Posted 5:11 PM by Jason
We're Number 2!

Good or bad? Decide that for yourself.  (ht SA)

1 comments

Posted 4:47 PM by Jason
You know what they say about free advice...

TaxProf has a roundup of advice for incoming 1L's.  Even though I am entering my second year, I am a sucker for advice.  My favorite? Dahlia Lithwick's Slate column from 2002.   If you happen to be an incoming 1L, read part C at least three or four times.  

My advice?  Join the Federalist Society.  Or at least come to our events.  

2 comments

Posted 4:23 PM by Jason
A year after Katrina, the climate debate rages on.

The Washington Post surveys the terrain.


0 comments

Posted 9:00 PM by Jason
"If it is indeed wrong, unanimity only makes its wrongness more egregious."

Prof. Carpenter has a paper titled "Unanimously Wrong" on Rumsfeld v. Fair in the 2005-2006 Cato Supreme Court Review (that can be accessed now via SSRN). I don't suppose he would mind if I pasted part of the abstract:

"The Supreme Court was unanimously wrong in Rumsfeld v. FAIR. Though rare, it's not the first time the Court has been unanimously wrong. Its most notorious such decisions have come, like FAIR, in cases where the Court conspicuously failed even to appreciate the importance of the constitutional freedoms under attack from legislative majorities. In these cases, the Court's very rhetoric exposed its myopic vision in ways that now seem embarrassing. Does FAIR, so obviously correct to so many people right now, await the same ignominy decades away?"


0 comments

Posted 5:22 PM by Jason
Harry Niska Returns to Blogging

FritzFeds founder Harry Niska, having completed his clerkship, is now blogging at Kennedy v. The Machine, tracking the U.S. Senate race (for Mark Dayton's seat) here in Minnesota between Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar and Congressman Mark Kennedy.  

0 comments

Posted 3:46 PM by Jason
Don't know much about

Raul Castro? Ion Mihai Pacepa does, and he wrote about him last Thursday for NRO.    

The Cuban media, meanwhile, seems eager to show that Fidel is alive and kicking.  The AP carried the story, but does not vouch for the authenticity of the photos of the Castro brothers with Hugo Chavez.    

The pictures should probably remove any hope that I had that Fidel had checked out, but I'm still keeping my fingers crossed.  For one thing, (as Drudge noted yesterday) we live in a world where pretty much anyone can figure out how to use Photoshop or other similar programs. The pictures (at least as reproduced by the AP) are also blurry and never really show Fidel's eyes or face up close.  Now, it could be a Weekend at Bernie's photo op, but maybe they just have really bad cameras down there.  

0 comments

Posted 3:45 PM by Jason
But will he wear a bow tie?

Tucker Carlson will compete in the third season of "Dancing With the Stars."  

0 comments

Posted 8:27 PM by Jason
Already Gone?

Is Castro already dead?   Mario Loyola thinks there's a good chance, so I'll take his suggestion and order a mojito tonight just in case.  Of course, I hope my bartender knows what he's doing.  

Compare Loyola's thoughts and observations with this Reuters item today, titled "Cuba says communists in control no matter what."  

It turns out that a gentleman by the name of Mark Falcoff wrote a book, "Cuba, The Morning After-Confronting Castro's Legacy" released in 2003 that deals with the after-Castro question.  Jay Nordlinger has a review here.    

As I have mentioned here before, Ernest Hemingway is one of my favorite authors (he used to be the undisputed #1).  He is also most likely one of the three individuals most readily identified with Cuba (sorry Andy Garcia).  One thing that always bothered me about him was that I couldn't quite figure out his politics.  Between the time spent in Cuba and siding with the communists in "For Whom the Bell Tolls," I expected the worst.  Today I was inspired to try to sort it out.  Though there is a relatively famous picture of Hemingway and Castro together, it was apparently taken the only time the two met, and before Castro declared himself a communist.  The Cuban government has predictably latched on to the Hemingway legacy as a way of promoting tourism, though given that Hemingway refused to enter Italy while Mussolini was in power, I doubt he would visit Cuba today.  The best explanation I found was an editorial by J. Daniel Cloud of the Libertarian Party, in which he argues (also predictably, but also convincingly) that Hemingway was a libertarian or at least had libertarian leanings:

"I cannot be a communist ... because I believe in only one thing: liberty," Ernest Hemingway wrote in response to a letter from a young communist in the late 1930s. "First I would look after myself and do my work. Then I would care for my family. Then I would help my neighbor. But the state I care nothing for. All the state has ever meant to me is unjust taxation. … I believe in the absolute minimum of government."
 
