topic.


The book is partially an examination of, and a response to, the discussions regarding the possibility and desirability of implementing the Nordic model of democratic socialism, as popularized and propagated by Bernie Sanders and his supporters during the presidential election, elsewhere, including the United States. The gist of the book's argument is that what American liberals like about Nordic societies is not a product of socialism, but rather has more to do with their unique culture—and free markets—than with their welfare state policies.


He argues that the culture in place in Scandinavia allowed it to achieve the bulk of its current prosperity and equality early on, before the introduction of third-wave socialist policies and the expansion of the welfare state in the second half of the 20th century. According to his data, everything that Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and other leading Democrats admire about Nordic countries already existed in the middle of the twentieth century, when these societies had small public sectors and low taxes. In fact, and I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of the book's argument, these outcomes seemingly can be found in the United States, too, among a specific group of people: Americans with Nordic ancestry. According to the book, today, measured by GDP per capita, Danish Americans’ living standards are 55 percent higher than those of Danes; living standards of Swedish Americans are 53 percent higher than those of Swedes; and Finnish Americans’ living standards are 59 percent higher than the Finns’. Even for Norwegian Americans, who lack the oil wealth of Norway, living standards outpace those of the Norwegians by three percent, which the author presents as an argument in favour of his thesis that the prosperity of the Nordics is not a product of their policies.

The overall line of argumentation the author presents along this and his other works is that there is nothing magical about the Nordics which, like most other countries, have thrived economically in periods of free market reforms and have stagnated when taxes and government involvement in the economy have increased.

Personally, I do not have a very strong opinion as I find the argument over whether this approach would benefit a country like the United States to be strictly academical, but I do find Sanandaji's writing and research to be rather convincing.

> Scandinavian countries is pretty socialist

Absolutely not.

>but we are still doing pretty good.

I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396/

and listening to this podcast:

http://tomwoods.com/ep-717-debunking-utopia-exposing-the-myth-of-nordic-socialism/

> Welfare states raise standard of living.

No, they didn't, dumb fuck.

Source 1

Source 2

Full book on source 2

The Nordic model isn't better. Learn basic economics, you dipshit. People from those countries earn more when they come here than they do in their native countries. The income of most US states is higher when adjusted for purchasing power than most of those other countries. Literally any attempt to look at the data disproves these ignorant leftist talking points.

Yes, good threads. Was away taking son to a pre collage event, and only had a chance to respond now.

Agree with you that there are perhaps degrees of socialism. Some favor strict definitions in which the government owns or controls the means of production. I like a more operative definition in which need is the basis for reward. A society for which from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs largely holds is intrinsically Marxist. So say we have Sweden with a 70% tax rate, in which your government controls a greater share of your earnings than you do, and has program after program that falls under from ability to needs, that society would be more Socialist/Marxist than capitalist. A society in which you, the individual, control the bulk of what you earn is capitalist. Progressive taxation throws a huge monkey wrench into the mix, because it applies a Marxist standard to the rich, and a capitalist standard to the poor.

You rightfully point to the intrinsic difficulty in testing out approaches, when you question how relevant is comparing the US to Germany. One can see trends, and study those trends over many societies over time, and my personal experience is the trend of socialism is to impoverish nations.

The answer to the Scandinavian people question is to contrast prosperity prior to socialism to that after, and I think we do see a decline in standard of living, which indicates for that population set the people are worse off. What socialists like to do is highlight the central abuses prior to socialism and gloss over the comparison of before and after. The essays I have read on this topic have convinced me that things got worse. This NR piece, and the book that goes into greater depth on the subject considers how socialism impacted Scandinavians. I heard the author on the radio going into this at length and it was well documented.

> Ord har betydelser.

Lyft näsan från ordboken nu.

> Om ord tillskrivs vilken betydelse som helst av vem som helst blir konversation, meningsutbyte och utveckling i det närmaste omöjligt.

Reductio ad absurdum, sluta larva dig

> Jag vet att du inte vet vad planekonomin innebar eller att planekonomi och den långa raden av politiska utrensningar som skakade hela det ryska samhället inte är samma sak men än en gång, ord betyder saker. Planekonomin handlade i första hand om produktionsmål för tackjärn, järnmalm och kol, kritiskt viktiga resurser för industrialisering och sedermera kriget mot Tyskland. För det ändamålet var planekonomin effektiv.

