Fritz Feds

Bringing Back the Bayonet

2008-03-05T11:40:00.000-06:00

Bad Couple Weeks

2008-03-04T17:52:00.002-06:00

First, WFB passed away.

Then today, we hear that Brett Favre is retiring.

Completely different sorts of sadness really, but then again, in the grand scheme of things 1) it is hard to say which is worse (accounting for faith), and 2) both are completely and totally selfish.

A Bit Jealous

2008-02-14T22:14:00.002-06:00

Earlier this week we hosted Prof. Nelson Lund from the George Mason University School of Law for a debate on the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller. All around a great event, but at dinner later on Prof. Lund mentioned a curriculum requirement that GMUSL is instituting, their course "The Founders' Constitution." Needless to say, this being a Fed-Soc dinner, we were all (from the U and from St. Thomas) intrigued, and quite honestly, a bit jealous. If I wasn't a 3L devoid of ambition, I would totally undertake the course (the syllabus is available on the course website) as a self-improvement/independent study course.

Dick Durbin is a speed reader, learns by osmosis, or, most likely didn't read a page of this bill.

2007-12-20T00:34:00.000-06:00

Jim Demint breaks down the 46 hours that Dick Durbin insists was enough time for Senators to read this week's 3,417 page omnibus spending bill.

On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day in the eleventh month.

2007-11-11T13:46:00.001-06:00

Today is Veterans' Day.

Totally Weak

2007-11-05T10:27:00.000-06:00

British do-gooders (and undoubted nanny-state supporters) tell mythical elf-man to slim down.

Here's my question: Given that this chap has been around for hundreds upon hundreds of years, who are we to impose our notions of health on him? Maybe we could learn a lesson or two from the guy, or at least not get on his case about it.

Wait, what?

2007-10-31T22:11:00.000-05:00

John Edwards takes an individual rights view of the Second Amendment? Not that I would ever vote for the guy, and I'm sure there's a ton and a half of hedging going on in his mind as he says it, but still, interesting.

Meanwhile, over in St. Paul...

2007-10-31T22:02:00.000-05:00

Hamline University suspends a student for advocating concealed carry on campus. The university wants him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. I think their real concern should be getting him into a composition class. With a tact chaser.

Guns, Human Rights, and the Second Amendment

2007-10-29T11:19:00.000-05:00

David E. Petzal, Field & Stream's Gun Nut, passes along a message from Fred Thompson's campaign on the U.N.'s Sub-Commission on Human Rights and their disregard for a right to self-defense. This is definitely the first time I've seen a presidential candidate/campaign cite Hugo Grotius, so it's worth reading just for that. This is where I insert a teaser:

"There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government’s commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.

So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren’t so perverse. "

I probably shouldn't give him the (insignificant) bump in traffic, but

2007-10-25T12:42:00.001-05:00

I just have a feeling that this chap and I see the world in completely different ways.

Thanks Guy I Don't Know

2007-10-22T23:43:00.000-05:00

Some guy named Stephen Landsburg takes to the pages of Slate to explain what far too many people fail to grasp: climate change is not a single question but several. Not sure that I agree with the way he frames the questions, his choice of questions, or the number of questions (why 6 and not 10), but it is a start.

Indoctrinate U

2007-10-22T21:27:00.000-05:00

Our friends from the Minnesota Association of Scholars are hosting the midwest premiere of Evan Coyne Maloney's new documentary Indoctrinate U, which chronicles efforts across the country to force students to accept politically correct ideas or risk humiliation in class, even failing grades.

U of M School of Journalism and Mass Communication Professor Ken Doyle is the president of MAS. “We can’t say yet how big a problem educational indoctrination is in Minnesota,” says Doyle, “but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that there are at least pockets of the problem on many campuses.”

“The idea is not to interfere with professors’ freedom of speech, but to urge them to make sure students, especially undergraduates, are exposed to the full range of views,” Doyle emphasized.

“We want students to insist on hearing all sides of issues,” Doyle says. “We want them to insist on intellectual diversity.”

“A terrific must-see!” National Review
“Alarming and funny.” The New York Post
“A gripping hour and a half,.” Instapundit.com

Where? Oak Street Cinema, Oak Street at Washington, East Edge of UM Minneapolis Campus.

When? Last week of October. Friday October 26 through Thursday November 1

Friday 7:15 only, no Matinee.

Saturday/Sunday 7:15, with a 5:15 Matinee each day

Monday through Thursday 7:15 and 9:15, with 5:15 Matinees Tuesday & Wednesday

How Much? Evenings: Adults $8, Students $5. Matinees: Adults $6, Students $4.

What Else? Grand Opening Meet-the-Producer Gala 5:15 Friday evening, UM McNemara Center, d’Amico-catered Dinner/Film $50. For Gala reservations please phone 612.624.5341.

For more info on the film visit www.indoctrinate-u.com

Not Surprising.

2007-10-12T07:37:00.000-05:00

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize. He joins such illustrious past winners as Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and Rigoberta Menchu .

Presidential Debates and the Line Item Veto

2007-10-10T22:06:00.000-05:00

Federalist Society founder Prof. Steven Calabresi weighs in here.

A sample:

"The U.S. Constitution lays out a very specific process by which laws are to be made in this country. They must be passed by the two houses of Congress and presented to the president for him to sign or veto. For 200 years everyone has understood that the president must either sign or veto the laws presented to him — he cannot accept them in part and reject them in part. The language of the Constitution is very clear on this point, and it is different from the language in many State constitutions which explicitly give their governors a line-item-veto power."

Obama comes out in favor of immanentizing the eschaton.

2007-10-07T22:14:00.000-05:00

"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

War Is Never a Good Idea

2007-09-25T15:43:00.001-05:00

From what Blogger's dashboard tells me, this will be the 666th post on FritzFeds. I sure am glad that I'm not superstitious.

Alice Walker has a new children's book out called "Why War Is Never a Good Idea."

Yesterday, kids were herded in by the hundreds to hear her profound insights.

"Dianne Lundberg, teacher-librarian at the school, helped coordinate the talk with the University Book Store in Mill Creek as it promotes Walker's new book.

'It is a profound book," Lundberg said.'"

How profound? Feast your eyes on this:

"One illustration showed frogs on a lily pad, about to be flattened by a camouflaged truck tire.

'Though war knows every language, it never knows what to say to frogs,' she said, reading from her book. 'They do not see war.'"

War Is Never a Good Idea. QED.

Wait, was the truck camouflaged or was the tire? I'm confused.

"Arie Martinet, a fourth-grade student who visited the library after the assembly, said she enjoyed the talk.

'It was really inspiring,' Martinet said. 'War is never a good idea. We're all human and we can get along nicely so why should there be war?'"

Well played Arie, well played.

Lest I be accused of making fun of nine year olds:

"'It is a profound book,' Lundberg said."

On Amazon, Stephanye Monahan agrees:

"On the surface this book appears to be for a child ... the illustrations are excellently executed and provide sub-text, but the theme is adult and universal and, given the sad state of global affairs, the pictures may be helpful for comprehension by even our governmental "leaders" and "war mongers." I recommend this highly for any age, gender, ethnicity, or social standing. Bravo! to Ms. Alice Walker."

Ummm, Steph, did you really want war mongers in scare quotes?

At least young Arie has an excuse for her naivete.

Stolen from The Corner

2007-09-19T14:38:00.000-05:00

The [Illustrated] Road to Serfdom

Greenspan Clarifies

2007-09-17T11:29:00.000-05:00

Before anyone on the left decides to declare Alan Greenspan their new hero for his comments regarding oil and the Iraq war, they should probably read this WaPo article.

Free Online Harry Reid Translator

2007-09-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

Regarding Former Solicitor General Ted Olson: "He's a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan," Reid told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill.

Translation: "The President likes him, and he isn't incompetent, therefore I don't."

Kind of makes me wonder. Reid probably thinks it was a smart move to jump all over Ted, who had been getting a lot of buzz lately. But what if Olson (who I think would be a fine AG) was just a decoy? What if Karl Rove had this all planned out before he left? Of course, devious plans like that are only cool if the real nominee is someone even better.

