Posted 12:36 PM by Jason
I told you Justice Scalia was funny

And now its been quantified and printed in the NYT.  Of course not all laughter is equal, and being the Times they add later on:

“Nor, Professor Wexler said, does it separate "the genuine laughter brought about by truly funny or clever humor and the anxious kind of laughter that arises when one feels nervous or uncomfortable or just plain scared for the nation's future."

Right.



0 comments

Posted 2:46 PM by Jason
Are we moving on or moving forward?

Now, I can’t claim to know a great deal about Move America Forward, but there’s a piece in today’s WSJ on the group here.  Here’s what caught my eye:
"When you have people participating in partisan activities with nonprofit dollars, that's really something the IRS needs to look at," says Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, another frequent target for Move America Forward's rhetoric. "An organization with a shady tax status participating in partisan activities and saying things that aren't true is a rogue element in American politics."
Yeah, ok Tom.

0 comments

Posted 11:04 PM by Jason
USO

A note in the Guardian (UK) on the plight of the USO.    Apparently talent is lacking, and they’re depending on Christian hip-hop groups.  Well, this is the impression you would get from the headline, though this isn’t discussed at all in the article, so I have no idea what they’re talking about.  The article may be entirely correct, I don’t doubt it, I just distrust the editors’ sense of taste.  To wit:

The tradition of beautiful women thrilling the troops has continued - although while Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell showed up in Korea and Vietnam could boast Raquel Welch, in Iraq they have had to make do with sometime pop singer and reality TV star Jessica Simpson.

Yeah, I’m sure the troops are pissed about that.  And in fairness, though I am generally not a fan, Jessica Simpson is much better than a “sometime pop singer”, she really can sing, though she hasn’t lately, and her Nancy Sinatra cover was nothing short of dreadful.  

0 comments

Posted 12:54 AM by Jason
End of the World, part 2 (the remix)

Mariah Carey now tied with Elvis at number 2 (to the Beatles at 20) in the rankings for most all time number 1 singles.  God save us all.

0 comments

Posted 4:57 PM by magnu231
All those loans are starting to pay off!

I read this on powerline and actually knew what the guy was talking about! Unfortunately, this was an unhappy reminder of how lousy my analysis was on my conlaw test (and Charles, if you're reading this, by lousy I mean revolutionary and outside the box, and by conlaw I mean civpro.)

0 comments

Posted 4:28 PM by magnu231
Violence: I'm for it!

Actually, I wouldn't mind this ban going into effect, now that I'm no longer a minor. A ban on them means more violent video games for me! (Who am I kidding, I haven't had time for games since I started law school, although the vengeful and psychotic video-game characters might be helpful models for my future legal behavior.)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/22/MNGHEGC2JH4.DTL

0 comments

Posted 12:33 PM by Jason
Merry Christmas

For your reading pleasure, here’s Judge Posner on domestic intelligence gathering in the WaPo.  Now, if you will excuse me, I have a contracts exam to take, which is incidentally at the last possible time for exams this session, lucky me.  

0 comments

Posted 4:16 PM by Jason
Maybe Stalin wasn't so bad,

He was just misunderstood.  He didn’t just want to kill people, he wanted to cross them with monkeys.  Stalin was quoted as saying "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat."  Sounds familiar in a way…

0 comments

Posted 11:14 AM by magnu231
Hemingway, Joyce, Bin Laden?

I think this article makes a few good points on Bin Laden's book. I give this guy ten years before he appears on trendy t-shirts like Che Guevera as the idol of people who know absolutely nothing about history and only think the logo is cool. And probably in even less time, some ignorant pop-group like Green Day will start the "he wasn't so bad" chants, and maybe start wearing symbols of Al-Quaeda with as much misguided pride as with the red stars that festoon their "punk" clothing.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAECC.htm

0 comments

Posted 1:55 AM by Jason
Thanks Dean, I didn't want to study for finals anyway.

Here is a defense of the Law School’s position on the Solomon Amendment from Dean Alex Johnson, Prof. Dale Carpenter, and Prof. Beverly Balos, who is chair of the Solomon Amendment Amelioration Committee.  While it is noted at the end that they are writing in their capacity as individuals (to the extent that the Dean of a law school can really be separated from that school), I doubt that it is far from the law school’s real position, except that they feel the need to separate themselves for official reasons.  Some points of contention:

“It is precisely because we respect and support our armed forces that we want them to be stronger by including all qualified and loyal Americans, whether black, female, or gay.”

Is it really necessary to toss in a laundry list of approved victim groups here?  Last time I checked this issue was only about the last.  The others may have been issues to differing degrees in the past, each for their own reason, but they are not here, and serve only to muddle the issue.  Why couldn’t they have just said “whether gay or straight”? or something like that.  

“In wartime, expelling thousands of service members (like Arab linguists) who happen to be gay hurts national security, wastes our tax dollars on needless investigations into their private lives, and unfairly discriminates against our students.”