Är du på riktigt?

Det är trivialt: Planekonomin i sig var slaveri, repression och massmord. Du kan inte stoppa dom sakerna i olika små fack och låtsas som att dom inte hör ihop även om det står på olika ställen i ordboken.

Det är skillnad på vad ordboken säger och vad utfallet blev.

Saxat rakt från wikipedia sidan om din fina femårsplan:

> the collectivization created a large-scale famine in the Soviet Union in which many millions died.

Vi pratar alltså om miljoner människor som helt enkelt dog som en del av planekonomin.

Men visst, "planekonomi" är ett ord som du kan rabbla fram. Grattis.

Här har du alltså egentligen diskvalificerat dig ur en seriös diskussion eftersom du inte har koll på grundläggande fakta i det du skriver och dessutom förringar du folkmord.

Nu är vi dock lustigt nog tillbaka till mitt ursprungliga inlägg där du har bevisat mig rätt på fler än ett sätt:

Det är precis samma mekanism bakom svälten i Ukraina 1932/1933, miljoner döda som försäkringskassans slöseri med skattepengar i dagens Sverige:

Folk tar helt enkelt dåliga beslut i kollektivistiska system. Dessutom leder det troligtvis till passiv och självgod dumhet ...

Sen vill du ha en separat diskussion huruvida den svenska utjämningspolitiken har skapat ekonomisk tillväxt. Det är nog en diskussion som är lite för komplex för dig med tanke på att du spyr ur dig kommunistisk propaganda från 1930-talet.

> jag kanske har en bakgrund inom ekonomisk historia?

Argument from authority, mera trams från självgode dig

Det är ju extra lustigt eftersom du dels inte kan din historia ordentligt och dels inte förstår grundläggande koncept som korrelation/kausalitet eller statistisk analys eftersom du skriver:

> Det jag däremot hittar är att de stater i USA som har högst andel människor med skandinaviskt ursprung är lite mer välbeställda än genomsnittet, dock har de fortfarande en genomsnittligt lägre hushållsinkomst än den i Sverige.

Jag pratade om en grupp (svenska invandrare i USA), då kan du inte börja jämföra hela stater.

Det här är ju pinsamt eftersom det var en av få konkreta saker som du har sagt men dessutom har du fel i sak eftersom enbart delstaten Minnesota (där flest svenskättlingar finns enligt denna karta) har en högre BNP/capita än Sverige. Dom andra relevanta staterna har ännu högre BNP/capita (North Dakota, Delaware, osv) ....

Här är en annan ganska bra artikel som också jämför just inkomster mellan Sverige och olika amerikanska stater som visar samma sak.

Hur var det med faktan nu? ; )

Det här är faktiskt ganska grundläggande saker ...

Jag orkar inte lista alla fel som du rabblar upp ...

> [Citation needed] - Jag tror du hittade på det här rakt av

Återigen bevisar du mitt första inlägg om tillit i samhället: "En tjuv tror att alla andra är tjuvar. En lögnare tror att alla andra är lögnare. Och agerar därefter."

För en djupare analys av just svensk tillväxt i relation till ekonomisk utjämning kan du läsa en bok (inte en ordbok alltså utan en bok som faktiskt har med ämnet att göra).

(Jag hittade också en förenklad online resurs här)
[https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sweden%20Paper.pdf]

[Citat]:(https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sweden%20Paper.pdf)

> If Americans with Swedish ancestry were to form their own country, their per capita GDP would be $56,900, more than $10,000 above the income of the average American. This is also far above Swedish GDP per capita, at $36,600. Swedes living in the USA are thus approximately 53 per cent more wealthy than Swedes (excluding immigrants) in their native country (OECD, 2009; US Census database).

[Citat]:(https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sweden%20Paper.pdf)

> Rather than being the cause of Sweden’s social strengths, the high-tax welfare state might instead have been made possible by the hard-won Swedish stock of social capital. It was well before the welfare state, when hard work paid off, that a culture with a strong work ethic and strong trust and social cohesion developed. As discussed above, the modern system has eroded some of these norms.

Jag tänker inte ta upp upp allt här men i princip hela boken går ut på att bevisa att ditt påstående är kategoriskt felaktigt:

> Traditionellt har vår ekonomiska utjämningspolitik varit den enskilt största faktorn till Sveriges ekonomiska styrka.