Weak first post back, I know, but I think Reid sounds like an idiot here. "He's a partisan." Senator Reid, do you mean to say that there are partisan folks involved in politics? I always thought that folks like John Ashcroft, Janet Reno, Ramsey Clark, and Bobby Kennedy were straight down the middle registered independent type folks. At least Wendy Long knows what's going on:

Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said Democrats want to declare victory without having to fight and appear to be obstructionists.

"They would love to be able to say they scared the White House out of nominating Olson," she said. "At this point, if Bush nominates anyone other than Olson, they will take credit for it."

Sneaky.

Bureaucrats Waste Time and Money

2007-07-18T00:55:00.000-05:00

They're after Ernest Hemingway's cats!

My Buddy Mike

2007-05-19T17:23:00.000-05:00

Michael Moore has a new moving coming out; it's called "Sicko" and at least from what I can tell it's not an autobiography. While I care very little about Moore and his movies, I though that I should mention this for two reasons. 1) I haven't posted in a very long time, and 2) because this is funny:

"A spokeswoman for the Weinstein Company that produced Moore's film said the documentary "has been placed in a secret location outside the country (outside the United States)" because of fears it might be taken by US officials."

And not in a "it's funny because it's true" sort of way, but in a sarcastic "yeah, that happens ALL THE TIME in the U.S." sort of way. Then again, if the film was evidence of illegal activity, like, say, going to Cuba without permission, there could be a reason to seize it (I don't know one way or the other), but the suggestion is that poor everyman Michael is going to be censored by the big bad Bush administration because they don't like what he says in his movie.

UPDATE: Here's Rich Lowry on the actual state of health care in Cuba.

Imus

2007-04-12T13:26:00.000-05:00

So, this is blowing up. Seems that it's obligatory to have at least one racial kerfluffle every two or three months. First, let me clear up one thing. I personally think Imus and his ilk are no-talent hacks. I think the "nappy-headed hos" was obviously a racial comment, and was a pretty asinine thing to say. But, I think the problem is not with racism in our culture necessarily, or with Don Imus in particular. I personally think the problem is that our culture has begun to prize inflammatory speech purely for its value as an offensive statement to somebody else. It's why our level of political discourse is at about a third-grade level, and a rather angry third-grader at that. It's why Carlos Mencia has a job. So, don't blame this on Imus, per se. Don't try to claim that this is unearthing the hidden racist tendencies of White people. The problem needs to be combated in every facet of culture. It's not a white thing, an old-person thing, or a radio thing. On another note, check out Jason Whitlock's column on the subject. I'd have to say that I agree with him on a lot of issues, and I think he does a good job on this one.

EDIT: The Village Voice breaks down something TRULY offensive. I'm speaking of course of the song "This is Why I'm Hot".

Asking the right questions.

2007-04-09T14:33:00.000-05:00

My buddy Richard Lindzen (ok, I made that first part up) has an article on climate change called "No Such Thing As a "Perfect" Temperature" in the upcoming Newsweek. Scoff if you like at it being in Newsweek, but Lindzen is as good as anyone at representing the skeptical position here. From my experience, too many people involved or interested in the climate change debate/discussion (I'm thinking activists, not academics) treat the issue as a single question with a single answer, when in reality there are probably more like five or six that must be answered before any "action" should be taken. Lindzen deals with that, among other things. Obligatory teaser:

"Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia."

Nancy Pelosi, Felon?

2007-04-06T13:06:00.000-05:00

The Speaker and the Logan Act.

Reintroducing the ERA

2007-03-28T11:35:00.000-05:00

Phyllis Schlafly is almost 83 years old. Whoever is behind the ERA reintroduction (and renaming) must have thought that it was safe to go back in the water. Having seen Schlafly at the FedSoc Student Symposium last month, I doubt it.

Eugene Volokh has a nice breakdown of what actual effect the amendment could have.

I'm back

2007-03-26T17:28:00.000-05:00

I was gone for a while, because blogger was locking me out. And also because I was being lazy. (But I am only lazy in blogging matters, potential future employers! If hired, I will be tireless in pursuit of the ultimate good of the firm. That is all.) Now I come back and find out that a bunch of attorneys have been shut out, Justice Department folks are pleading the fifth, and the legal community is buzzing. But I'm not going to write about that. Instead, I'll take a place from Ivan's book and show you this. Apparently, the U is doing a good job of recruiting! I'll take Bernstein's word for it, as I've only had a class with one person on that list. I just wanted to start back into the grind with some happy news. But stand by for copious doses of the old James. Finals may not be at hand, but they're peeking over the horizon.

"He always keeps talking about these figures in a cave, like they really have anything to do with the real world. Give me a break!"

2007-03-20T14:36:00.000-05:00

Student Evaluations for Prof. Socrates. They're funny. That's really all I have.

Here's part of one:

"One thing in his defense is that he was much more positive toward gay and lesbian people. Actually, there was this one guy in class, Phaedroh or something like that, who Socrates was always looking at and one day they both didn't come to class and they disappeared for the whole day. I'm quite sure that something is going on there and that the professor is abusing his power over this student."

Oh, one more thing. It's been many, many years; why do I still [mis]pronounce Socrates Bill & Ted style?

Blame Global Warming

2007-02-27T10:47:00.000-06:00

I normally don't watch any of the CSI variants, but I couldn't tear myself away from CSI: Miami last night. I never knew that there were grizzlies in Florida!

Symposium, cont.

2007-02-27T10:38:00.000-06:00

Simon at Stubborn Facts has a nice recap of the Student Symposium panels from last Saturday.

I would challenge him to a duel for compromising the secrecy of our fair society, but Grand Master Prof. Steven Calabresi made it fairly clear through the weekend that he does not approve of dueling, even if it is consensual.

The Preeminent Ideological Proving Ground for Ultra-Conservatives.

2007-02-26T00:02:00.000-06:00

I returned today, tired but in one piece, from the Federalist Society Symposium at Northwestern University.  A most excellent time was had by all.  I can't go into much detail, what with the Society being a super secret cabal and all, but I can say this: Judge William Pryor was a great choice for a keynote speaker, especially given the "Law & Morality" focus of the weekend.

Some in the audience seemed a bit sore over his role in the whole Roy Moore affair, but Pryor responded to their questions deftly and persuasively, and the emphasis on respect for the rule of law in his speech was quite inspiring (NERD ALERT!).  He specifically borrowed a few lines from A Man for All Seasons in making his point:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Robert Bork had an interesting article on More (not Moore) in First Things back in 1999.

On a lighter note:  Lino Graglia, you are a madman. I want to party with you, cowboy.

Le Pen is Back

2007-02-21T12:01:00.000-06:00

Continuing my trend of only focusing on straw men, French Nazi Le Pen has been speaking out lately. He doesn't think 9/11 was that big a deal, and notes that more people than that have died in Iraq. This isn't that newsworthy, I just thought it was worth noting that Le Pen is still around and kicking. Any country that allows somebody like this buffoon to get as large a share of the vote as he usually does has major problems.

Undermine our consensus? HOW DARE YOU?

2007-02-15T11:00:00.000-06:00

Thomas Sowell on think tanks, global warming, and the foolishness of four U.S. Senators.

Humor and HR?

2007-02-13T12:11:00.000-06:00

In case you ever wondered about the potential litigation concerning the Office on NBC, i.e. what would actually occur if such events happened in real life, here's a blog entirely devoted to the question. If there are any budding employment lawyers who also happen to be into humorous tv shows (a contingency I consider remote), this is the site for you.

More Hot Air.

2007-02-06T22:34:00.000-06:00

Al Gore thinks that President Bush is paying scientists to dispute global warming.  Apparently he missed this, this, this (ok, fine, that one is just hydrogen cars), this, and most of all this.

My point is that the man is not a "climate change denier."

Now, he may not "get" everything, but at least he got this part right:

"The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.  (from the second "this")

Also worth reading: An NRO editorial on the IPCC report, and it isn't what you think.

Consensus?

2007-02-06T14:01:00.000-06:00

Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, takes on the notion that there is a scientific consensus regarding climate change in this article. Ball devotes much of the space to arguing that this consensus is not real, but also laments the state of the academy that produced it.