Is there data on this somewhere?  Does the military expel thousands of gay service members every year? (actually, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is dedicated to abolishing dadtdpdh, the most servicemembers expelled in any single year, across all branches, was 1273) Are Arab linguists disproportionately gay? If not, does “like Arab linguists” really need to be there?  Are there really expensive, shady, in-depth investigations going on? In wartime this isn’t ok, but it might be in peacetime? (the statement leaves that possibility open)  This statement, like others, boils down really to one thing, “unfairly discriminates against our students”, which is a fine position to have, but has so many extras tacked on that the only point is lost in the clutter of misdirection.  The wasting of tax dollars comes up again:

“In an age of expansive federal budgets increasingly leveraged to pressure dissenters to conform, we must preserve liberty at home just as our military defends it abroad.”

Oh yeah, the U is really worried about federal budgets being too big.  $351 million dollars came to the U last year alone.  Now, I do think they have a point about the law school not being dependent on federal funds (though I imagine with the exception of federal student loans), and that the reason the schools follow Solomon requirements is that they’re essentially being nice to the parent institution.  The text of the Solomon Amendment does not mention law schools specifically, but it is the law schools (or rather, law schools under FAIR, and law profs under SALT) and not the parent institutions (who have a lot more to lose) that are challenging it (though there are probably a good number of the latter affiliated with FAIR).  Furthermore:

“Since we are compelled by the Solomon Amendment not only to permit but to assist in this on-campus discrimination, the faculty joined FAIR”

Again, read the text.  They are required to assist by not having a policy that explicitly or effectively denies military recruiters access to:

Names, addresses, and telephone listings.  Date and place of birth, levels of education, academic majors, degrees received, and the most recent educational institution enrolled in by the student.

But of course:

“Students who disagree with the law school's non-discrimination policy, or with our commitment to enforcing it, are free to speak up.”

Yeah, I’ll go ahead and do that, I heart discrimination, and would love to be identified as such.  As I’ve said before, and I have been a total hypocrite in this regard, I think this issue is being beaten to death.  For my part, while civilian control of the military is essential for the preservation of a free society, I cannot presume to know or say what would be best for the military in this area.  Apparently the Dean and these Professors feel comfortable doing so.  Though they profess to want to make the military stronger, their course of action will do nothing to remedy what they see as the real problem, “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harass.”

Overturning Solomon would accomplish just the opposite of what they claim to want: it would reduce the military’s ability to get the best people, whether they be black, female, or gay, or heavens, white, male, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Native American, asexual, Inuit, whatever, because there will be schools that don’t just “not assist” recruiters, but close the doors to them altogether.  I reckon FAIR et al. think that a victory here would push the military to get rid of DADTDPDH, and though I doubt it, it could.  A more honest, more legitimate, and probably more effective way to do that would be to work to change public, military, and legislative opinion of the ban on open homosexuality.  Alas, like supporters of so many lefty causes, they have decided to use the least democratic, least representative, and least accountable branch instead.  And Hamilton thought the judiciary was weak.

4 comments

Posted 4:37 PM by magnu231
Halfway Through

Nothing like a little basketball to make me realize...I HATE FINALS! I should have followed my dream, and made it to the NBA. Or been a fighter pilot. That would be sweet. Instead, I'm stuck re-reading Contracts and Torts. I'm not asking for your sympathy. I'm BEGGING for it. So if any of the three people who read our blog has the KEY to Contracts or Torts, has climbed the mystical mountain to the top of the Mondale building, and has learned from the guru the secret of Life (strike that, I don't care about the secret of life, just contracts and torts), then let me know, for the love of sanity. Hmm. I was intending this to be humorous, but on rereading, it seems to be much duller than usual. I knew it! Law school has finally claimed my soul. I'm almost ready for the new suit, the slick hair, and the fashionable liberal causes.

0 comments

Posted 2:26 PM by Jason
Mint Condition

Awesome, since (though I did like them) the last round of dollar coins went over so well:

Presidents to appear on dollar coins
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Mint beginning in 2007 will start striking new dollar coins featuring the pictures of dead presidents for the first time in decades.
Four coins will be issued each year in the order in which the presidents served, reports USA Today. They are expected to become collectors' items similar to the 10-year state quarter program, which ends with Hawaii in 2008.
The dollar coins also are expected to save the government about $500 million a year because they last longer than paper dollars. But they are not expected to completely replace paper bills because of public preference.


2 comments

Posted 2:10 AM by Jason
Sen. Proxmire, R.I.P.