Nej, det är helt enkelt inte sant.

Citat igen:

> Another popular notion is that Sweden´s phenomenal growth rate is closely tied to a period dominated by Social Democratic party rule and high taxes. In fact, between 1870 and 1936, the start of the social democratic era, Sweden had the highest growth rate in the industrialised world. Between 1936 and 2008, however, the growth rate was only ranked 18th out of 28 industrialised nations (Maddison, 2010).

Citat:

> The rapid growth of the state in the late 1960s and 1970s led to a large decline in Sweden’s relative economic performance. In 1975, Sweden was the 4th richest industrialised country in terms of GDP per head. By 1993, it had fallen to 14th.

Citat:

> Sweden developed state welfare provision during the first half of the 20th century, but the welfare institutions were financed by relatively low taxes. As noted previously, tax revenues were still only around 21 per cent of GDP in 1950 (Ekonomifakta, n. d.). Interestingly enough, the impressive social outcomes of Swedish society were evident already during this period. For example, in 1950, long before the high-tax welfare state, Swedes lived 2.6 years longer than Americans. Today the difference is 2.7 years (SCB database; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). It is also interesting that the relatively even income distribution in Sweden pre-dates the expansion of the welfare state.

Citat:

> A comparison of historical rates of income inequality in Sweden, the USA, Canada, France and Netherlands shows interesting results. Already by 1920, well before the existence of a welfare state, Sweden had amongst the lowest levels of inequality within this group of countries. Roine and Waldenström (2008)

Du försöker förenkla saker genom att säga:

> När socialismen rotade sig på allvar i Sverige (dvs senare hälften av 1800-talet [...]

Du kan inte bara rabbla saker ur ordboken om när arbetarepartiet grundades (1881) utan du måste jämföra deras faktiska politik (staten/skatterna/"utjämningen" växte rejält först efter WW2 och var som störst på 1970-talet) med vad utfallet blev vid det tillfället, dvs. det gick gradvis åt helvete ekonomiskt ju mer staten växte, såpass att sossarna runt 1980-1990 själva började montera ned stora delar. I början (1800-talet) var sossarna ute efter andra saker som allmän rösträtt och kunde inte påverka ekonomin i stort. Dessutom påvisar jag tillväxt innan partiet ens grundades!

Till och med socialdemokraterna övergav själva sin egen socialistiska ideologi (dvs. dom gav slutligen upp sin lilla dröm om att äga produktionsmedlen) på 1980-talet( Kanslihushögern) eftersom statens svällande storlek med höga skatter och omfördelningspolitik dämpade just ekonomisk tillväxt. Så hur kan det vara den största faktorn till "ekonomisk styrka"? Trams!

Svensk kultur och hårt arbete byggde Sverige! Folkhemmet var en acceptabel kostnad (fram tills nu när andra ska åka snålskjuts).

När man nu ska förstöra den svenska demografin och kulturen som gjorde Sverige framgångsrikt så kommer det gå som det går helt enkelt.

Dom andra sakerna som du tar upp (bostadsmarkad, "klyftor", osv) är småpotatis jämfört med det. Precis som tackjärn är småpotatis i relation till folkmord.

Till skillnad från postmoderna historieförfalskare så förstod socialdemokraterna själva precis vad det handlade om:

Citat, Tage Erlander i Valfrihetens samhälle (Tiden 1962), s. 82

> Därför kan vi angripa arbetslöshetsproblemen på ett helt annat sätt, i medvetande om att det vi gör är en sak som i varje fall inte influeras av skiljaktigheter i hudfärg eller religion utan att våra insatser får sin motivering uteslutande med tanke på arbetslöshetsfrågan själv. Därför bör vi måhända vara litet mera ödmjuka när vi nalkas det här problemet än vad vi många gånger kanske är.

Ödmjukhet ... kanske vore något för självgode dig som silar mygg och sväljer kameler?

Ridå.

Should read the book debunking utopia

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396

Not if you are thinking of putting your private keys in a gmail account.

Maybe, if you are thinking of this as a part of a more comprehensive system.

But again, not if this could be a single point of failure, like in "google changes their policy because of some reason, and your plan is screwed"

If you are interested in planning this, kudos to you!

I suggest this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116/

The author has several interesting articles, for example here:

https://medium.com/@pamelawjd

Here is a book https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116 and some articles https://medium.com/@pamelawjd by Pamela Morgan on cryptoasset inheritance planning.