Of course, consensus (as he acknowledges) is not essential or even terribly important in scientific matters (such things are not decided by juries, after all, they either are or are not), but the fact that 1000 or so scientists agree on something would seem to have some significance beyond the media's love of reporting on it. This, however, returns us to the question of how the consensus was built, and thus the state of the academy that Ball discusses. I'm not adding anything new here, just setting up the piece, which happens to mention Richard Lindzen. Lindzen is one of the best known global warming skeptics in the U.S. Have you heard of him? No? Well, there you go.

I believe this is where I paste a teaser, so I will use his intro (say what you will, the guy doesn't need any self-esteem boosting, and in this day and age we know that self-esteem is important):

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Economics

2007-02-05T16:49:00.000-06:00

I thought this post was interesting, from the excellent blog samizdata. It's about British politics, history, and the failings of the conservative movement there, so I know it's going to be of great interest to everybody. But if anybody wants to read an interesting post on the EEC, and how some Brits are using it to try to acquiesce even more to the EU, check it out.

Obama, the "Clean Black"

2007-01-31T11:06:00.000-06:00

I find the scuttlebutt surrounding Barack Obama's "blackness"interesting. According to Drudge (though I'm unable to get to the article at present), Biden said in an interview that "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..." Stanley Crouch wrote a column in the NY Daily News a while ago entitled "What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me". I think these two columns rather nicely illustrate one of the major pitfalls of the left, racial profiling. Now, of course this exists on both sides, etc, etc, but since this a blog, permit me to overgeneralize. The left has long refused to accept certain people as black for the simple fact that they believed in conservative principles, or voted the wrong way, or refused to hate George Bush, who after all, does not care about black people (at least according to Kanye, and he should know, because he had a crown of thorns in a picture on the cover of Rolling Stone). After all, somebody cannot be truly Black unless they agree with what the Black leadership says to agree with. But it's alarming that this trend is being extended to those of slightly different heritage, or whose speech is a little too precise. And I think it's a problem that cannot be fixed by ignoring it. Racial prejudice, though not a problem in our country to the extent that it is in other parts of the world, is still a problem that needs to be confronted directly. However, those that will be quick to denounce the opinions of Crouch and of Biden (if it turns out that the quote is accurate and in context), should also be quick to fight for those disenfranchised and shunned by their ethnic group for daring to disagree.

"But outside it's cold; and oh, that howling wind!"

2007-01-26T14:24:00.000-06:00

The St. Paul Winter Carnival begins this weekend. This is as good a reason as any to read F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Ice Palace."

Wherein Peter Huber sets you straight on energy and energy policy.

2007-01-25T15:43:00.000-06:00

This column is from November, but I just saw it today, as I am not a regular Forbes reader. I have, however, been a fan of Peter Huber for a few years now. Who is Peter Huber? Check out his profile at the Manhattan Institute's website. He gets to the point in a hurry:

If you're 40 or older, you're going to spend the rest of your life powered by carbon or uranium. Take your pick. Forget about "none of the above" or "less of both." For the next several decades at least, alternative energy sources aren't serious choices; they are pork barrels, delusions, demonstration plants and daydreams.

Global Warming: Is There Anything it Can't Do?

2007-01-25T10:56:00.000-06:00

This just blew my mind. SIGN KYOTO NOW CHIMPY McHALLIBUSHITLER! For the CHILDREN!

Then again, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, stem cell research has the potential to conquer all known maladies, that could fix this, right? Right?

State of the Union

2007-01-24T10:44:00.000-06:00

I barely watched the State of the Union address last night; just the end really.  I know I'm supposed to care, but Veronica Mars was new, won't be all over the news today, and wouldn't carry as well in transcript form.  I happened to switch the TV to ABC, only to see Charlie Gibson (talking to John McCain) repeatedly refer to American soldiers as "kids" and "young kids," and it rubbed me the wrong way.  Somehow it didn't bother me coming out of John McCain (I think he used the word first and CG went with it).

I wonder if the typical soldier would appreciate being referred to as a "kid."

Ok, I give up.  I'm writing this right now a little after 9:30pm, but won't be able to post until Wednesday morning.  Sorry if I mix tenses.  No wait, I'm not.

Hillary Clinton just called the Democrats an "evidence based party."  What does that even mean?

Well, at least Charlie called her on the "symbolic votes" against the "surge" and Democrats wanting to have it both ways on Iraq.

She thinks we might make some progress by cutting money to Iraqi troops.

I don't like using the word "surge" here, mostly because it reminds me of the soft drink made by Coca-Cola from the mid to late nineties, which seems to have been resurrected as Vault.  Really, think about it, it's the same thing.  At least they don't have the horrible commercials this time.  That or I don't watch as much TV.

On to Obama.  Are presidential politics going to interfere with the next two years?  He gives the "well, it surely won't interfere with ME getting my work done" answer.  Smooth.  Then just platitudes and stock talking points.  See, this is another reason I DIDN'T watch the address.

That's about enough politics; I'll stop now.

Tales of the Macabre

2007-01-22T15:28:00.000-06:00

Making a brief foray from my normal libertarian polemics into the strange world of film making, I turn to the story of Erik Red. Some may have heard of the new "slasher" film (which is actually a remake) called "Hitcher". The story of the man behind the movie is as interesting and gory as the movie itself, (though I personally have no inclination to see it). If you're interested, check it out here.

Reintroducing Satire

2007-01-19T11:58:00.000-06:00

I think, and it was clear to me after watching some clips of O'Reilly on with Colbert, and vice versa, that one of the problems of parts of the conservative movement is a sort of portentous pretentiousness, a trait that of course still exists in liberalism, but used to be less noticeable in conservatism. Men like WF Buckley and others took joy in being not only intelligent, erudite, and intellectual giants, but also in being somewhat quirky and entertaining, symbolized by the bow-tie, which has since been so misapplied that it too stands for pretension. Here's someone who the conservative desperate needs to keep hearing from, in my opinion. PJ O'Rourke has been less in the public eye than when he was a young libertarian madman, touting drugs and dangerous sexual behaviors. However, I think he's matured into a funny and yet thoughtful writer. Here he is in Radar online talking about where the conservative movement has gone wrong.

Ah, there is a simple answer to that. We took power. You see, it's pretty easy to be smart and reasonable and far-sighted and to have great perspective on the past when you don't have any power, when you don't have to do anything.

Even though we had Reagan in, the conservatives had not yet taken over the reign of government. I mean, the whole story of the Reagan Administration is the fight for the conservatives to actually get power. And then we get George H.W. Bush, the senior, who's kind of a weak sister. His heart's in the right place and stuff, but I mean, he really should have been president of the country club, not of the country. And so the whole thing doesn't really bear fruit until we take over Congress in 1994, and then the problems begin ... and now it's payback time.

(I completely agree).

AAAAAaaand We're Back!

2007-01-16T11:12:00.000-06:00

I walked into the law school for the first time in a while, and was immediately accosted by a moderately elderly protester who demanded that I take a flyer. I refused, and walked away when she started to plead her case anyway. Then, while I was trying to figure out my class schedule (and trying to convince myself that life during this semester would not be as awful as the last semesters, even though it looked twice as bad), a mysterious figure, appropriately dressed in an orange jumpsuit and hood loomed next to my table. He offered me another flyer. I politely refused. He then made some comments about my being apparently a "pat hand" on the subject, and told me I was closed-minded. He then started to go down the line, offering flyers to some obviously bored students, none of whom took it. He then started to get on the soap-box, pontificating about "students who wouldn't even listen to opposing points of view" (though I happened to know that several of the students did not have an opposing point of view. It was hard to convince him that the controversy had been raging for a while, and we law students had some idea of what it was about. Perhaps (shockingly) more than he himself had! So, it was a fun reintroduction to the law school. And to blogging. It's great to be back (read with even more sarcasm than was slathered on by the aging anti-torture advocate).

