International Human Rights is not as cool as you think Forum

[Flanker1067]

1. If you work in a headquarters office or the government, 95% of your work will be sitting in an office or in meetings. Really the same as biglaw but with less pay. As a junior you'll get mundane stuff to do.

4. If you're a field person, like doing interviews with refugees or something, your life will be rough. Get used to secondary trauma, being away from friends and family, dangerous conditions, sleeping wherever and eating whatever is available. Most people you'll work with will have some kind of self-destructive tendency or they wouldn't be there in the first place. Lots of alcoholism, lots of ill-advised relationships.

is there anything in between spending your entire career on connecticut ave. and spending your entire career in cameroon?

it seems that a lot of the people wanting international human rights have this idea that they'll fly to belgium/south africa for a month-long law thing once or twice a year.

Worldtraveler may want to comment on this, but the short answer is no. The skills you pick up in a foreign country, like how to best work with locals, language skills, and knowledge of the law and politics, are a lot less valuable if you are in an office in Belgium. This is not a great way to allocate resources. But, many people effectively create this system for their career by changing jobs, since once you get into the field and have UN, ICC, USAID type credentials, you can move around relatively easily. Emphasis on relatively.

[hcrimson2014]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to point out, with specificity, how ridiculous you are being without making some errors myself, probably. But here are some thoughts:

1. Places with Totalitarian governments are not the only places where human rights law is applied. But even those government have to consider a lot of things, including a host of threats not related to US interest, including from their own people, from neighbors, trading partners, etc. They may act in accordance with foreign law to solve a host of different problems.

2. American lawyers don't travel into foreign lands automatically thinking that they are needed, rather they go there and ask what they can do. Good human rights lawyers serve, rather than seek to impose.

3. "but do you seriously believe that the ngos in which foreign lawyers tend to work at in South Africa could not find native South African law graduates, who are actually admitted to the South American Bar btw, to champion the same causes?" I am not in South Africa, but where I am, the answer to this question is a resounding yes. I do think there is a shortage of qualified people in this country to fight for these rights. It's painfully obvious to anyone who has been here for more than a month. The education system is shit generally, language skill is low, which is necessary to appeal to foreign funding or foreign courts, the people don't understand human rights, law or criminal law that affects the poor because it's specifically not taught, and getting qualified costs a shit ton in bribe money that most people don't have. The list of areas in which capacities are low could go on for days.

For the record, I think human right is an honorable goal and I admire your and other people's commitment to the field. However, we are discussing INTERNATIONAL human rights LAW, not simply the shifting ideal of human rights.

1. Totalitarian governments (actually all governments) "may act in accordance with foreign law to solve a host of different problems" when it suits their interest, but enforcement has to step in when it doesn't suit people's interest to follow the law, otherwise people will reap only the benefits of the legal system without carrying the associated responsibilities of the law. Never have I asserted that totalitarian governments will not play by the international rulebook, the point is that as the US is less and less willing/able to maintain the rulebook, the rulebook will become increasingly irrelevant and so will the people who apply the rulebook.

2. Totally agree with your second point but the reality is that many Americans/recent grads from first world universities volunteering in those places seek to impose.

3. "I do think there is a shortage of qualified people in this country to fight for these rights. It's painfully obvious to anyone who has been here for more than a month. The education system is shit generally, language skill is low, which is necessary to appeal to foreign funding or foreign courts, the people don't understand human rights, law or criminal law that affects the poor because it's specifically not taught, and getting qualified costs a shit ton in bribe money that most people don't have. The list of areas in which capacities are low could go on for days." The description of such work (fund raising, awareness raising, networking with donors etc) sounds a lot like the work of a manager in a generic non-profit, which begs the question, why is a law degree relevant? People make and accept brides all the time without a law degree and in places without even a semi-functional legal system, how is a J.D even different from a B.A in any substantive manner? A J.D might better equip someone to teach the local poor basic laws, but I don't think a BA will have too much trouble comprehending and teaching some basic criminal codes and in such places, bribe is usually everything and without it (the paupers in those places are not going to magically run into money when they learn some basic laws), even Clarence Darrow would be screwed. Cicero thrived in a relatively lawful and stable Roman republic before he was beheaded unlawfully in the civil war, lawyers are certainly critical to our society but the profession itself is entirely dependent on the enforceability of the law which there is close to none in many third world countries with human rights issues.