That I can live with.  

And finally (for today at least), our colleague from the Caribbean has some relevant thoughts on this topic over at The Foundation Dub Joint.  

0 comments

Posted 3:09 PM by Jason
You say you want a revolution.

NRO's editors on Cuba after Fidel.  Turns out they're not as excited as I am.  No love for Fidel there, they just take the position that in all likelihood communism in Cuba will survive both Fidel and Raul, and that change will have to come gradually.  They're probably right, but I still think that if anti-communists within Cuba are waiting for the right moment to make a move, Fidel's passing will probably be the best they can expect.  

0 comments

Posted 3:32 AM by Jason
More on the ABA and Signing Statements

Nothing new from me here, just a roundup of comments on presidential signing statements and the ABA "Blue Ribbon Task Force" report on them from:

The Editors of NRO

Ed Whelan in the Weekly Standard

The Washington Post

Walter Dellinger in The New York Times

Bench Memos (With Whelan, Jonathan Adler, and others) has ongoing coverage and commentary, which will surely continue as the ABA holds its Annual Meeting (in Hawaii this year) beginning Thursday, where the House of Delegates will be asked to adopt the committee's report.  Some of the earlier posts have been bumped out, but those here, here, and here are definitely worth reading.  

0 comments

Posted 2:38 AM by Jason
Harry Reid, Neocon?

"It is time for the Bush administration to offer a real plan to help the Cuban people finally get the freedom they deserve. In addition, we need to continue supporting those who have been leading the call for democracy and freedom within the island."
-from a Reid press release Tuesday afternoon (ht The Corner)

With Castro laid up for a while, and with last month's speculation, I admit, it becomes interesting to consider just what will happen when he finally does hop on that refugee raft to hell.  And I don't buy his doctor's claims that he will live for another 80 years.  What will the Cuban government do? What will the Cuban people do? What will/should the U.S. do?  

Castro has been in power (under various titles) for almost 50 years.  While changes in leadership are bound to occur more frequently in the future, Castro's passing will be a singular opportunity for all sides.  So, let's speculate (and I will admit to pure speculation on my part).  I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.  

When Castro does die, days and even hours will matter.  The communists will try to seize the opportunity to show that they can maintain control post-Castro.  A big question there is whether they will place his brother Rau, who is the constitutional successor to Fidel, in his place permanently (or temporarily again leading to permanently) or choose another (probably younger) successor. As for the U.S. (from the AP):

"If Fidel Castro were to move on because of natural causes, we've got a plan in place to help the people of Cuba understand there's a better way than the system in which they've been living under," he [President Bush] told WAQI- AM Radio Mambi, a Spanish-language radio station. "No one knows when Fidel Castro will move on. In my judgment, that's the work of the Almighty."

Three weeks ago, a U.S. presidential commission called for an $80 million program to bolster non-governmental groups in Cuba for the purpose of hastening an end to the country's communist system.

It is official U.S. policy to "undermine" Cuba's planned succession to Raul Castro. At the time the commission report was released, Bush said, "We are actively working for change in Cuba, not simply waiting for change."

Me: I'll believe it when I see it.  On one hand, the conventional wisdom that Bush is a reckless cowboy eager to promote democracy anywhere possible would lead to the conclusion that he will do whatever it takes to bring about the fall of communism in Cuba.  On the other, he's taken enough criticism for enough different things that he might hesitate just a little too long, be a little indecisive, and give the party a chance to assess the situation and tighten their grip.  Both sides no doubt have contingency plans, but the best laid plans…

The real wild card is the Cuban people.  How strong is the Castro "cult of personality"?  How strong are the anti-communist rebels?  Have too many of them already fled the country (seriously) or been imprisoned?  