^The linked tweet was tweeted by @pamelawjd on Mar 28, 2018 01:56:06 UTC (280 Retweets | 795 Favorites)

-------------------------------------------------

Friends. My new book: Cryptoasset Inheritance Planning: a simple guide for owners is now available for presale on Amazon. I can hardly believe I'm finally tweeting this!!!

https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116/

#bitcoin #ethereum #cryptoassets #inheritance

-------------------------------------------------

^^• Beep boop I'm a bot • Find out more about me at /r/tweettranscriberbot/ •

I've been working on these issues for a few years now and I've published a book: Cryptoasset Inheritance Planning: a simple guide for owners. It's available all around the world on amazon in paperback, kindle, and soon audiobook. https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116/

I've also published a bunch of free how-to guides that might interest you: http://medium.com/@pamelawjd or https://empoweredlaw.com/

Hope this helps!

I haven't read it, but seeing this book mentioned in a very positive light in the bitcoin space, which might be helpful: https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoasset-Inheritance-Planning-Simple-Owners/dp/1947910116/

Pamela Morgan wrote a fantastic book about crypto inheritance planning. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1947910116/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1947910116

We interviewed her on The Tatiana show that I co host. List of good tips and an important subject that most don't think about.
https://youtu.be/yAE7zrIJVhA

https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6

Your friend should definitely read this book

Don't go to law school (Unless) by Paul Campos.

The feminist lie
https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality-ebook/dp/B071SG95CN

https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality-ebook/dp/B071SG95CN

well worth a read

Archived for your convenience

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality-ebook/dp/B071SG95CN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495960018&sr=8-1&keywords=the+feminist+lie "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FFeminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality-ebook%2Fdp%2FB071SG95CN%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1495960018%26sr%3D8-1%26keywords%3Dthe%2Bfeminist%2Blie&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

I'd say they're reasonable given that the premise of the """movement""" is flawed. What is BLM even protesting?

That cops kill twice as many whites as blacks?

That black and hispanic officers are more likely to fire at blacks than white officers?

That blacks kill more cops than cops kill blacks?

That blacks are 23.8% less likely to be shot at by police than whites?

This "'"'"'"'"movement"'"'"'"'" is evidence of what happens when you allow your worldview to be governed by hysteria rather than data.

Please do read a bit more - Kashmir is just a proxy, root cause is religious. After Kashmir it'll be Punjab, then other states. Pakistan is a terrorist nation and has been involved in terrorism since it's inception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleed_India_with_a_Thousand_Cuts

"We will wage 1000 wars against India" - Bhutto

https://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Delusions-Pakistan-History-Misunderstanding/dp/1610393171

https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-End-Pakistan-Armys-Way/dp/0199892709

​

I only did this in the last week, but Khan Academy also gives you some free full digital tests. Maybe get a book of practice tests, but if you have to work like I did you probably won't get as many in as many other people here. I found it helpful to write down the numbers of the answers I got wrong per section and then blind review/reanswer just the ones I got wrong to try to understand where I messed up. If you have a section you know you are satisfied with (I'm no 170+, so I was happy to only get 2-4 wrong on LR, so focused on LG) then do more of those sections than full tests, unless you have time for full tests.

Did you watch the video I linked above?

The Russian education attainment is sky high because during the cold war the Russians made higher education a priority to achieve technological parity with NATO. This educational system was state-funded (ie the Soviet Union paid for it).

The Soviet Union collapsed in the late 80's/early 90's. Not only did the Berlin Wall fall down, but the Soviet Union ran out of money and control. They made massive cuts to their education system. Russia is still a nation with a weak economy, almost exclusively reliant on oil exports.

Peter Zeihan's analysis is that the Russian education system has yet to recover to its former glory from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the video I linked, he mentions that the youngest Russians who benefited from the Russian education system at its peak are in their 50's now, and the Russian male life expectancy is only in the mid 60's.

I would recommend reading Peter Zeihan's book to see his analysis.

TL;DR: The Russian population has a high tertiary education attainment percentage due to the cold war; Russia is different now. The Russian education system underwent massive funding cuts when the Soviet Union collapsed, and funding levels haven't come close to recovering. It is hard to pinpoint sources for these things, so I'm relying on Peter Zeihan's analysis.