[Flanker1067]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to point out, with specificity, how ridiculous you are being without making some errors myself, probably. But here are some thoughts:

1. Places with Totalitarian governments are not the only places where human rights law is applied. But even those government have to consider a lot of things, including a host of threats not related to US interest, including from their own people, from neighbors, trading partners, etc. They may act in accordance with foreign law to solve a host of different problems.

2. American lawyers don't travel into foreign lands automatically thinking that they are needed, rather they go there and ask what they can do. Good human rights lawyers serve, rather than seek to impose.

3. "but do you seriously believe that the ngos in which foreign lawyers tend to work at in South Africa could not find native South African law graduates, who are actually admitted to the South American Bar btw, to champion the same causes?" I am not in South Africa, but where I am, the answer to this question is a resounding yes. I do think there is a shortage of qualified people in this country to fight for these rights. It's painfully obvious to anyone who has been here for more than a month. The education system is shit generally, language skill is low, which is necessary to appeal to foreign funding or foreign courts, the people don't understand human rights, law or criminal law that affects the poor because it's specifically not taught, and getting qualified costs a shit ton in bribe money that most people don't have. The list of areas in which capacities are low could go on for days.

For the record, I think human right is an honorable goal and I admire your and other people's commitment to the field. However, we are discussing INTERNATIONAL human rights LAW, not simply shifting ideal of human rights.

1. Totalitarian governments (actually all governments) "may act in accordance with foreign law to solve a host of different problems" when it suits their interest, but enforcement of the law has to step in when it doesn't suit people's interest to follow the law, otherwise people will reap only the benefits of the legal system without carrying the associated responsibilities of the law. Never have I asserted that totalitarian governments will not play by the international rulebook, my points is that as the US is less and less willing/able to maintain the rulebook, the actually trials and international policy making where lawyers are critical will become less meaningful.

2. Totally agree with your second point but the reality is that many Americans/recent grads from first world universities volunteering in those places seek to impose.

3. "I do think there is a shortage of qualified people in this country to fight for these rights. It's painfully obvious to anyone who has been here for more than a month. The education system is shit generally, language skill is low, which is necessary to appeal to foreign funding or foreign courts, the people don't understand human rights, law or criminal law that affects the poor because it's specifically not taught, and getting qualified costs a shit ton in bribe money that most people don't have. The list of areas in which capacities are low could go on for days." The description of such work (fund raising, awareness raising, networking with donors etc) sounds a lot like the work of a manager in a generic non-profit, which begs the question, why is a law degree relevant? People make and accept brides all the time without a law degree and in places without even a semi-functional legal system, how is a J.D even different from a B.A in any substantial manner? A J.D might better equip someone to teach the local poor basic laws, but I don't think a BA will have too much trouble comprehending and teaching some basic criminal codes and in such places, bribe is usually everything and without it (the paupers in those places are not going to magically run into money when they learn some basic laws), even Clarence Darrow would be screwed. Cicero thrived in a relatively lawful and stable Roman republic before he was beheaded unlawfully in the civil war, lawyers are certainly critical to our society but the profession itself is entirely dependent on enforceability of the law which there is close to none in many third world countries with human rights issues.

Even briefer response:

1. Your quote, "So you are saying that totalitarian governments will surrender themselves voluntarily in accordance with the verdict of the ICC without sufficient US pressure." Yes sometimes, and this sounded a lot like an assertion that totalitarian governments would not do so.

2. A reality you are imagining. Anyhow, some people don't learn how to help and not impose without trying first.

3. A law degree can be relevant because all those activities you described, fund-raising, awareness raising, and networking with donors may be fund-raising for legal activities, raising awareness of laws and rights, and networking with donors who want you to explain your legal arguments. You need a J.D. in these situations like anyone, ever, needs a J.D. Also, why are you assuming there is no legal structure at all (Sorry, the phrase was "withou even a semi-functioning legal system"). That's a stupid assumption.

I'm not arguing that a law degree is more valuable than any other skill or degree for helping others, so just stop with that line of thinking.

Add: I don't mean stop with that line of thinking in general, since knowing what skills could help people the most is valuable knowledge for many. I just meant in this conversation.

[hcrimson2014]

Even briefer response:

1. Your quote, "So you are saying that totalitarian governments will surrender themselves voluntarily in accordance with the verdict of the ICC without sufficient US pressure." Yes sometimes, and this sounded a lot like an assertion that totalitarian governments would not do so.