Former Senator Bill Proxmire, from my home state of Wisconsin, has passed away.
From the article:
Proxmire became a household name for his monthly Golden Fleece awards, started in 1975, to highlight "the biggest or most ridiculous or most ironic example of government waste." The ceremony, as such, was a speech on the Senate floor.
Proxmire's awards went to studies that used public money to explore the effects of booze on fish, why prisoners like to escape from jail and the shapeliness of airplane stewardesses.
He gave the Army Corps of Engineers the 1976 award of the year for "the worst record of cost overruns in the entire federal government -- 47 percent of Corps current projects had cost overruns of 100 percent or more."
The award backfired in 1976, when Proxmire gave the prize to a Michigan researcher for studying aggressiveness in monkeys. The scientist sued for libel and later settled out of court with the senator. Proxmire, criticized because the Senate paid his $124,000 legal bill, helped repay the money.


0 comments

Posted 12:07 AM by Jason
Its the end of the world as we know it...

Ok, so I’m up late just posting away as if exams don’t exist, and a show comes on channel 45 (broadcast) that apparently is hosted by Kato Kaelin and called “Eye for an Eye”.  It is yet another of the current onslaught of Peoples’ Court rip-offs, but this one takes the cake.  Right now there’s a pet psychic helping resolve a dispute between former gay lovers over custody of a dog.  The parties stand inside of some kind of cage looking contraptions, and the “judge” has a baseball bat.  

0 comments

Posted 11:38 PM by Jason
No Comment

(Reuters) — Lesbian motorcycle enthusiasts have won their fight to trademark the name “Dykes on Bikes,” a lawyer for their group said on Thursday.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had denied applications by the San Francisco Women’s Motorcycle Contingent to trademark “Dykes on Bikes,” arguing the phrase would be perceived as disparaging to lesbians.
But the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Brooke Oliver Law Group said the word “dyke” is no longer viewed as derogatory.
“Within the lesbian community that term has been reclaimed as a very positive term that denotes strength and pride and empowerment,” said Shannon Minter, a lawyer for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.


0 comments

Posted 10:15 PM by Jason
Apprentice 4

I never really watched The Apprentice until recently, owing mostly to the fact that I now don’t have cable and I needed something to watch before Bar Review.  Tonight was the big finale, and Minnesota native Rebecca was passed over in favor of Randall.  I thought both candidates were very good, and both made me feel like a total slacker.  Its been discussed that Rebecca founded a non-profit foundation to benefit disenfranchised children, which is cool, though I think the term is overused and a bit improper when used to refer to anything other than denial of the franchise (political rights) to those who would otherwise have it (i.e. felons in most states).  Its probably still really cool, if anyone reading this knows the name of the foundation could you post it in comments, I can’t seem to find it.  

Anyway, throughout the episode I predicted (to myself, I have no corroboration) that the Donald, in an attempt to rock the world and be awesome and, well, to build hype, would hire both candidates.  He didn’t, but he asked Randall if he should, and Randall said he thought it would be improper.  Not the nicest thing ever to do, but I suppose he wanted to preserve his place in the limelight.  

0 comments

Posted 9:58 PM by Jason
What's that Kanye?

Information released by the state of Louisiana this week pretty much eviscerates any claim that the response to Hurricane Katrina was affected by race or that African Americans were disproportionately harmed.  There’s an article on it here, but here’s the gist of it all:

“But the state's demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city.African-Americans make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the deceased. Other minorities constitute approximately 5 percent of the population and represented 4.3 percent of the storm's fatalities.”    

UPDATE: Oh, there’s also this.

2 comments

Posted 9:39 PM by Jason
Iraq War Intelligence

In her Opinion Journal column this week Peggy Noonan discusses President Bush’s recent round of speeches on the Iraq war, where he has re-acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the decision to go to war based on intelligence that turned out to be false.  Just a taste of the column:

In his speech yesterday the president said the obvious: that the intelligence received in the buildup to the war was faulty. He asserted that Saddam's past and present history justified invasion nonetheless. This left me thinking again about a particular part of the WMD story. I decided my own position in support of invasion after Colin Powell warned the U.N. in dramatic terms of Saddam's development of weapons that were wicked, illegal and dangerous to the stability of the world. It is to me beyond belief that he was not speaking what he believed to be true. And I believed him, as did others.



0 comments

Posted 7:07 PM by Jason
ONLY IN AMERICA!

Ok, this is too good to not read, so I am copying the whole text from Drudge, since its likely that the link will get changed or removed or something fairly soon.  

CNN, THE SITUATION ROOM 4:00 PM EST (yesterday)

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Don king is known worldwide as a big-time boxing promoter. But has also taken some new fights on recently...You love George Bush?

DON KING; I love George Walker Bush because I think he's a revolutionary. He's a president that comes in with conclusiveness. What they're doing in tomorrow in Iraq is a demonstration of that for the vote for democracy. The fundamental process of democracy is freedom of speech, law and order, being able to have freedom, working with people and working and governing yourselves. George Bush is that. He included in...

BLITZER: Do you have any regrets supporting him? Take a look at that picture when you and I were there at the diner last year. Do you have any regrets supporting him as enthusiastically as you did?