Then there's the question of the broader impact of Castro's demise that I won't even start in on, but that Bridget Johnson discussed today on NRO.  NRO has also pulled some older articles out of their archives, something that they point out you can now also do yourself, a great addition to the site that I had so often

0 comments

Posted 2:38 AM by Jason
The Clash of Man, End of Civilizations and the Last History

Jonah Goldberg must be trying to ditch the "humorist" tag again/still, with a very long and serious essay on Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, Straussians, neoconservatism, national greatness, and more.  

0 comments

Posted 1:47 AM by Jason
Vicinage

I saw this link in a comment on Althouse today.  Here's the abstract from SSRN:

This article argues that there is a 50-square-mile swath of Idaho in which one can commit felonies with impunity. This is because of the intersection of a poorly drafted statute with a clear but neglected constitutional provision: the Sixth Amendment's Vicinage Clause. Although lesser criminal charges and civil liability still loom, the remaining possibility of criminals going free over a needless technical failure by Congress is difficult to stomach. No criminal defendant has ever broached the subject, let alone faced the numerous (though unconvincing) counterarguments. This shows that vicinage is not taken seriously by lawyers or judges. Still, Congress should close the Idaho loophole, not pretend it does not exist.

It's funny, AND I learned something.  

0 comments

Posted 12:10 PM by magnu231
Mel Gibson

Mel Gibson really has some issues. I've been somewhat impressed by his contriteness after the fact, however. Like other public figures with either conservative or religious views, he is being rightly criticized as a hypocrite for the things he did. But again, Mel Gibson was hypocritical, and it made his life a whole lot worse. I'm not saying this as a blanket statement, but I think it's an interesting idea (also put forth in Schweitzer's book on hypocracy) that though conservatives and liberals are both hypocritical, liberals are more often hypocritical in a way that help themselves. Rush Limbaugh was a hypocrite for lambasting druggies when he himself had a drug problem. But by not consulting his own words, he made his life a whole lot worse. Addiction's not pretty. Go down the list, and you'll see similar things, including with Gibson. Let's now consult a few examples of liberal hypocracy. The Kennedy family constantly argues for more wind power. And yet they were the reason that a prime windfarm location far out to sea was never used. Why? They liked to sail there. Michael Moore complains about about the lack of unionization with companies like WalMart, and yet tries every way he can to avoid letting unions work on his films. He also invests in Halliburton, big prescription drug companies, etc.

Let's be clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not judging liberalism by those who espouse it. That would put me in Coulter's camp, and that's not cool with me. And I realize that liberalism often has more group morality principles as opposed to individual morality principles. Liberals want to help other people. When they're hypocritical, they help themselves at the expense of other people. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility. When they fail, they fail themselves (as well as others). But I do think it's interesting that those who want to force their liberal morality on others often avoid that morality in their own lives, for the simple reason that it's easier to be a free rider. Their morality is an other-centered morality, as opposed to an individual-centered morality. It's what they want others to do, not what they're willing to do themselves. And, because of sacrificing their morality, their life becomes better. They get to sail and make movies with impunity. With conservatives, a sacrifice of their personal convictions almost universally results in pain. Even when they don't admit it, the personal failings of a Bill Bennett or Rush Limbaugh really mess up their lives. When conservatives who champion virtue are caught in infidelity, their marriages and lives generally fall apart.

I don't really know what my point is here. I've been away from writing too long. Basically, it's just me musing on hypocracy, on the left and the right. I think hypocracy on the right is more harmful to the people involved, because the people on the right know that they're doing something wrong and something that will wreak havoc on them. Hypocracy on the left is really just self-interest, a person realizing that through power and political will, they can force others to conform to a morality that they themselves realize isn't within their interest to hold.

0 comments