2. A reality you are imagining. Anyhow, some people don't learn how to help and not impose without trying first.

3. A law degree can be relevant because all those activities you described, fund-raising, awareness raising, and networking with donors may be fund-raising for legal activities, raising awareness of laws and rights, and networking with donors who want you to explain your legal arguments. You need a J.D. in these situations like anyone, ever, needs a J.D. Also, why are you assuming there is no legal structure at all (Sorry, the phrase was "withou even a semi-functioning legal system"). That's a stupid assumption.

I'm not arguing that a law degree is more valuable than any other skill or degree for helping others, so just stop with that line of thinking.

1. I know that after Lybia, some dictators with rising civil strives at home became scared and they felt that stepping down with a commuted sentence from the ICC is a better alternative to being killed by vengeful militias like Ghaddafi in a civil war. So yes, they surrendered out of self interest. In my first statement, I was only dealing with situations in which international laws contradict the interest of Plutocrats and the lack of voluntary concession to international laws without external pressure (mostly from the US) in those cases because I did not feel the need to explain the incentive for people to follow the law when it is the better alternative.

2. My experience on this point is anecdotal and personal so if you can come up with some objective evidence that refutes my subjective belief, I am all for it.

3. Teachers in Canada (I am Canadian so I can't speak for the American education system) who want to teach middle school math or above need to major in mathematics even though everyone in the education sector knows that anyone who has completed the 1st year college math requirements satisfactorily will be more the prepared for the role. I think this is a parallel to the situation you have described in which J.D is the universal entry requirement to the sector even though the degree does not confer any skill necessary to the sector in and of itself (at least when you are practicing corporate law, you are actually using the cases, the codes, and the civil procedures that you have read in law school). Finally, I just cannot believe that in the more advanced third world nations (Mexico, South Africa etc) where there is an actual albeit corrupt legal structure, that there would be a dearth of lawyers to fight for some cause that the NGOs have to turn to American lawyers for legal help with the local system (I do agree that Americans in NGOs are huge assets for funding though), many of whom don't even speak the local language to begin with. And in the end, in those places bribe would still go much further than one's legal knowledge.

[Nebby]

As the US becomes increasingly unable to enforce the international justice system (often against its only self interest - see the Muslim take over in Egypt and Lybia), human rights issues will continue to be sidelined in favor of state interests.

Muslims have been in Egypt and Libya for 1200 years. I would hardly call it a "take over." Just because the parties have the word "Muslim" in them doesn't mean Islam and its culture didn't already have an impact on politics. The Republican party doesn't have the word "Christian" it it, but if you want to find Christian fundamentalists with a lot of sway, then look no further than the GOP. Furthermore, I'm concerned with you equating Islam as a whole as adverse to American self-interest. Are you a "If you're not with us, you're against us" kinda person? It's probably a good thing you're having reservations about public interest work with such an absolutist attitude.

[timbs4339]

The derp is strong with this one.

[worldtraveler]

1. If you work in a headquarters office or the government, 95% of your work will be sitting in an office or in meetings. Really the same as biglaw but with less pay. As a junior you'll get mundane stuff to do.

4. If you're a field person, like doing interviews with refugees or something, your life will be rough. Get used to secondary trauma, being away from friends and family, dangerous conditions, sleeping wherever and eating whatever is available. Most people you'll work with will have some kind of self-destructive tendency or they wouldn't be there in the first place. Lots of alcoholism, lots of ill-advised relationships.

is there anything in between spending your entire career on connecticut ave. and spending your entire career in cameroon?

it seems that a lot of the people wanting international human rights have this idea that they'll fly to belgium/south africa for a month-long law thing once or twice a year.

Worldtraveler may want to comment on this, but the short answer is no. The skills you pick up in a foreign country, like how to best work with locals, language skills, and knowledge of the law and politics, are a lot less valuable if you are in an office in Belgium. This is not a great way to allocate resources. But, many people effectively create this system for their career by changing jobs, since once you get into the field and have UN, ICC, USAID type credentials, you can move around relatively easily. Emphasis on relatively.