KING: No, I don't. In fact, I want to support him more now because it seems like everybody is punching him. You know what I mean? But he's fighting back, and he's throwing great combinations. And I think he's the guy that is really a revolutionary president.  I think he's a president that cares about the people he represents, but doesn't compromise himself to the extent that he acquiesce and accommodate. He goes out there and says like it is, and tries to make things better. Inclusiveness, education, is fighting for that.  These are the things that many guys that don't fight for -- George Walker Bush is a tremendous advocate to America, a great president for the great American people, and he's decisive. He's doesn't equivocate.    

0 comments

Posted 1:29 PM by magnu231
Iraq Votes! Libs Ignore.

I thought this was a very interesting list. I've been spending some time at www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com, reading about the election in Iraq (which seems a very positive thing, high turnout, very little violence). Then, I ran across this page, categorizing the response on liberal blogs. You ready? [Drumroll] Pretty much none! (And before you say anything, I know that liberal blogs don't represent mainstream liberal thought, conservative blogs would do the same thing, etc, etc, etc). However, it does call into question the political climate of the day. Back in the day we (as far as I know) sincerely believed in different things as policy considerations, not as a fervent faux-religion. If facts that disagreed with us came up, we'd acknowledge them and either explain them or temper our own views (something I still strive to do, not always successfully). But it seems we're past that. If anyone has seen the video of Sam Seder on CNN just acting a fool in regards to the "war on Christmas" (which I think is kind of a joke to begin with), you would understand. We're no longer relying on the same facts to draw different conclusions or perhaps formulate common ground and then diverge on belief structures. We now ignore anything not good for our cause. And I think that's a problem.

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19531/

0 comments

Posted 12:56 PM by magnu231
The 95 Theses

Jonah Goldberg rocks. And this piece is right on (mainly because it's what I've been saying for years). In some sense the conservative movement has lost its way.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200512140816.asp

2 comments

Posted 12:17 PM by Jason
Hearsay Exceptions

Ok, so one more post before I study.  Granted I haven’t had Evidence yet, but this video is absolutely hilarious, check it out.  (HT Juan Non-Volokh)

0 comments

Posted 12:06 PM by Jason
Solomon Amendment response

For those of you that don’t read the Strib (and that includes me), below is a letter to the editor in response to Katherine Kersten’s piece (see below) from a couple days ago from Steven Marchese of the CPDC, and a short one from some guy who must have had nothing else going on.  I will comment later, once I am sick of the Con Law I’m studying.

ON-CAMPUS RECRUITING

Twisting the facts
Once again, Katherine Kersten plays fast and loose with the facts -- this time, in her Dec. 13 column regarding the University of Minnesota Law School and military recruiting ("Has U Law School taken up a cause of shaky merit?").
Contrary to any impression Kersten might give, no student at the law school has ever been denied the opportunity to meet with a military recruiter on campus. Rather, the central issue is whether the U.S. military should be exempted from the same rules of fairness that apply to every employer seeking to meet students and use law school facilities.
If any other employer, whether private or public, wished to interview and hire only white or Christian law students, it would not be allowed to do so in the law school building.
However, under the Solomon Amendment, the U.S. military can demand the opportunity to interview on campus, even though its policies would prevent its representatives from ever hiring a single gay or lesbian student.
With the Solomon Amendment, Congress wields its spending power to bribe access for the military and holds the principle of nondiscrimination hostage to its tremendous financial leverage over this nation's universities. This exercise in coercion should shock and concern anyone, let alone someone who purports to consider herself a conservative.
However, this doesn't seem to faze Kersten one bit and lays bare the true intention behind her column, which is to ignore reality and pander to prejudice. Kersten may fantasize that, by opposing the Solomon Amendment, the law school faculty was motivated by some historical antipathy to the military and desire to suppress discussion.
However, through her provocative rhetoric and willful ignorance of the facts, it is Kersten who undermines the principle of equality that should underpin how our government deals with every member of society. And there is nothing conservative about that.
STEVEN MARCHESE, MINNEAPOLIS; DIRECTOR, CAREER AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL

No room for dissent
According to Katherine Kersten, if you receive federal funding you are not allowed to oppose the policies of the federal government. Interesting contention but un-American to its core.
JOHN M. ALLEN, MINNEAPOLIS    

1 comments

Posted 6:15 PM by Jason
Justice for Tookie

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Tookie Williams’ request for clemency today, he is slated to die just after midnight.  Here is the AP story, and here is the Gov’s official statement.

Fox 9 news at 5 referred to Tookie Williams as the author of “best selling” children’s books.  Way to do your research Channel 9, his most popular (to stretch the hell out of the term) has sold about 330 copies, while another has sold 2.  I pulled this off of a story on BlackNews.com that is highly critical of the Hollywood left’s demand for clemency.  It is definitely worth a read, sorry Snoop.  I can’t seem to find much info on the website itself about, well, the website, but they do have commentary by Jesse Jackson, who favors clemency, though others on the site do not.  

