Dark Humor

So this is my conversation with my fiance - Jarrett. The first part sounds a bit inappropriate because he wanted to shame me into not recording our conversation (which was actually through Skype). The rest of the conversation is a little dark now that I look back on it. I now realize we've gotten too used to dealing with tense subjects. I distinctly remember Jarrett telling me at some point that the way to stay sane out in the battlefield was through dark humor. But I realize this might be too dark of a subject, so I might delete this post once the class is over. However, I think it did a good job of taking us through the speaking dynamics.

Also, there's a reference to Tim :).

Looking for something?

Woman throwing clothes and everything around her room. Her dog is just wagging her tail and staring at her confused. A man with a cap looks kind of concerned. He bites his lip as he’s trying to explain something to the camera. The woman looks like she’s looking for something and is really stressed about not finding it; she keeps throwing things everywhere. As she talks to the camera, she still looks concerned. The guy reaches for a beer – probably to relieve the stress. He seems to be explaining something because he moves his eyes a lot from side to side, as if almost trying to shrug something off. They’re going through the trashcans. He’s smoking and yelling now. He closes his eyes for a long time and seems frustrated. Now there’s more people in the house. Another guy looks like he doesn’t know what’s going on cu he’s moving his eyes as if trying to remember something. Woman looks extremely upset. Man number two is helping her look through her room. She’s crying now. He keeps talking to her without looking at her. It seems like he’s telling her to clean up her room. I wonder if they found what they’re looking for.

It turns out I was watching Bridezillas. I still don't know what they were looking for.

Questions for Wednesday

1.       How can you argue that a soft law should be applied instead of an actual arbitration rule that the parties are probably bound to? Can we even make such argument?

2.       Where do you begin your research? Are there any particular resources you would recommend to us?

3.       It seems that there are countries that have more “arbitration credibility.” That is, they are either often cited or praised as good law that other countries should follow. Would you agree that it is better to cite the rules of some countries instead of others? And if so, could you tell us which countries you recommend?

4.       CIETAC has reformed some of its rules in reaction to a corruption scandal a few years ago, where arbitrators were found to have received bribes in exchange for deciding in favor of certain parties. Do you think that this means CIETAC rules are more strictly applied than other comparable rules?

5.       Do you think that there is a difference between how aggressive males and females should act? Keeping in mind that we’re not supposed to be very aggressive, just strong advocates for our clients, is there the possibility that certain comments, mannerisms, or tones of voice that sounds ok in man, do not sound ok for women in arbitration?

Teamwork

"There’s no I in team. There’s no U either. So I guess if I’m not on the team and you’re not on the team, nobodies on the ****** team. The team sucks." - Red vs. Blue

It's simply best if everyone's in the team. Otherwise, there's no team. The team sucks.

South Park - Super Best Friends

So I'm not really good with technology and had to resort to copying the screen and cropping the scenes, so please excuse the roughness of these frames.

In this episode of South Park:
Frame 1: A new cult dedicated to worshiping David Blaine acquires more members by sending out his missionaries.
Frame 2: Many members of the South Park community join the cult, including Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny.
Frame 3: Stan, having realized that Blainetologists are a cult, escapes and goes toward the only person he thinks can impress people even more than David Blaine - Jesus.
Frame 4: Jesus decides that he needs the help of the Super Best Friends. They are the founders of the world's main religions and are best friends because they all believe in the power of good over evil.
Frame 5: David Blaine has convinced his followers to commit suicide so that Blainetology can get tax-exempt status and thus become an official religion.
Frame 6: The Super Best Friends defeat the monster that David Blaine has created - a giant statute of Abraham Lincoln. They create a giant statute of John Wilkes Booth to shoot giante Abe Lincoln. Thus the Super Best Friends save the day and free South Park from Blainetologists.

Trying to fit the whole story into six frames was difficult. I had to cut out frames that I thought were important to the story, but then I decided that they were not necessary to narrate the gist of the story, and most importantly, the message it was trying to send across. This too will happen in our oral arguments, so I think it was a good exercise that helps put things into perspective.