It is possible, but those jobs are hard to get. You also aren't going to be all that useful (disclosure-I have a job at a place that does this kind of thing). What are you doing in Cameroon for a month that a field person can't already be doing? IMO, it's a complete waste to jet people all over the place. They don't know the culture, the languages, or really anything and aren't there long enough to figure it out. Then they come back to Washington and talk out of their ass about what they learned while talking to their waiter at a 5 star hotel or their driver. It's like the Thomas Friedman system of IHR.

And yeah, that might sound awesome in theory. But constantly jetting around the world to conferences and for short work trips is hard on your social life, relationships, everything.



As for LRAPs, the important part is PSLF, which does not cover foreign work. Some LRAPs do, this is true, but without forgiveness that isn't that useful.


And I am going to try and be as nice as possible about this, but it's difficult: hcrimson you're just wrong about everything. You don't understand what the ICC is or how it works. You don't understand what international human rights law is or how it's applied. Everything you are saying is just wrong. That's fine; you're an 0L, you're not supposed to know.

So can you please stop making up dumb hypotheticals and derailing the thread? If you want to debate about the ethics of human rights or whether the ICC should exist or not or whatever, I'm happy to do that in the lounge.

[hcrimson2014]

As the US becomes increasingly unable to enforce the international justice system (often against its only self interest - see the Muslim take over in Egypt and Lybia), human rights issues will continue to be sidelined in favor of state interests.

Muslims have been in Egypt and Libya for 1200 years. I would hardly call it a "take over." Just because the parties have the word "Muslim" in them doesn't mean Islam and its culture didn't already have an impact on politics. The Republican party doesn't have the word "Christian" it it, but if you want to find Christian fundamentalists with a lot of sway, then look no further than the GOP. Furthermore, I'm concerned with you equating Islam as a whole as adverse to American self-interest. Are you a "If you're not with us, you're against us" kinda person? It's probably a good thing you're having reservations about public interest work with such an absolutist attitude.

Many US allies are Muslim and many are even fundamentalist Muslims (Saudi, UAE, etc). Yet compared to the previous regimes in Egypt and Lybia (Mubarak and Ghaddafi), the post civil war governments in those countries are all more Islamic and more anti-America/Israel compared to their previous benevolent (from a western pov) dictators. Some Muslim takeovers are good for the US (in Xinjiang, China, in CheChenya, Russia, and in Yugoslavia), others are distinctly bad for the US (Iranian revolution in 1979 for example). I am not saying that all Muslim takeovers are bad for the USA, but rather those two specific instances in Egypt and Lybia did more harm to American interest than good.

[rad lulz]

I dunno whether I want dokka umarov et al setting up an Islamic emirate in the Caucasus dude

[worldtraveler]

hcrimson, start a new thread if you want to argue politics.

[quijotesca1011]

Second Add: I agree entirely with worldtraveler in that I don't agree with a word of what hcrimson2014 said in the post above.

So you are saying that totalitarian governments will surrender themselves voluntarily in accordance with the verdict of the ICC without sufficient US pressure (either because they are US allies or they are allied with China/Russia). On a smaller scale, why do American lawyers who travel to a foreign land with a superficial understanding of the law of the land always assume that their expertise is needed and will be beneficial for the locals? There is a shortage of teachers, doctors, and engineers in the third world for sure and I am sure some American lawyers have championed human rights laws successfully in places like South Africa but do you seriously believe that the ngos in which foreign lawyers tend to work at in South Africa could not find native South African law graduates, who are actually admitted to the South American Bar btw, to champion the same causes? I think we don't have lawyers without borders for a reason. I stand by my point that it is far more effective for Americans who want to make the third world a better place to lobby congress and raise awareness domestically and if people want to do field work for humanitarian aids, a diploma in social work/nursing will be much much more useful than a law degree.

Edit: having re-read your post, the benefits that you have ascribed to the practice of international human rights (like traveling and not having to work with a cohort of kjds) are firstly unlikely for many international human right lawyers who are based in the UN headquarter or dc, and secondly can all be attained without a law degree (teachers with borders in Gaza provides most of the benefits that you have stated for example) and even if those alternatives did not exist, one's proclivity for adventure/meeting interesting people is a pretty weak argument for getting a law degree.