The point made in these pieces that I find interesting is that Tookie’s claims of redemption cannot be separated from the fact that he has never owned up to his crimes or apologized to the families.  Redemption, eh?

1 comments

Posted 3:54 PM by magnu231
Maybe Posner Isn't That Crazy!

Civil Procedure over, I can now concentrate on the important stuff. Like interesting economic studies! Who knew that sexual orientation was receptive to prices? Economists, that's who! (although what that says about their prior knowledge seems problematic). Here you go.

http://www.freakonomics.com/pdf/AndyFrancisAIDS12-05.pdf

0 comments

Posted 11:35 AM by Jason
Ben Civiletti-$1000 an hour

Sure, he was AG, but it was in the Carter administration, does that really count?  

0 comments

Posted 11:15 AM by Jason
Solomon Amendment part MMMDCXLII

Katherine Kersten in the Strib on the U’s relation to FAIR v. Rumsfeld. (ht Powerline) My favorite part:
The U Law School faculty voted overwhelmingly in March, reportedly with only one dissent, to join FAIR. Bryan Freeman, a third-year law student who has worked as an intern for the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps, objects. "The vote declared a political position for the Law School as a whole," he says. "But there was no meaningful student discussion. This isn't how contentious issues should be debated at a university."
Prof. Michael Paulsen, who says he was the one who voted against the resolution, agrees. "I find the Law School's policy to be deeply disrespectful of students who valiantly wish to serve their country in a military career," he said. "It is deeply disrespectful of the military itself. The Law School's policy is intolerant of dissent, and disrespectful of First Amendment values."
Paulsen said he disagrees with the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But he believes the Congress and the military officials who crafted the policy are the proper authorities to govern military affairs. "And if Mike Paulsen disagrees, so much the worse for him," he said.
Paulsen says the faculty wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They voted to join FAIR but not to join its suit, presumably, Paulsen says, out of fear of losing federal dollars. He calls the faculty's position "deeply shallow." It adopted a cowardly statement of political correctness, he adds, and balked at the idea of accepting any consequences. "The faculty said, 'We have our absolute principles. But they can be bought.' "
  

4 comments

Posted 7:42 AM by magnu231
This Is It!

Exam Season. Not the most fun ever. However, in a week and a half, I'll be able to relax. But for now I've got to get by CivPro. Ouch.

2 comments

Posted 12:07 AM by Jason
Lieberman for Sec-Def?

Although I will readily admit that I am not a huge fan of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I do have to respect him (you know, like liberals and Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, John McCain, Chris Shays, Christine Todd Whitman, you get the idea) for his willingness to buck the party line sometimes (and before you feel the need to comment to tell me that that’s only because I agree with him on this particular issue, save it, I know) on important issues.  While I sincerely doubt that he is even being considered for Sec-Def, my prediction is that after he easily wins re-election next year he will become even more distant from his party, possibly to the point of a reverse Jeffords.

0 comments

Posted 4:30 PM by magnu231
Whooooo.....

Okay, maybe playing basketball for three hours before trying to study CivPro wasn't the brightest thing I've ever done. Then again, I don't expect that the CivPro final will be the brightest thing I've ever done either.

1 comments

Posted 3:43 PM by Jason
Burning Corn for Heat

This is really nothing new, so I have no idea why it’s the big story on Drudge right now.  I doubt its really that beneficial for energy costs, but it still makes a heck of a lot more sense than ethanol.

0 comments

Posted 4:51 PM by magnu231
Hard News!

It's official (not that it was ever in doubt). Gwyneth Paltrow is an ignorant snob. And here's the evidence. Scan past the fact that this wayward female wants more children (which she will then ambiguously name after fruit/computers). Listen, I'm not for state control of much. However, the state absolutely should enforce birth control on this woman. Oh, and take Apple away from her. I'm probably overreacting. In fact, I take my last comments back. I'm saving that venom for idiots like Green Day whom people actually have some inkling of misguided respect for. If she wants to live in England, not here, that's all right. If she wants to take shots at us, that's okay too. She's an okay actress (nothing more), and she's not attractive. It's just hilarious how elitest Hollywood types get occasionally (e.g. Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, et all). Gwyn has decided to move to a country with a cool accent and all of a sudden they can do no wrong. As other sites have pointed out, some people make some money on mindless entertainment, and all of a sudden they're political wonks, intelligent observers, (see Sean Penn), and somehow their opinion counts. Of course, she's wrong. The British people, despite their rabid hatred of emotion, have a tendency to get torn up over things far more trite than the death of 3000 people (a few more than died on 7/7). Say, the death of an nasty, whorish, American Princess perhaps?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005560049,00.html

2 comments

Posted 10:58 PM by Jason
Coulter at UConn

Wow, talk about a war of ideas. My favorite part:

“Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major at UConn, didn't attend the speech.
"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Knudsen, head of Students Against Hate.”