Hash, Then Re-Hash

2007-01-11T16:03:00.000-06:00

A group of OLC alumni has written a letter to UMN Law Deans Morrison and Charles supporting Robert Delahunty's appointment to teach one semester of constitutional law (to fill in for Prof. Carpenter) and responding to some of the concerns expressed by members of our faculty in the previously mentioned Nov. 28 letter. Is this an old issue? You bet. Is this letter, written by former colleagues and supervisors of Prof. Delahunty, worth reading? Indeed.

[Note: Our lull in posting should end soon, as classes resume Tuesday]

We interrupt our procrastination to bring you this important announcement.

2006-12-14T15:23:00.000-06:00

Chen to Louisville.  So much for taking Environmental Law with him next semester.

I suppose we can't say we didn't see this coming, what with the short lists he's been on recently.

Congratulations Prof. Chen.

Would you get off my back already?

2006-12-09T18:50:00.000-06:00

We here at FritzFeds would like to apologize for our lack of productivity over the course of the past week or so.  The more general lack of productivity, however, we will never apologize for.  I will also not apologize for ending sentences with prepositions.  Jmag might, but not me.

You might assume, given the time of year, that we are too busy preparing for finals to post.  You might even imagine me tucked away in the dark recesses of the law library with my books and outlines and such, studying away, embiggening my mind, and occasionally gazing thoughtfully into the distance.

I imagine these things too.  That imaginary me is so studious and bright that sometimes I wish I was him.  Unfortunately, some things just aren't meant to be.

So, if I'm not going to use my studying as an excuse, can I use yours?

Best of luck on final exams to you all. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays too.

Wait, did I just remind you that after finals you most likely still have to do your Christmas shopping.  Sorry…

In the meantime, I thought you might enjoy this piece from some website called "Catholic Exchange" (which I had never heard of previously), titled "What would Russell Kirk say about Ann Coulter?"

Interesting Response to Posner

2006-12-05T11:36:00.000-06:00

Judicial Activism is a frequent charge leveled against the current judicial system. Posner has argued that in cases where the law is uncertain, a Judge should rule based on what he believes to be reasonable. Here's a response to that idea, and it makes a few interesting points.

More on Delahunty

2006-11-29T14:59:00.000-06:00

Jonathan Adler and David Bernstein offer their thoughts on the appointment controversy over at the VC.

Despicable

2006-11-27T11:53:00.000-06:00

Over at JSW, there's a good post on a pressing issue here at the University of Minnesota Law School. Apparently, some are moving to stop St. Thomas Professor Robert Delahunty from being hired at the U to teach Constitutional Law, and perhaps one other class. I find the whole thing preposterous, especially the over-inflated rhetoric flying around (like "war criminal", "crimes against humanity", "breach of legal ethics", etc.). I know the prof. in question, and he's a good man. But unfortunately, the U still seems to have John Yoo fever. Even my undergrad, one of the most liberal places on the planet, was more tolerant of diverse viewpoints than this. Hopefully, the petition will be ignored by the general populace, and those interested in disagreeing with the good professor, will show up to his class and respectfully do so.

Thanksgiving

2006-11-22T11:53:00.000-06:00

Here's something to give thanks about this thanksgiving. Justin Morneau is MVP!

MVP! MVP! MVP!

(Yes, I know this is related to neither law nor politics. Sue me.)

Freedom

2006-11-16T14:10:00.000-06:00

Milton Friedman, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and Nobel Prize winner, has passed away at the age of 94.  At the University of Chicago he advised both Thomas Sowell and Gary Becker on their doctorates.

In 2002, on the occasion of Prof. Friedman's 90th birthday, Ben Bernanke, then a member, now chairman, of the Federal Reserve, remarked:

"Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry."

A titan in his field, granted a long life and active until the end.  We should all be so fortunate.

R.I.P.

R.I.P.

2006-11-16T14:05:00.000-06:00

Milton Freedman has died. In our current society (and especially in our political system), his voice was still needed. The dearth of basic economic knowledge, and the continuing need for a strong voice championing freedom, both show that he died too soon. Hopefully, there will spring up an Elisha with a double portion of his spirit.

Canadian Churches

2006-11-16T11:33:00.000-06:00

Apparently every major institution in Canada is crazy, including the Churches. The largest protestant denomination in Canada has voted to discourage the purchase of bottled water. Is there some spiritual reason for this? Of course there is! The church "boldly voted" to "affirm its conviction that "water is a sacred gift that connects all life," and the privatization of water must be avoided." Here's my favorite quote: "Its value to the common good must take priority over commercial interests," said the Council. "Privatization turns a common good into a commodity, depriving those who cannot pay and further threatening local ecosystems." Apparently economics isn't a big subject in private religious schools these days. This illustrates my problem with the modern church perfectly. Churches are spending their time on trendy but wrongheaded policy prescriptions, while ignoring those that it is called to help. Instead of trying to make sure that people in Canada and elsewhere to help the needy, the church makes a useless statement based on a nice sounding but economically foolish principle (that privatization is inherently a bad thing in these cases). I'm not going to attack the econ of the idea, because that would take some time. I'm just going to remark that maybe the church should find more important issues, and actually DO something. For once.

At Least He Admits It

2006-11-15T21:07:00.000-06:00

I'm not a huge fan of Larry King, and I am a relatively huge fan of the internets, but for some reason this does not bother me in the least. In fact, I think it's pretty cool. Way to keep it old school Larry, or as they called it when you were a kid: school.

Moral of the story: If Russell Kirk were still alive he wouldn't use the internet, so its alright if Larry King doesn't either.

Moral of the story 2: MORE ROOM IN THE TUBES FOR ME!

Appreciating Gerald Ford

2006-11-14T13:39:00.000-06:00

Gleaves Whitney, apparently the director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University (which is in Michigan), has an homage to Gerald Ford, who has just become the oldest former President in U.S. history, on NRO today. Read it.

Borat in trouble?

2006-11-11T19:32:00.000-06:00

This is not surprising. Borat is perhaps going to be taken to court for his film by the villagers from the opening scene. Most of them had no idea what the film was going to be about, and are taking offense at the comedy about the less than savory nature of the "Kazakh" village. One thing I noted was that the villagers all referred to Sascha Baron Coen as the "tall American man", although he's British. Hey, sometimes our country is even blamed for things that Englishmen do.

Shoot

2006-11-10T14:31:00.000-06:00

I sure with I would have held off on picking a journal topic. Because this would be a dandy. I don't know anything about German long-arm statutes, and I really have no idea how this would work, but things aren't going great for ol' Rummy right now. My guess is that it's just Europe attempting to pile on after the perceived failure of the President's foreign policy. In that regard, they're following the example of Al Queda in Iraq. And that is the problem with Iraq right now. The farther we get from it, the more it looks like a bad idea to go in (hindsight being 20/20), but pulling out would be seen as a huge victory for our enemies, who might decide to get around to blowing up the White House.

Great Summation

2006-11-08T11:58:00.000-06:00

Instapundit has a great statement from Mike Pence about the election. I'll present it without comment, as it pretty much sums up many of my own opinions.

Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government. In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, 'enough is enough.

Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.

My Thoughts Exactly

2006-11-08T11:51:00.000-06:00

I'll be posting more on the election later, which ended up annoying me more than I thought it would. I'm just hoping that now Bush will discover new depths of fortitude (or more colloquially, grow a pair), and start vetoing the nonsense that will soon be crossing his desk. Gridlock is good, in my book. And, I'll be posting later on some of the election coverage I heard, including Mr. Ellison's victory speech, which made me very upset. But now, I'll just leave you with this article on the great libertarian website samizdata. The headline sums it up for me, "I wish they all could lose".

Utter Nonsense

2006-11-07T12:16:00.000-06:00

I could talk about the need to vote, but I don't believe it. Your vote doesn't count, and is waiting in line for an hour a reasonable price to pay for making a gesture? Or, I could talk about nitty-gritty politics, and try to convince all five of our readers to vote differently. Or, I could simply make fun of Keith Olbermann's latest. Keith, you're a pompous idiot. And everything you've said is utter bilgewater. Maybe later I'll actually take the time to dissect it. But probably not.