Peter has talked about a lot of these things happening for awhile! He has a great way of putting things into simple terms.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MIdUSqsz0Io

The Accidental Superpower: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1455583685/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_C27syb4GWZTAA

>Why can't they? Maybe provide some proof.

Official aid from the US has to go through the congress and is recorded. If you are claiming that aid came in from non-documented sources please provide evidence.

>There is just as much proof here. The US would never admit to any of this because Zia is responsible fore exporting extremism to other muslim lands.

No there is not. You are just being nostalgic. They did admit to funding the 1953 coup in Iran and many coups in Latin America. So any evidence to back your claim would be nice.

>He was hated by the US but they still needed Pakistan as a buffer zone. But they absolutely hated Bhutto.

Evidence please.

>Proof that Ayub Khan started islamization?

Try reading some research literature regarding this. In this book some evidence regarding what I claimed is presented.

You think universities actually care about any of the things you listed in your argument? If they did, they'd address the phenomenon of Mismatch (Basically, affirmative action admits can't compete with anyone else, so they drop out). Affirmative action is just a fearful reaction to race riots.

Haha the way you write is how they specifically train us not to write in law school because it's not plain enough. This might be a useful book even for non-lawyers to make their writing simpler and more sophisticated: http://www.amazon.com/Plain-English-Lawyers-5th-Edition/dp/1594601518

Not attacking you, but the ACLU is a joke of an organization. Suggesting that white privelidge is everywhere, Christian Conservatives are a threat to our country more than radical Islam is some of their stories.

The police can't do their job if they are under public scrutiny for every arrest/crime they come in contact with. The decline in policing is helping give rise to gun violence. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-violence-spiked-and-arrests-declined-in-chicago-right-after-the-laquan-mcdonald-video-release/

On your link, the police are not bothered on people smoking pot, they have bigger fish to fry, particularly with distribution of drugs, which statistically says according to the Brookings Institute that is generally done in the black community.

That said, there's an interesting book I'm finishing up called The War on Cops,. If you have the time I'd read is because they cite Chicago violence/crime in roughly every chapter. It's well sourced and is a good insight to the other side if your interested
https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460412778&sr=8-1&keywords=The+war+on+cops

A lot of people think this, but they don't actually understand how some of these current European systems operate and how they got their.

I encourage people to check out this book , it explains this myth that Europe's socialist tendencies have actually worked to benefit rather than hinder , the function of their economies

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1944229396/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500447244&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=the+myth+of+nordic&dpPl=1&dpID=51rxydIMNdL&ref=plSrch

Affirmative action in colleges biases the incoming class so that black students, on average, have lower qualifications (gpa & test scores) compared to the caucasian and asian populations. In turn, this lower preparedness results in worse outcomes at these schools, putting black students, on average, towards the bottom of their classes. Rather than "helping them" by admitting them into schools they aren't qualified for, and graduating towards the bottom of the class, they would be better off with an admissions process that wasn't explicitly racially biased, where they might go to a slightly "lower-tier" school, but have a greater chance to end up at the top of their class. It is more beneficial to excel at your school than to be at the very "best" school.

(Source on the above: Mismatch )

Not to mention the bullshit of Affirmative Action in government hiring programs, where scoring is done on a very precise basis without much room for human discretion, where the bonuses for being black, or being female, are enough to swamp, I don't know, actual qualifications. But yeah, I'm sure the fact that my dad has been openly discriminated against on the basis of race and gender during his entire career in government civil has nothing to do with the fact that he has never gotten a management position despite a Ph.D., years of experience, prior experience running his own company, etc., etc.

So yeah, I do think removing racism would make systems less racist. Shocker, I know.

And yeah, so shockingly privileged and racist for me to have any opinions on anything, I know. I should just go back to self-flagellation and admitting how I bear original sin for my skin color, etc. But the idea that all we need is to admit less-qualified blacks, and magically racism will go away is shockingly retarded. "Oh, I know how to fix racism! Moooore racism!"

Edit: Same thing with regards to gender. In fields which have fewer women, the solution isn't to lower standards and to act like we just need more female bodies. Without changing the initial sources of the differences, just throwing more people in of a given body type is not beneficial and in fact is detrimental to equality, common sense, and the well-being of the field.