Lawyers without borders actually exists Not as big as Doctors without borders but just FWI haha

http://www.lwob.org/Pages/Default.aspx

[quijotesca1011]

Worldtraveler may want to comment on this, but the short answer is no. The skills you pick up in a foreign country, like how to best work with locals, language skills, and knowledge of the law and politics, are a lot less valuable if you are in an office in Belgium. This is not a great way to allocate resources. But, many people effectively create this system for their career by changing jobs, since once you get into the field and have UN, ICC, USAID type credentials, you can move around relatively easily. Emphasis on relatively.

I really disagree with this. It is really dangerous to have a lot of people in Belgium, Washington, Geneva working on IHR who have no ground experience in my opinion. Personally I think those skills (knowing how to work with locals, language skills, knowledge of laws and politics) are of the utmost importance. Of course living in a foreign country for limited amounts of time isn't going to making you as much of an expert as a local, but having a bunch of bureaucrats who have no field experience working on issues in a specific region is just not a good idea.

Read a good article on this yesterday: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 67830.html

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about flying someone to a country for a month. I would agree that UNLESS that person already has local expertise from previous experience that's not a particularly efficient model (they would take at least a few weeks getting acclimated, and that's if they acclimate really fast…doesn't leave much time for valuable work). But I do disagree that field experience isn't helpful for more bureaucratic posts. I think it is essential and I would be surprised if increasingly it isn't more and more necessary just to even get a job.

That said, I haven't heard of a lot of jobs where you go to a new country for a month (but they may well exist and I haven't heard of them). I generally understood foreign postings would be at least a year if not minimum of 2 (still not a lot of time to get really into the work but a month would just be ridiculous).

[worldtraveler]

That's the reality of how the field works though. You are a field person or you are an office person. There isn't a lot of overlap. It doesn't really matter whether we agree or disagree with how it operates.

[quijotesca1011]

That's the reality of how the field works though. You are a field person or you are an office person. There isn't a lot of overlap. It doesn't really matter whether we agree or disagree with how it operates.

I had the feeling that was becoming less and less the case. i.e. for the UN as an example from what I understand it's really hard to get a position (except through a YPP) without grassroots NGO experience.

[worldtraveler]

That's the reality of how the field works though. You are a field person or you are an office person. There isn't a lot of overlap. It doesn't really matter whether we agree or disagree with how it operates.

I had the feeling that was becoming less and less the case. i.e. for the UN as an example from what I understand it's really hard to get a position (except through a YPP) without grassroots NGO experience.

Even if they want field experience, once you get the actual job it's all office, all the time.

[quijotesca1011]

That's the reality of how the field works though. You are a field person or you are an office person. There isn't a lot of overlap. It doesn't really matter whether we agree or disagree with how it operates.

I had the feeling that was becoming less and less the case. i.e. for the UN as an example from what I understand it's really hard to get a position (except through a YPP) without grassroots NGO experience.

Even if they want field experience, once you get the actual job it's all office, all the time.

Okay yeah that makes sense (as I was saying I don't think a month-long assignment in a country would make tons of sense in a lot of situations).

But I still maintain my point that those skills (language, knowing how to work within the local culture, knowledge of local politics/social issues) are transferrable and important (not irrelevant) even for office work. Which is precisely why field work is often required.

[worldtraveler]

That's the reality of how the field works though. You are a field person or you are an office person. There isn't a lot of overlap. It doesn't really matter whether we agree or disagree with how it operates.

I had the feeling that was becoming less and less the case. i.e. for the UN as an example from what I understand it's really hard to get a position (except through a YPP) without grassroots NGO experience.

Even if they want field experience, once you get the actual job it's all office, all the time.

Okay yeah that makes sense (as I was saying I don't think a month-long assignment in a country would make tons of sense in a lot of situations).

But I still maintain my point that those skills (language, knowing how to work within the local culture, knowledge of local politics/social issues) are transferrable and important (not irrelevant) even for office work. Which is precisely why field work is often required.

Not really. Your legal knowledge of the IHR system is by far the most important thing. Yes, there are some places that care about field experience. Language experience really matters, but it doesn't matter if you learn in France or Senegal.

It would be nice if the people in charged paid attention to who knows local politics and history and whatnot, but for the most part, they don't. If you want the field, that matters. If you're going to work at the ICJ it's your prestigious pedigree and your connecttions that matter.

[quijotesca1011]

Not really. Your legal knowledge of the IHR system is by far the most important thing. Yes, there are some places that care about field experience. Language experience really matters, but it doesn't matter if you learn in France or Senegal.