Important Things

2006-11-06T11:46:00.000-06:00

I'm bored with politics, and I'm tired of hearing about them. And it goes without saying that I'm extremely bored of the law by this point. So, I've been perusing blogs about econ lately as a change of pace. If you want an entertainingly cumudgeonly economist, I suggest the "angry economist". He has some interesting posts on the minimum wage, and something on the positive v. negative (or some would say, conservative v. liberal) rights argument. Or, if you're so inclined, you could check out the mises economics blog, if you're into austrian economics. They have an interesting post on the google-youtube merger, which they turn into a critique of copyright law. Good stuff.

The Talented Mr. Buckley

2006-11-02T15:37:00.000-06:00

Bill Buckley has been gradually retiring since, well, since before I started reading National Review, bit by bit (editorship, ownership control, Firing Line, skiing, sailing, public harpsichord performances), which I wager is a nice way to do things, though the impression that I get is that the only real retirement he'll ever take is the "until judgment day" kind. He quit the lecture circuit years ago, but gave what was billed as his "final speech on public affairs" last night. Here's my hang up: if these Yale kids are so smart, why do they say things like (quotes from the YDN italicized) this:

Although most students said they liked the humor in Buckley's speech, others said he did not actually address the matter at the heart of the debate.

Yeah, the topic of the debate was "Resolved: The Democratic Candidates for November 7th Should Withdraw", why would you care if he focused on that? He's William F. Buckley, and you got to be there, take what you can get.

Eric Purington '09 said although Buckley was extremely eloquent and an impressive public speaker, he wanted to hear more about the actual topic in question.

"I expected a broader interpretation of everything he has stood for for the past 60 years," Purington said. "Also, his suggestions weren't really conceivable."

Eric, I know you're only a sophomore in college, but even you should be able to figure out that any "suggestions" offered probably weren't meant to be taken very seriously. Also, 60 years is a long time to condense down for your pleasure. He's probably written enough material that it would take a normal person 60 years to read it all.

Geoffrey Shaw '10 said he did not feel that Buckley's points adequately addressed the question at hand.

"It was funny that he said that the way to correct the Democrats' platform was to listen to him, but he never really elaborated on his own ideas on how to change it," he said.

Greg, I think you and Eric should hang out, maybe if the two of you put your heads together you'll be able to get the point. Buckley is good as an apologist (drop the negative connotation here), but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a better polemicist on the right. Is this because the content of his arguments is that much better than every other writer out there? Of course not. At a certain point, style matters; Buckley’s got it, the new class (Coulter, Hannity) wishes it did. Some of the younger old timers, in my opinion, come close, specifically Peggy Noonan and Pat Buchanan (when he’s not being crazy).

But others said they believed Buckley did justice to his reputation of being a good speaker in his last address.

Finally, a guy who paid attention:

"His tongue-in-cheek humor added to the effectiveness of his speech," Alexander Gregath '09 said. "He is the master of the underhanded insult, and he wouldn't be saying the things even in a humorous way if he didn't believe them."

Close enough my friend. Making fun of these kids, while not very nice, did remind me of one of my favorite episodes of The Simpsons, "A Tale of Two Springfields." And not just for the chloroform jokes. If you aren't familiar, the setup is that Springfield is split into two towns, Old Springfield and New Springfield. Old(e) Springfield, as Homer points out early on, is home to Mr. Burns, Dr. Hibbard, Kent Brockman and pretty much anyone with money. Homer (the mayor of New Springfield, incidentally) is watching TV. Enough set-up. This exchange gets me every time:

Kent Brockman: Scientists say they're also less attractive physically, and while we speak in a well-educated manner they tend to use low-brow expressions like "oh yeah?" and "come here a minute!"

Homer: Oh yeah? They think they're better than us, huh? Bart, come here a minute!

Bart: You come here a minute!

Homer: Oh yeah? *shaking fist*

Well, maybe it isn't as funny in plain text, since it depends on running the words "come here a minute" together into something like "comeeraminit" and on Don Castellaneta's voice work on the two key words "oh yeah" (which is completely unlike that of Duff Man, or the Kool-Aid Man for that matter). It's because of this that I often shake my fist and say "oh yeah?" for no apparent reason.

Today, however, I'm shaking the "oh yeah?" fist at these Yale kids who had the great fortune to attend a once-in-a-lifetime event and didn't appreciate it for what it was.

The notion of Bill Buckley talking election hypotheticals with college kids is funny enough; I remember after the 2004 Presidential election reading in one of Mr. Buckley’s columns in which he remarked terribly casually that it would probably be his last. There have been similar remarks in other speeches, and columns and such.

As I alluded to in the beginning of this post, Mr. Buckley seems to be narrowing the scope of his endeavors, winding up his affairs. Here's what I'm trying to say: When Russell Kirk passed away, (and now I'm copying directly from his obituary, written by WFB,how odd) on “his last day, he rose, breakfasted, sat down in his armchair, exchanged words with his wife and two of his daughters, closed his eyes, and died.” I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a freshly finished manuscript on his desk, along with a column or two.

Anniversary

2006-10-31T17:27:00.000-06:00

Even though I pretty much can't stand Halloween, I feel that it is worth noting the strange occurrences lining up.  My first post on this blog (which was also the first real post since FritzFeds had gone comatose) was one year ago today, on the topic of the most important news of that day, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  Now, one year and dozens (yes, DOZENS) of hits later, a different sort of "change in the balance of power" (whether the Alito appointment was a big change or not is debatable) is all the rage in the media, though they approve this time.

So I exhort you, disenchanted conservative types (yes, both of you who are reading this), to think back to a year ago, imagine how Alito would have fared in a Democrat controlled Senate, consider that Supreme Court retirements are not unforeseeable in the next two years, to do the right thing next Tuesday.

And now, as I wrap up and give this a title, it occurs to me that one thing that actually annoys me more, and surely on a more regular basis, is the use of the word "anniversary" to refer to any increment of time other than the year.  There is no such thing as a "two-month anniversary."  Maybe a "moisversary" or "monversary" which are both less than satisfactory but much better than the alternative.

Shameless Promotion of Faculty

2006-10-31T16:26:00.000-06:00

UMN Law Prof. David Stras has a review of two books that came out earlier this year on Supreme Court clerks, Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk by Todd C. Peppers and Sorcerers' Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court by Artemus Ward and David L. Weiden, forthcoming in volume 85 of the Texas Law Review, but available now on SSRN.

I mentioned the books (in the context of a review by Judge Posner, who, incidentally, gave both the thumbs up) in a post on May 31.

But there's more! (and this I'm just copying from the SSRN abstract so I don't screw it up)

"This Review Essay also reports the results from the first empirical examination of every pool memo from four Terms of the Supreme Court: October Terms 1984, 1985, 1991 and 1992. Three characteristics of the cert pool become apparent: (1) it is stingy with respect to making grant recommendations; (2) it emphasizes objective criteria of certworthiness in making its recommendations, such as the presence of lower court conflict; and (3) there is statistical evidence suggesting that its recommendations are correlated with the eventual decisions made by the Court on petitions for certiorari."

I had Stras for Criminal Law last spring, and consider it one of the great injustices of the tenure system that he isn't teaching this semester. I haven't read the review yet, but given that I am fairly sure that it will be worth reading, I'm posting this now so you too can help boost his SSRN numbers.

Buchanan Channels Andrew Jackson

2006-10-30T15:22:00.000-06:00

Not his best, but I think still worth reading.

"At root, what that 4-3 decision ordering the Legislature to enact a new law sanctioning civil unions or gay marriage is about is: Who governs New Jersey? It is about who decides what law shall be Â? elected legislators or judges appointed for life."

Read the rest.

I guess that I'm inclined to agree. From the Federalist Society's purpose statement:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."

Which is itselfchannelingg Marbury, but adding (or possibly making explicit the implicit) a separation of powers point after the comma.

More than anything else, the order to the political branches to adopt a new law or laws, call it a grace period if you like, is a bit grating. Three coequal branches? The Governor of New Jersey "shall communicate to the Legislature, by message at the opening of each regular session and at such other times as he may deem necessary, the condition of the State, and shall in like manner recommend such measures as he may deem desirable" (Article V, Section I, paragraph 12 of NJ Const.), but the court can give them 180 days to act, or else? I know we aren't dealing with the 10th Amendment here, but the words conscription and commandeering definitely come to mind.