My sister is in physics. Her gpa and test scores make it clear she needed no form of special privilege in order to make it in her field. She gets disgusted and annoyed at how, in turn, they want to make her a poster child because of her gender, rather than her work. And she gets annoyed at the underqualified women who shouldn't be in the damn field, but, well, we need more women! But, you know, if we just let men be a higher proportion, then people might think women can't handle it! So better admit some more underqualified women so that we can reinforce those stereotypes with their failure, right?

Edit2: And first downvote, of, I'm sure, many to come. /shockedface Feel free to actually, you know, comment, but I'm sure that'd be beneath y'all, me being such a shitlord and all.

Edit3: Aw, no further downvoting or commenting. I guess I'm too late to the party.

> force the rest of the world at gunpoint to trade favorably with us?

I dont think you understand that we buy more of the worlds goods than they buy from us, if a trade war erupts, we have the technological skill, the labour, and the land full of resources to turtle it out, the EU is about 30 years off from being able to defend themselves equally, and the rest of the world is a clusterfuck of loose alliances that at best would hold out for a decade of cold war.

Not only that, but the world is dependent on us for food production, military innovation, and technological goods and services. I would love to see the world try to compete, because competition breeds excellence, we would probably win a technological race.

> All it takes is the other major players deciding otherwise for the jenga pieces to start teetering.

Even worst case, there is no way that Eurasia would be able to extend their influence into our hemisphere, let alone invade, the US has some of the most ideal geography on the planet for defense.

I highly recommend this book in the subject: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1455583685/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

> Empires don't collapse overnight.

They also sometimes look like they are about to collapse and then go through a second renaissance keeping on for 200-400 years longer.

> I am not sure how the law could actually be clearer on this... it has a 2 pronged test at the hearing with the burden of proof directly on the petitioner and not on the the person subject to the GVRO.

There are two problems, one which I already identified: courts wanting to do this "just to be safe." (Judges apparently are taught to grant just about every ex parte order ^1 ^2 for just this reason.)

The second reason is that people lie in court. I suspect even you know that even he-said-she-said often passes muster for "clear and convincing."

> Please show me where this is, I have read it over multiple times and have yet to come across any language that has to do with exempting anyone from this at all.

Apparently it's confusion with Conneticut's proposed law. My apologies. In any case, I do have reservations with how the police will be treated with "professional courtesy."

> Except you have no facts to back any of the accusations up you just expect people to accept them because they are accepted in your circle.

Please take another look at the links I provided in my other post. Let me ask: of the 37%(!) of false allegations, how many do you think would have been accompanied by a restraining order? How many do you think were prosecuted after being shown as unsubstantiated? The Family Law section of the California State Bar itself recognizes that the RO process, of which is what the GVRO is modeled after, is being abused:

> ... such protective orders are readily ordered, frequently without actual proof, such that extending the duration would overly penalize and prejudice parties who were not guilty of the allegations.

----

> This isn't /r/politics or /r/gunlovers... I get that people do that crap over there, but let's try and have civilized debates in some part of reddit.

As an aside, it's generally impolite to proffer accusatory statements, then say "let's have a civilized discussion." It is, however, ironic.

Such is reddit, I suppose.

Don't feel jealous, Actually feel bad for her. She will land up at the bottom on her cohort, will be forced to major in gender studies or some such dumb major and work as a barrista at Star bucks. This is a massive mismatch because that GPA means nothing if she went to a urban or ghetto school. She is going to struggle if she is foolish enough to go there to help UCB look good on it's diversity numbers. She's going to be roadkill so that UCB administrators can feel good about themselves

Read about the UC system in this book

https://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-%C2%92s-Universities/dp/0465029965

^ This guy thinks law strictly means legislation. The cringe hurts my eyes.

Here you go boss

And here

Annnnnnd here

Happy learning!

When we are talking about violent crime and drug distribution rather than misdemeanor offenses or drug possession charges (both of which are usually pleaded down), this is not true at all. These are serious crimes without much subjectivity or room for profiling in the prosecution.

As for the enforcement side, police deploy in higher crime areas where they are needed the most. These communities are often poor black/hispanic/white communities. This is not racism, it is good police work.

If you are interested in the topic I would recommend this book. It essentially breaks down sentencing disparities and shows they are directly correlated to the severity of individual charges rather than a systemic bias. It also goes over enforcement, the war on drugs and the black community, and police shootings. Very good book.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594038759/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_xKHBDbETE1KV8