« Religion, Jurors, and Ash Wednesday | Main | The Third Year: A Post by Kristen Holmquist »

Saturday, February 27, 2010

What happened when Hitler got rejected by the Stanford Law Review?

Not normally sympathetic to the genre of Hitler parodies, I make an exception for this one. Take a look at the results in the attached video. (H/t:a colleague working through hir recent disappointment in the submission season)

Posted by Dan Markel on February 27, 2010 at 11:38 PM in Article Spotlight, Blogging | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0120a8df52a8970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What happened when Hitler got rejected by the Stanford Law Review?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brilliant.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Feb 28, 2010 9:04:31 AM

Here's the social science peer review version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY

Posted by: Jeff Yates | Feb 28, 2010 9:43:37 AM

Everything was fine (too long, but tolerable), until it jumped the shark with that last-minute political shot. Because, you know, people who work at Fox are just like Hitler. Oh my.

Posted by: anon | Feb 28, 2010 7:01:21 PM

...except dumber. A lot dumber. And, btw, there is a special place reserved in hell for those who use the phrase "jumped the shark".

Posted by: anon | Feb 28, 2010 7:20:48 PM

I like to use my journal rejections to help me fill out an NCAA tournament bracket. Obviously, it doesn't really work if you're applying to the best journals - Harvard and Yale likely aren't going to make the tournament. But, it does work relatively well if you're setting your sights lower. Sadly, it actually does make me feel better after the rejection. The Duke Law Journal may not want me, but Duke's basketball team now won't make it through the first weekend on my bracket.

Posted by: Anon | Feb 28, 2010 9:13:01 PM

I agree, it would be damn near perfect but for the gratuitous slams on the tea party and Fox News.

Posted by: Anon | Feb 28, 2010 11:16:42 PM

If you see the parody as poking fun at the world view of most law review article authors, the fox news and tea party references make a bit more sense.

Posted by: Orin Kerr | Mar 1, 2010 1:23:08 AM

That really, really shouldn't make me laugh, but it did.

Posted by: Anon22 | Mar 1, 2010 3:21:40 AM

I made the video. The only hard part was figuring out what to do at the end. Hitler goes on and on and on for so damn long, I ran out of good material. The best I could come up with was a completely out-of-nowhere cheap shot at the caricatures that are the Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin (and that's who was the intended target, not Fox News generally). The only thing that made it seem funny to me was how utterly cheap, gratuitous, and out of place the references were.

Posted by: Anon creator | Mar 1, 2010 8:46:51 AM

Yeah, the Tea Party and Fox News references were foolish and out of place, and ruined an otherwise well-done piece.

Posted by: anon | Mar 1, 2010 11:21:56 AM

Anon creator, I think folks are being too harsh. It is funny. It is humor. Hitler's idea that he might get a job with the tea party or fox news as a hedge against having to represent clients when he is denied tenure is funny. It doesn't mean that he will get a job there or that either group would want him...afterall Stanford doesn't. If folks can't see the humor, that's on them not you. Keep your head up. This was damn funny.

Posted by: anon | Mar 1, 2010 11:46:00 AM

seems like there are a lot of people worried about protecting the tea party and fox from being the butt of a youtube joke. while i don't think either TP or FN wants to exterminate ethnic minorities, the incredible insecurity of some folks in the face of simple humor does give me pause. doth protest too much?

Posted by: anon | Mar 1, 2010 3:21:17 PM

YLJ, not YLR.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 2, 2010 11:55:08 AM

Post a comment