Now, I read Ann, recreationally, but don’t take her too incredibly seriously; kind of like liberals and E.J. Dionne (note to humor impaired, that was a joke)  That said, she gets a worse rap than she deserves.  Another problem I have with the undergraduate left is the need to protest absolutely everything, and waste other people’s money in the process. The basic statement is “we don’t like what you’re saying, and not only do we not want to hear it, we don’t want anyone else to either” and that, my friends, is absolute b.s.    

2 comments

Posted 10:38 PM by Jason
Climate Change Cont.

Here’s an interesting story on climate change treaty negotiations in the NYT.  Now, as you may have guessed, I am skeptical on the issue, which means I have my doubts as to:
1. whether or not any irregular climate change is occurring, 2. whether any change that is occurring is human caused, 3. whether or not any such change, whether it be human caused or not, would be as significant or as harmful as some projections would suggest.

That said, the article begins describing a plan for a joint DOE/ private energy company funded billion dollar emission-free coal fired power plant.  Well, I have to be skeptical about this too, but will acknowledge that if you accept global warming as true, it is a step in the right direction.  

“Environmental advocates at the talks criticized the announcement, saying it was intended to distract from continuing efforts by the American delegation to block discussion of new international commitments to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that scientists link to global warming.’  

Again, these “advocates” can talk all they want, their record is clear.  Kyoto is a failure, and would be even with U.S. participation.  The costs are significant, the benefits are not, and any attempt to expand its framework or make it workable would exacerbate either problem.  To the U.S., unilateralist bastards that we are, is prepared to sink a billion dollars in a public/private partnership to actually do something, and we’re the obstructers?  
To that end:

“The United States should, at a minimum, refrain from blocking or obstructing such discussions amongst parties to the convention, since that would be inconsistent with its ongoing treaty obligations," said the letter, signed by Senators Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine; Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; and 21 colleagues.” [emphasis mine]

Oh wait, Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee want us to play nice?  Ok, yes sir, yes ma’am!  Then again, neither the letter or the article cites any actual blocking or obstructing by the U.S.  Our chief negotiator’s statement was:

Mr. Watson said the United States opposed any new negotiations under the 1992 treaty. "We believe that it is best to address this complex issue through a range of programs and technology initiatives," he said.

Well said.  First and foremost, President Bush should remember that we already have a source of clean abundant energy, one that he cited in his campaigns, and one that would be almost guaranteed to give the UCS and the negotiators in Montreal all massive strokes.  Now if he could just learn how to pronounce it.    

3 comments

Posted 2:47 PM by Jason
Inuits sue U.S. over global warming

Yeah, this will be tossed pretty quickly. You’d think they would be grateful.

UPDATE: Maybe I should have read more closely, turns out that what they seek is a declaration from some international outfit with no enforcement power.  To that end:

“The petition urges the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to declare the United States to be in violation of the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

It also wants the Commission to recommend that the United States adopt mandatory limits of its greenhouse-gas emission and join international efforts to curb global warming.
And it wants the Commission to declare the United States should help the Inuit adapt to unavoidable impacts of climate change.”

What’s more, the article (at the fault of the ICC, not Breitbart) claims that:

“Rising emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases primarily caused by burning fossil fuels are expected to warm the Arctic about 4-7 C (7.2-12.6 F), about twice the global average rise, over the next century, the ICC report concluded.”

Which, though it acknowledges this level of warming as particular to the Arctic, is still at the very least toward the steep end of the warming predictions currently circulating.  

If scientists can respectably disagree on the issue of climate change, whether or not it is happening, the extent to which it is anthropogenic, etc… I think it would be preposterous for a pseudo-court to find proximate cause or cause in fact (or whatever sort of tests a pretend court might use) here.  If they want to pin it on not ratifying Kyoto, then I would have to point out that countries that did ratify Kyoto are not meeting their targets, and even if they had, and we had as well, the overall scheme of Kyoto is insufficient to effect the changes that its proponents seek.  

At the base of it, this is more than likely a bunch of do gooder lawyers (and other do gooder types) exploiting a potential sob story to make a political statement using (emphasis on using) these Eskimos (yeah, that’s right, I said it).
    

2 comments

Posted 12:03 PM by magnu231
Serious Intellectual Debate

In honor of the discussion in the comments of one of my posts farther down (which I have no idea how to link to). Here's a link to a serious article critiquing a mainstay of the liberal movement. All liberals agree with the person critiqued, and this essay proves them universally wrong on any and all opinions they may have.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200512071123.asp

0 comments

Posted 4:00 PM by Jason
We been dancin with Mr. Brownstone

This is pretty much insane.

0 comments

Posted 3:50 PM by Jason
Can we stop talking about Dean now?