The State of Race Relations in America (and my guess is that he looked Palestinian)

2006-10-27T17:15:00.000-05:00

I was poking around on Google News the other day (I've been having issues with blogger and blogger for word), and ran across an article (which is no longer there, thanks for nothing, blogger) about a film coming out soon called "Color of the Cross." In this movie Jesus is portrayed as a black man. And this is supposed to be controversial and important:

"Color of the Cross" tells a traditional story, focusing on the last 48 hours of his life as told in the Gospels. In this version, though, race contributes to his persecution."

So THAT'S what was really going on in the Gospels? I didn't catch that, since my Bible doesn't have pictures.

Furthermore:

"What Jesus looked like has long been debated by theologians around the world. Different cultures have imagined him in different ways, says Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University. In Japan, Jesus looks Japanese. In Africa, he is black. But in America he is almost always white, like the fair-haired savior painted by Leonardo Da Vinci in "The Last Supper" in 1495."

Depictions of Jesus being black in Africa and Japanese in Japan and (not to detract from Leonardo's artistic abilities) white in Europe say something about the artists and their audiences, but absolutely nothing about "What Jesus looked like."

On the other hand, there's nothing terribly wrong with taking some creative license with the appearance of someone who was born over 2000 years ago, but to claim that it's the appearance that matters, in my opinion, misses the point: message matters. Jesus was executed because of his message, not because of his race; the story appeals to people today because of that message, not the messenger's race.

Maybe it's not actually a big deal in the film, but the article makes it sound as if it is. And apparently director/producer/star Jean Claude LaMarre and I wouldn't actually disagree on too much:

"The message is that color, a colored Jesus Christ, doesn't matter," he says. "That's why the movie is important. When you have one prevailing image out there, it suggests color does matter."

But then why the "In this version, though, race contributes to his persecution"? That's my hang-up. I understand that race is a touchy issue in America (though, contrary to what is suggested in the article, it is elsewhere as well: France anyone?), but I don't see how injecting it into an historical event where it played no significant role, and that has actually been a source of common ground between races, is supposed to help. The Romans and the Israelites, I uneducatedly guess, were probably ethnically distinguishable, but the biblical accounts indicate that it was the mob of locals and not the Roman Pilate who called for the execution, making it a "look what WE did" as opposed to "look what YOU did" moment.

In summation: black Jesus to encourage identification with the faith: fine; black Jesus shown as persecuted because he was black: foolish.

Oh, and here's a review from Variety. Pretty much a typical movie review, but contains some more details on the movie's focus on race.

Mike J. Fox, Acting?

2006-10-26T12:10:00.000-05:00

This is a comment I left on Nick's blog on the topic of Michael J. Fox's tv spot on stem cell research.

First, I think what Limbaugh said was wrong, and frankly pretty stupid. However, I REALLY don't like these types of ads. Yes, anybody with a human soul (and yes, that includes conservatives) have to feel empathy for somebody who's obviously suffering. But we know that somebody's actually suffering. The problem is that we can't hear from those who the other side believe are suffering. And that's no philosophical "could God make a rock he couldn't lift". I just think that what this ad represents is what is wrong, or becoming more wrong with our political system. Both parties use emotions to cloud issues and stir the populace. "There's an old woman somewhere with socks on her hands, because she can't pay heating bills and still pay for her prescriptions." "If you don't vote for us, Al Qaueda will invade and take over the country." It bothers me that these types of ads and this type of campaigning seem to be proliferating.

Not All Rock Bands Are Like Green Day?

2006-10-24T19:23:00.000-05:00

Wow. I heard about this before, but I forgot to post it. Brandon Flowers is upset at Green Day for their anti-Americanism. I think it's probably a bit calculated, but then again, so are Green Day's antics. I just find it refreshing, so I thought I'd post it.

Voter Fraud

2006-10-24T14:46:00.000-05:00

The Federalist Society at the University of Minnesota Law School is hosting a speech by John Fund (of the WSJ's OpinionJournal.com) this evening. The topic is "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy," which was also the title of his 2004 book.

Which makes this article even relevant to my day. Of note:

People in the good state of Missouri need photo identification to cash a check, board a plane or apply for food stamps. But the state Supreme Court has ruled that a photo ID requirement to vote is too great a burden on the elderly and the poor. Go figure.

And

While the Missouri Supreme Court was preparing its decision earlier this month, the Kansas City Star and St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran front-page stories about the thousands of fraudulent voter registrations submitted by Acorn, a national left-wing group financed in part by organized labor.
According to the Star, Acorn's voter registration drive generated some 35,000 applications, "but thousands of them appear to be duplicates or contain dubious data." The report went on to note that "[n]ear the top of the fishy list would be a man named Mark who apparently registered seven times over a three-day period using his mother's home address and phone number." Mom told the paper he hadn't lived there in six years.
Acorn and its affiliates have been among the most active and vocal opponents of voter ID laws in Missouri and nationwide. Now we know why.
(ht Althouse)

Our event is in room 50 of Mondale Hall at 6:30p.m.

The New Malthus

2006-10-24T10:39:00.000-05:00

And again we hear the scary statistics from the environmentalists. I can somewhat understand the concerns. And I have no idea if their forecasts are correct. I have no idea if hard times are on the horizons. And I'm not going to go my usual route, and mock the study or the people behind. They're probably earnest people. Instead, I'll just quote Faulkner. Because he's awesome. And correct. Cause we're pretty good at finding a way to fend off extinction, even if some of our fellow creatures on planet earth aren't quite as good.

"I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail."

Not a Good Idea

2006-10-18T17:21:00.000-05:00

It's a sad day, folks. A law student has found to have lied. A student at a Minnesota law school. At William Mitchell (whew, for a second there, I thought the game was up), a student is facing charges for impersonating a New Jersey congressman. I don't know who should be most embarrassed about this story. Actually, I do. The student should. Not for the attempted mail fraud, but for picking such a poor topic. It's one thing if a law student wishes to turn to crime. Given the state of the candy bar machine downstairs here at the law school, I'd say it's no new occurrence. But seriously, you gotta come up with something better than that. I mean, if you're going to try to impersonate a congressman, try to impersonate one who's less likely to have so much attention on him. With the corruption in N.J., the congressman was probably just relieved that the feds weren't actually coming from him yet. What, somebody is impersonating me? Oh yeah, I know all about it. It's the same person who was accepting those large payments from the mob. Yup, all the shady dealings were the doppelganger's fault. So, in conclusion (this should be my journal article), what have we learned today? If you're going to impersonate a congressman, make sure it's a little known one that nobody cares about. Like a Rep. from Alaska. Or Minnesota. What was wrong with ol' Gil here at home? He'd have been easy to impersonate. Should have gone with him.

No Obvious Academic Import

2006-10-18T14:23:00.000-05:00

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

Patently offensive? Or could it just be humor?

This is the state of "academic freedom" in a private university?

So much for the "marketplace of ideas."

Take note: Humorous expression of libertarian ideas is not ok.

I for one would like to see other materials posted on faculty doors and bulletin boards at Marquette.  From my own experiences, not at Marquette, faculty (and staff, including librarians) seemed to enjoy using these media to show their particular sense of humor and at the same time express some political or social opinion.  The United States of Canada/Jesusland cartoon was particularly popular after the 2004 elections.  I also recall various unflattering depictions of George W. Bush, anti-war statements, and the like.

Is the federal government just too sacred a cow?  A cow to be milked but never tipped.

(Of course, as far as I'm concerned actual cow-tipping is about as real as the tooth fairy, but it works with the metaphor here)

Podcasts

2006-10-18T11:44:00.000-05:00

In case you're interested, there are a few interesting podcasts here, at econtalk. The top two look very intriguing. Walter Williams, one of my favorite writers, is talking about a few economic matters, including an analysis of the incentive effects of the Civil War. There's also an economic analysis of religion, which also sounds interesting. Check it out.