It would be nice if the people in charged paid attention to who knows local politics and history and whatnot, but for the most part, they don't. If you want the field, that matters. If you're going to work at the ICJ it's your prestigious pedigree and your connecttions that matter.

I guess I wasn't thinking purely in terms of hiring or getting the next prestigious job. I was thinking in terms of doing your work responsibly. Whether or not it's rewarded with a promotion, if you are in this field because you care about it, I think you should look to do your work responsibly. And I think it's really hard to responsibly work on human rights issues in a region if you have limited knowledge of it. There are some issues that are universal and I'm not saying you ALWAYS need field experience but I think it can really serve you to do a better job (and whether or not your superior recognizes the reason the product turned out better, if the product is better that is in your favor. and --more importantly -- to the benefit of the people you are supposedly trying to help). Otherwise, IHR has the potential to turn into exactly what hcrimson was railing against: Americans/Europeans imposing ideas of human rights on the rest of the world.. I disagree with hcrimson because I think that a) human rights are no longer solely propped up only by Americans/Europeans, they have become a tool for a lot of on-ground NGOs, activists, and even politicians in the Global South (who are themselves innovating within the field in their own way) and b) Americans/Europeans can work responsibly within that system without it being purely their imposing their ideals -- but doing so requires a lot of listening, trying to understand different priorities (whether or not you end up agreeing with them), and, in my opinion, field experience.

I wasn't really saying whether your knowledge of the IHR system or field experience were more important than the other. Both are important, and I don't see why you write as if they are mutually exclusive. All I was saying is that I think field experience and the skills it gives you can be really beneficial to being better at your office work.

[worldtraveler]

I'm talking about hiring though. I think every person would agree field experience is a good thing to have and makes you better at your job. But that's not really relevant here. And when compared to your ability to do analysis of human rights treaties in multiple legals systems, it will rightfully be low on the list.

[quijotesca1011]

okay. the post I was responding to didn't specify hiring. You are probably absolutely right if your only goal is getting to the ICC. If that's your goal, however, and you aren't concerned with professional responsability or working to make those institutions less 'Global North' centric and more inclusive in determining goals, I kind of question your motives (ie if we agree that field experience makes you better at your job, and your goal is to be the best you can at that job in order to work towards justice)

[worldtraveler]

okay. the post I was responding to didn't specify hiring. You are probably absolutely right if your only goal is getting to the ICC. If that's your goal, however, and you aren't concerned with professional responsability or working to make those institutions less 'Global North' centric and more inclusive in determining goals, I kind of question your motives.

This is like lamenting big law cares about prestige too much in hiring, and when you get there you should try and make big law a nice, friendlier place because it would work better that way.

yeah, that would be nicer, and it's stupid to care that much about prestige. but that is the way it works, and it's not going to stop just because naive junior attorneys want it to. I started the thread to talk about some misconceptions people have about IHR work, and this is one of them. It's not always about doing the best work or hiring the best people, and it's never going to be. If you don't accept that, you'll be very disappointed and jaded for your whole career.

You can question my motives all you want. I don't give a shit.

[quijotesca1011]

okay. the post I was responding to didn't specify hiring. You are probably absolutely right if your only goal is getting to the ICC. If that's your goal, however, and you aren't concerned with professional responsability or working to make those institutions less 'Global North' centric and more inclusive in determining goals, I kind of question your motives.

This is like lamenting big law cares about prestige too much in hiring, and when you get there you should try and make big law a nice, friendlier place because it would work better that way.

yeah, that would be nicer, and it's stupid to care that much about prestige. but that is the way it works, and it's not going to stop just because naive junior attorneys want it to. I started the thread to talk about some misconceptions people have about IHR work, and this is one of them. It's not always about doing the best work or hiring the best people, and it's never going to be. If you don't accept that, you'll be very disappointed and jaded for your whole career.

You can question my motives all you want. I don't give a shit.

I just don't understand why you think field experience and prestige are mutually exclusive.

and I wasn't referring to your motives at all, I was talking about this hypothetical person trying to get to the ICC.

[worldtraveler]

Because one is 100x more important than the other in terms of getting the job.

[rad lulz]

y will

[worldtraveler]

Wt is the best way to change ihr to get guns and shoot people or is it easier if I become a massive donor and get an nog to impose my will

both. get guns and aim them at the biggest donors and get them to donate to my ngo so i can take over the world.