Look, I really don’t feel the need to have a big discussion about Howard Dean, but here are some quotes with which you are probably familiar:
[The Republicans are] "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."
"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people,"
"have never made an honest living in their lives."

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization."

[Tom Delay] "ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence."

Gee, you just have to admire his dedication to debate on the issues.  I mean, why would he possibly want to sit down with Ken Mehlman and Tim Russert?

And like I said, he hasn’t been very good at the whole fundraising thing, which is kind of his job now.  Howlin’ Howie may be a bit of caricature, but there is no denying that it is at least partially of his own creation, and he hasn’t exactly done much to rebut that image either.  

I didn’t want to start a debate on Dean’s patriotism, in fact, its barely interesting, but it is hardly new, and I can see how someone could make the charge and see evidence of it in the story that I linked, among others.  

“I like Howie” vs. “what a nutjob” doesn’t really amount to anything except personal preference.  Me, I don’t much care for him.  My point was more “how is this man chair of the DNC”.

5 comments

Posted 11:15 AM by magnu231
Choosing One's Friends

I was over at the Daily Kos (thought I'd see how, what, or if the other side was thinking) and I found this delightful post, mentioning that "conservatives are only conservatives when they are in other conservatives good graces."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/6/115552/051
First, I think that's interesting that conservatives are singled out. Last time I checked people only claimed as intellectual comrades those who agree with us. Plus, especially in politics, people love to disown those who embarress them, even when they are in complete agreement. Although I think Kos's source is totally off base here. First, as I've mentioned, everyone does it (though of course that doesn't make it right). When Howie Dean started getting crazy, the Dems weren't in a huge rush to defend him. And libs won't waste much time claiming unpopular allies. Also, I'd argue that a lot of times conservatives are too quick to defend other conservatives when they are wrong. One's beliefs do not excuse bad behavior. However, this is a good opportunity to clear something up. There are massive polarities in the conservative movement. You haven't experienced intellectual tussling till you've been to a conservative conference similar to the one I've attended for the last few years in D.C. The social conservatives argue with the libertarians who argue with the tax cutters, deficit hawks, isolationists and "neo-cons". The conservative movement is ridiculously broad-based, from libertarians to the religious right. It's inconceivable that such a movement would not result in huge debates, schisms, etc. And therefore it's natural that all sides would be claiming the term conservative and arguing that those who don't agree with them aren't, because there are many different interpretations of the term "conservatism". I, for example, don't consider Pat Buchanan a conservative, but a lunatic. He's against almost everything in my defintion of conservative, such as free trade, freedom from government interference in markets, etc. But if your definition of conservative is only "pro-life" (although that's not a bad thing), then he's conservative. One of the comments on this Kos Article notes that there is no healthy conservative debate, only hysterical and emotional shouting. I almost chuckled out loud right here in civ pro. Because the liberal movement (as I see it) is nowhere near as broad based, and yet there is more nitpicking over tiny things than the conservative movement. Also, although I'll admit that many Republicans (who in large part don't deserve the title conservatives) have degenerated into emotional "you're not a patriot" demagogues, they're only doing so as they move more and more into traditionally liberal territory. I appreciate the many liberals who are reasonable and civil and base their arguments on more than "my son died, or grandma has socks on her hands, etc". But I'm going to have to stop, because civpro is calling my attention. I might come back to this later.

14 comments

Posted 11:13 AM by Jason
-5 outside, why should I care?

Men are bad, as usual.  Apparently this time we’re responsible for global warming.  Think of it as atmospheric domestic violence.  (ht Iain Murray)

0 comments

Posted 11:04 AM by Jason
I am so screwed

Former Stanford Law School Dean fails bar exam. (via Right Coast)      

UPDATE: Ivan from Joint Strike Weasel points out to me that Kathleen Sullivan was one of the authors of our Con Law text.  I didn’t, and don’t, mean to question her abilities, but rather the state of California.

0 comments

Posted 10:34 AM by magnu231
The Iraq Insurgency: Waning?

Interesting article here. You won't read this in the New York Times! (Although if you did, I wouldn't know, because I can't afford the Times, I can't figure out how to get it through Lexis, and every time I read their editorial page, my brain jumps out of my head and attempts to hide from the rampant ignorance that seeks to devour it). Anyway, here 'tis.

http://63.247.134.60/~pobbs/archives/002412the_rise_peak_decline_and_defeat_of_iraqs_insurgency.html

0 comments

Posted 10:36 PM by Jason
Re: Rising Body Count

And what’s more, Howard Dean, great patriot that he is (and how could anyone question that?!?), says that we can’t win.  Though, interestingly, he now acknowledges that removing Saddam was a good thing.  