Gorby

2006-10-18T11:18:00.000-05:00

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has spoken out on a few things recently. I must say that I am in agreement with some of his observations on Russia, and I hope that he is sincere in his efforts to bring more freedom into a country that seems to be sliding back into tyranny. But there's one thing that I need to quibble with. Gorbachev has compared the proposed fence between the US and Mexico to the Berlin Wall. However one feels about the idea of a fence on the US-Mexico border, one has to say that Gorby is at least overstating the comparison, and probably missing the point entirely. The difference is clear (at least to me). The Berlin wall was erected to keep citizens in, citizens who were desperate to escape the terrible regime that Gorby oversaw. The fence would be erected to keep out those who want to enter a land of opportunity. So, I think the comparison is ridiculous. But I'm also not in favor of the fence. I do think that the border needs to be controlled, and we should have a better idea of who is coming into the country, and with what. However, I also think that the immigration system should be liberalized (in conjunction with other reforms limiting government), leading to a free market for labor. And, to make my point, check out this cartoon on immigration from a libertarian perspective, via Reason (ht: Cafe Hayek) (which doesn't completely represent my views, but is far funnier than I am).

No.Ko. Keeps Forging Along

2006-10-17T09:50:00.000-05:00

North Korea is apparently about to have another nuke test. But despite the gravity of the situation, I found the comments by the North Koreans to be hilarious. "We didn't accept these sanctions before, and now that we're a nuclear power, we're not going to stand for it." These comments are hard to understand, so allow me to translate:

"You can't do that to me. You can't tell me what to do. I'm a BIG boy now. You're not the boss of me. If you aren't nice to me, someday I'm gonna grow up, and be like seven feet tall and 300 pounds and an ultimate fighter, and then we'll see. Sanctions? You can't do this to me! I'm going to run away from home! I'm going to call child services!"

To which I would reply, if I were in charge, "Somebody gonna getta hurt real bad!"

Don't the North Koreans hear themselves talking? I exaggerated a bit, but their comments have a definite tinge of the eleven year old brat who's annoying everybody, and thinks that now that they have a purple belt from the local Karate storefront at the strip mall, they can assert their weight. And so I think the time has come to hold down this kid and make him say "uncle".

See you at the gallows!

2006-10-12T16:03:00.000-05:00

From the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
"Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the 'bastards' who were members of what he termed the global warming 'denial industry.'

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, 'When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.'"

Well, as long as we can wait until we're scrambling to minimize the damage, I guess that's ok.

UPDATE:
Having been called on it, Roberts has decided to retract the Nuremberg portion of his comments:

There are people and institutions knowingly disseminating falsehoods and distortions about global warming. They deserve to be held publicly accountable.

As to what shape that accountability would take, my analogy to the Nuremberg trials was woefully inappropriate -- nay, stupid. I retract it wholeheartedly.

So he's sorry that he used the word Nuremberg?

It's funny, I actually agree with part of what he said. There ARE people and institutions knowingly disseminating falsehoods and distortions about global warming: Roland Emmerich, Greenpeace, Miles O'Brien, Al Gore, the list goes on...

Not Surprising

2006-10-12T15:06:00.000-05:00

A very interesting article on Cato on the Libertarian Democrats. The author decides that they don't really exist, as most of those who have tried to appeal to libertarian sensibilities on social issues have let them down grievously on fiscal issues. I think this is just generally true of both parties. Everybody seems to be fighting about social issues, while the spend, spend, spend mentality is taken for granted, and nobody stands up to the bloated and still ballooning federal government.

[EDIT] Fixed the link.

Blank-Deniers

2006-10-12T14:23:00.000-05:00

I hadn't really heard the term "Climate Change Deniers" before. But I agree with Adler's article on Volokh. Adler quotes a man who is very unhappy with the term, which denigrates not only those who are not convinced by the evidence supporting the theory of global warming, but also the memory of those that died in the Holocaust. This is the sort of term that reflects poorly on our whole political climate. Everybody is always looking to tie a current policy position to an unpopular past claim. To some extent, this is necessary. History is an important part of policy considerations. Not every argument can be purely philosophical. However, these attempts to evoke past evils appeal only to the emotions, not to reason. Bush is Hitler, you say? Then I don't like him. Then again, the real problem could be with our general public, who responds so readily to empty yet evocative comparisons. I've been arguing for civility forever, but it's easy to do when you're a nobody. I'm sure the temptation is very strong to go with the easy "communist/fascist/racist/misogynist/homophobe/PC/Feminazi" tags, especially since they seem to work so well. But, hopefully we can agree in principle that tactics such as these are at least distasteful, and probably antithetical to the ideas our society and government are founded upon.

And if you disagree, you're a pinko fascist hippy reactionary.

More Scary News

2006-10-10T11:04:00.000-05:00

Well, we've not only got a nuclear North Korea (though their warhead might be less powerful than before thought), Iran with its wacked-out leader, terrorists all over the place, Croatians forming swastikas at soccer games (check out deadspin.com), etc. And meanwhile, Russia is quietly centralizing power again. A critic of Putin's is dead. Actually, make that ANOTHER of Putin's critics is dead. Fraters Libertas has a good article of journalistic courage, comparing the dead Russian journalist to Keith Olbermann and his ilk, unfavorably to the latter. Despite the serious issues raised by this bit of news, and the implications not only for the region but the world, as Russia starts to centralize again, I only linked to the article because somebody said what I've been thinking for some time. Olbermann is way too full of himself. He takes the easy shots at the pompous O'Reilly, without apparently realizing that he's perilously close to taking the lead in the race for most pretentious journalist. (Obviously he'd still lose to Moore and Coulter, but they're not really journalists.) Basically, Olbermann's a no-talent hack who should go back to sports.

The Imprisonment of Reason?

2006-10-09T15:31:00.000-05:00

The Weekly Standard has an opinion piece by UMN Law Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen and Notre Dame Law Prof. Richard Garnett (who is also an occasional contributor on NRO's Bench Memos) on partial birth abortion specifically and stare decisis generally.

Even though they (or the editors) made an unfortunate decision in assigning a title, abusing the overused W.W._.D.? formulation, it is still definitely worth reading.
(ht Feddie)

Nukes

2006-10-09T12:10:00.000-05:00

Great. So, what do we do know? I think it's quite clear that this is a very dangerous situation. Il is the type of person who would love to distribute nuclear weaponry around the world to our many enemies. Everybody in Asia is concerned, as is Israel, given N. Korea's links to Iran and Syria. This is a very important time for our foreign policy. Do we try diplomacy and to appease N. Korea? Do we try a military action or a tactical strike? Frankly, I think this situation is the proof of the failure of the former, but I don't think that the latter is very practical at this point. The cat's out of the bag, and now we have to deal with it. It's going to take a whole bunch of people who are much better at stratego than I am to try to solve it.

Foley

2006-10-04T10:14:00.000-05:00

And, the Republicans continue to shoot themselves in the foot. I'm not exactly shocked by the situation. Washington is a corrupt city. But this was a bit unusual for a number of reasons. First, that it should happen. Second, because Foley's an idiot and put some pretty damaging stuff down and sent it off in a form that is easily archived and saved. And third because of how unsurprised most insiders seemed to be. I think if Republican leadership knew about it, and did nothing to correct it, it's a terrible example of putting politics over principle, and those involved should probably pushed to resign.

Guns

2006-10-03T11:30:00.000-05:00

In April I posted regarding post-Katrina firearm confiscation. Now Congress is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Cabs and Booze

2006-10-02T10:47:00.000-05:00

There's a bit of a hubbub over news that Muslim cabbies are sometimes refusing to carry passengers who happen to have alchy in their luggage. Some are outrages that such a thing could happen in our pluralistic society. I am not. It's the free market. If cab drivers don't want to carry liquor, they shouldn't have to. They'll probably lose money, and maybe their jobs. But if they're willing to take that risk to uphold their religious convictions, I'm fine with it.

Couldn't we color code pharmacists too?

2006-09-29T12:22:00.000-05:00

This sounds like an issue that needs to be resolved before the 2008 Republican National Convention. One commenter picks up on an issue that ties in with a post from Ivan at JSW earlier this week. I won't spoil your fun by going into a lengthy explanation, but hit both posts and think about it.

To date, no burnings of A League of Her [sic] Own have been reported.