Comments on 5 Types of Argument and Briefs

I haven't read the Stacie Strong article. It hasn't been posted yet and I don't know when I'll have time to write a blog this weekend. Besides, I think I might be glued to the article once I start researching or writing, so I thought I'd make a comment on the 5 Types of Argument and the VIS winning briefs.

Regarding the 5 Types of Argument, I've got to say I wish I would've thought to look at it while I worked on my brief last spring. The sad thing is that our professor added it to our booklist, but I guess I've learned my lesson. Refreshing myself on the 5 types was good, but what I enjoy even more about this book is that it has strategies to attack those types of arguments and even combination arguments. I feel like I've been given a whole arsenal of weapons. Let's just hope I know how to use them well.

What has stayed on my mind so far is the author's discussion of how the legal career is like Socrates' deconstructive teaching. In our effort to define legal concepts, we destroy any and every definition put to us. Even though we don't do this alot in our presentations and briefs, we certainly do it as we prepare for them. We have to keep a balanced and impartial mind, and look at the issues from both sides. However, thinking of every way in which our arguments can be undone helps us stregthen them. So in the process of undoing, we do.

My first reaction upon looking at the briefs was, "Wow, I better get myself out of this mess before it gets any worse." But then I realized that although they seem lengthy, they are definitely nothing that we are not capable of doing, especially considering that about half of the brief is things like table of contents, references, etc.

But then again, isn't it more difficult to make an efficient, concise brief, than a lengthy and poorly written one?

Also, I noticed that every team had different styles. While some seemed to stick to dividing their arguments between procedural, jurisdicitional, and substantive issues, while the others divided it into its major arguments. You can also notice subtle cultural differences, when you read things such as, "request for relief" and "prayer for relief" in different briefs. Basically, this means we can do things our way and still win.

Looking forward to working with you guys and seeing what our work product will be. While it's easy to get competetive, I think it's best if we all keep in mind that our chances of winning at the VIS are only increased if we all help bring the best out of each other. Sounds cheesy, but if we really want to give UT international recognition, we have to remember it.


*Edit*

I enjoyed the Strong article because it's a nice refresher on how international arbitration is a distinct world with its own set of rules. An attorney must be prepared to work with all types of sources, and not focus as much on the caselaw. Pretty much, an attorney has to be more well-rounded.

Access to two accounts....

Ok, I read Ji Nin's and Tim Roy's blogs, but could not comment on them. Neither could I comment on Emmanuel's. E-blogger keeps saying I don't have access to the site, so maybe their privacy settings are set too high or blogger hates me. Anyway, here are my responses to their blogs:

To Ji Nin:
Your post made me scram for the latest issue of Glamour sitting in our living room. Hillary Clinton was asked, "You probably have to walk into a lot of rooms full of sexist guys. How do you work with leaders like that?

To which she responded:

"You just have to figure out what you're trying to accomplish."
To paraphrase her a bit, she also says that she tries to find common ground with her male counterparts. "I understand the pressures of politics on leaders... I was in politics. I've won elections and lost elections..."  
I don't know if this adds much to the conversation. But I agree with Hillary that the best we can do as women is try not to make ourselves any more different than we already are. We should try to present things in our narrative that point out what we share in common with males in the business and legal worlds.
But does this mean that we should only wear pant suits to keep ourselves more like the men, or wear only skirts, in compliance with sexist views toward women? How far do you go tring to find that common ground to allow you to get your point across? I think I've rambled on... sorry.



To Tim:
Tim, thanks for the post. It really helped clarify things. I just have one question. You said, "I also have to argue (ii) that bringing the issue to court is not a violation of the rules. That would be an issue of clause interpretation, and also choice of law." So in an argument regarding only procedural issues, you would only say that there is no violation of the rules, and nothing else, because anything else would be substantive?