5 comments

Posted 10:26 PM by magnu231
The Rising Body-Count

I'm still torn on the war in Iraq between the isolationism and protecting our national interests schools of thought. I don't like the "spreading freedom" rationale. I figure that if the Iraqis want peace, liberty, etc, they need to fight for it on their own. I also am not a huge fan of the preemptive strike, which can be dangerous thinking. However, I would say that Saddam was a threat. There was no doubt that he had WMD's at one time. There is no doubt that he was trying to resurrect his WMD program. How much success he had is not entirely clear. WMD's are very easy to hide, especially when we let a lot of stuff out of the country while we were invading. So I'm not entirely convinced there weren't any there. However, what a lot of conservatives are sick of is reflexive arguments without any coherent analysis on these issues. We can have a debate about how much of a threat Saddam was, whether that necessitated an invasion, whether diplomacy could have worked better, and whether the UN should have had a greater role (though those last two would be especially short arguments). But the knee jerk left too often operates on the principle that everything Bush does must be bad to begin with, that war is always wrong, and that there is no such thing as evil in the world (except for those whom one disagrees with on policy issues). Therefore the arguments against the war become mindless jingles "hey, no, we won't go", and the like. Bush is painted with the broad brush and the paint labeled "Nazi Green", the soldiers are portrayed as hapless and ocassionally evil pawns in a battle over oil, and no substantive debate is heard. That's why conservatives, including myself, are frustrated. The bodycount, as used in an argument, is a purely emotional number (especially when compared to the number in other wars, skirmishes, bad nights in Detroit, etc). But making policy on emotions is a dangerous game, and leads to impulsive and stupid decisions. So I'd like to hear some debate on the issue, certainly. Unfortunately vindictive and vituperative vitriol is what passes for debate these days, and our country and our political process certainly deserve better. (In my Humble Opinion).

1 comments

Posted 3:00 PM by Jason
Pretty much evidence that God exists

Barista, toss in a couple extra shots of espresso! (via Reuters, ht JNV at Volokh)

0 comments

Posted 11:46 AM by magnu231
Saddam: Southern Baptist Preacher!

And I say-uh. That you-uh, will-uh be the one judged-uh. You have no power over me. (Tikriti: Amen, Bombs Away!). Thus sayeth Saddam, I am not afraid to die-uh! You may cut my beard-uh, you may cut my neck-uh, but you shall NOT take away my....(thinks "crap, they have taken everything away, including my necktie")... legacy as a cruel dictator-uh (Tikriti: Give it to 'em). Though I die-uh, my spirit will live on. Where there is death, I am there-uh. Where there is enforced poverty of the masses to benefit an autocratic ruler, I am there-uh. Brothers and Sisters, the judge here is not legitimate. He represents everything I abhore-uh. Justice, Liberty, and Tolerance-uh. (Tikriti+ Preach it!). Brother Ramsey Clark will now proceed with his ongoing disgrace-uh of the legal profession.

0 comments

Posted 10:08 AM by Jason
Well, that's good

Saddam tells court he’s not afraid to die.

0 comments

Posted 9:54 AM by magnu231
NomChom

I find this interesting, especially since I consider that anti-semitism is a rising threat in our country, especially on the radical left, who use the epithet "neo-con" in many cases as a stand in for racial slurs against Jewish conservatives. (Although of course on the Pat Buchanan right, the problem is also mushrooming.) Here's an example of a person some people take seriously. In fact, he's become a "respected academic" who is quoted all the time on all manner of subjects. Strange that those stories don't note that Chomskey is famously sympathetic to those denying the holocaust, and anti-semitic, and especially anti-Israeli "thinkers" (with the broadest sarcasm possibly denoted by those quotation marks intended). Here's an interesting link. (Somewhat Legally Related!)

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012448.php

0 comments

Posted 10:23 PM by Jason
The Onion explains

Oh, so that’s why the all the upper level students wear suits all the time, I get it now.

0 comments

Posted 9:56 PM by Jason
Ummmmm, yeah...

Simple, but very effective at wasting time.

0 comments

Posted 11:26 AM by magnu231
Insidious Laws... Of Supply and Demand!

Here's some commentary on the NYT's "the economy is actually bad, not good, and we're the only people who can see through the prosperity to the heart of the problem, GWBush" article. Hilarious.



http://www.slate.com/id/2131180/

0 comments

Posted 10:50 AM by Jason
DO NOT READ IN CLASS

This is absolutely hilarious, except those obviously posted by raging lefties who by their very nature are not allowed to laugh.  My favorite: Cheney once killed Chuck "God" Norris with an elbow strike to his head. Cheney then put Chuck's corpse in an figure-four leglock, BECAUSE HE FELT LIKE IT.
(ht Jonah Goldberg on The Corner)

0 comments

Posted 9:20 PM by Jason
Internet Addiction

6-10% destructively dependant on the internet? Guilty!  Probably more amenable to law school than hardcore alcoholism though.  Also a plus: who needs a blackberry when you’re pretty much attached to a laptop?

0 comments

Posted 10:31 AM by Jason
Presidential Jury Duty

Come on W, do it! John Kerry did.

0 comments