2006-09-27T22:12:00.000-05:00

We had a bit of an exchange going in two previous posts regarding the Pope's statements on reason and religion, or as they have been cast everywhere, violence and Islam. Now today I ran across a column on the Prospect's website (no, seriously, this one is worth reading) by one Kirsten A. Powers, in which she compares and contrasts reactions to the Pope's statements on Islam with Rosie O'Donnell's on "radical Christianity." Yes, I'm serious, yes, so is she, and yes, it's good reading.

Have you seen Drudge?

2006-09-26T13:19:00.000-05:00

Leave it to Matt Drudge to post something like this (no warranty on the link, since, you know, reports are moved when circumstances warrant). True to Drudge style, there's very little from the man himself, but it really couldn't be much better if he had.

Bringing the ACLU back?

2006-09-26T11:37:00.000-05:00

I'm all in favor of any efforts to reform the ACLU, and feel they're long overdue.

Sports Law

2006-09-21T14:04:00.000-05:00

If you enjoy sports, like me, and if you enjoy law, like...uh...me?, you'll enjoy this blog about sports law. Head over and check it out.

Attention Hungry

2006-09-21T09:28:00.000-05:00

Hugo Chavez made a spectacle of himself at the UN a few days ago. It's nothing new. The South American Dictator has a history of the type of hyperbole and grandiose speech and behavior that characterizes brutal socialist leaders. But that didn't shock me. Chavez has been steadily ruining his country under the guise of "helping the poor" for some time now. Apparently he either didn't get the memo about socialism being a failed experiment, or more likely, he knows and is using class warfare to stay in power for just a bit longer. But, all in all, I don't think he's particularly dangerous, despite the oil he controls. He's basically another Castro. He'll hurt his people and his country, and perhaps even dig them a hole that will take a century to get back out of. But I don't think he's a danger to us.

But here's where the story takes a turn. First, Hugo the Terrible brandished a copy of a a Noam Chomskey book while making his speech. I suppose one crazy arrogant overblown jackanapes deserves another. (And by the way, if you think I put in that part just so I could use the word Jackanapes, you are a sage observor.) But today on the way in, I saw a sign that promised some humorous hijinks on AM 950, if one would only turn the dial there from 8 to 11. Little did I know that it was Air America radio. Frankly, little did anyone know, except perhaps the IRS and various creditors, who seem to be the only one interested in the slightest in Air America's operation. But I turned this on, and it was a Hugo Chavez love-fest. Some woman called in claiming that all African-Americans realized that Hugo was right and that Bush is the devil. Another woman called in, and after getting the commonplace "Bush is Hitler" routine out of the way, proceeded to praise Chavez to high heaven. She included a quote that Chavez and the peoples of the world saw Katrina and decided they didn't want "that kind of freedom". Meanwhile, the host (without a trace of humor as far as I could tell), good-naturedly concurred with all these opinions, agreeing that Chavez was the man.

I wanted to call in for a second, and ask if the world had gone mad. I know the left hates the President. I know they'd like nothing better than to impeach him. But is a little perspective TOO MUCH to ask? And again I'm fully aware that it was talk radio, and the Right's talk radio mavens annoy me almost as much with their polemics. But the fact that some Americans actually admire Hugo Chavez is unbelievable. The absolutely offensive and frankly imbecelic comparison to Hitler is one thing. I suppose it's far worse than admiring a blowhard with socialistic ambitions. But HOW can you admire Chavez? How can people who profess admiration for the expensive and absolutley worthless institution of the UN admire a man who made a mockery of the whole idea of reasoned speech bridging the gap between nations? Sure, there might be some sensual enjoyment from hearing a man (who you hate more than anything else) called the Devil. Sure. But at what point do you wake up? WAKE UP! It's time to set aside the petty Bush-bashing and Anti-American Dictator loving and advance some new ideas. Some have advanced the idea that the Democratic Party is the party of new ideas. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing people who are so idea-less and leaderless that they express admiration for somebody's whose act is tired, but whose ideas at least SOUND interesting (to somebody with no understanding of economics). Our two-party system cannot long continue is such an environment. I'm already on record that the Republican Party is losing its way and needs to wake up and smell the coffee. But I sure don't have any hope of the Democratic Party, in the grips of the absolutly insane minority of people whose voices, insistent and loud, are pushing the party towards absolute lunacy.

(Hey, I never said polemics weren't fun to deliver. And at least I'm not running for something, or, to my knowledge, admired by any influential people in either party.)

EDIT: Apparently, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Rangel somewhat agree with me. I'm abashed.

Update

2006-09-18T12:09:00.000-05:00

Surprise! Violence over the Pope's remarks! Who saw this coming? Does anybody in the Muslim community see the irony of this situation? "Islam is violent" says the Pope. "How dare you?", says Muslims, "Take it back or we'll threaten your life, exhibit generally violent behavior, and stab one of your followers to death!" And that deafening silence you hear is the Muslim community expressing outrage towards the "minority" that is giving it a bad name. Let's update the scoreboard. Christian expressing doubt as to the direction of Islam, and calling it violent? The most outrageous statement ever, and "Hitler-esque". Muslims rioting, looting, and killing innocent nuns? Not a problem. If I were a Muslim, I'd be so embarrassed.

A Lack of Perspective

2006-09-15T14:05:00.000-05:00

Okay, the Pope says something about Muslims. They see it to be offensive. It probably is. I personally don't think that quoting from the 14th century is enough. Obviously, he quoted it for some purpose. Now, we can argue about whether what he said was both offensive and true. I think it's definitely possible to posit that in fact Islam has had a long history of spreading religion by the sword, and it's understandable by those hurt by it would have harsh feelings for it. But I'm more interested in the reaction. Anger. Rage. Burning effigies in the streets. And a lawmaker in Turkey comparing the Pope to Hitler and Mussolini. Hmm. Let's evaluate. Hitler and Mussolini killed millions of people based solely on their geneologies, oppressed much of the world, and were the cause of a war that almost destroyed Europe. The Pope said something mildly offensive. Okay, I suppose that's where we're at today. I know many Islamic leaders are noted for their rabid hatred of Jews, but equating the butchery of millions of them with the hurt feelings of a group of religious people seems a bit inappropriate. Maybe I'm a little sensitive (I'm noted for it). Others claimed that the Pope was trying to restart the crusades and was totally ignoring the fact that only a small portion of Islam is doing heinous things. Interesting. Cartoons and offensive remarks prompt firestorms of outrage from moderate Islam (often complete with violence against the Pagans foolish enough to say a discouraging word against their beliefs). Meanwhile, horrific violence against non-believers by the "fringe" of Islam prompt...crickets. Bland statements that indicate that what occurred was sad but inevitable. In some sense, the feeling is "you drove those folks to it, and we understand, though obviously murdering thousands of people is usually somewhat inadvisable". If we saw this type of outrage and backlash against the real threat to Islam (itself), there would be nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, this immature and infantile attitude continues to pop up, and underline the growing tension between cultures.

A Day Late

2006-09-12T17:35:00.000-05:00

I present this without comment, except this. James Lileks is a very funny man.

Lest We Forget

2006-09-11T09:31:00.000-05:00

On the fifth anniversery of 9/11, people are already starting to forget. Many probably if asked what day it was today would rejoice in telling you that it was the Vikes' opening day. I think it's important to remember what might have been the most monumental and infamous day in my lifetime. To that end, here's a post by baseball crank, one of my favorite baseball and legal bloggers, whose office was on the 54th floor of the WTC.

Harbinger

2006-09-10T21:58:00.000-05:00

Am I the only one who sees this as a sign of things to come? The prisoners in Abu Ghraib are begging for the U.S. to come back. Turns out the Iraqis aren't as nice as we are. Now I'm not excusing naked-human-pyramid building. That's not cool. Seriously. Not cool at all. But sometimes I think we tend to take things a bit out of perspective. Sure, where there are problems in our treatment of detainees, they should be addressed. But in a peculiar way, I think the criticisms highlight an attitude that the left loves to blame the right for. And that is a sort of "America-first" concentration on the activities of the U.S. while ignoring the rest of the world. It strikes me as similar to the hullaballoo we constantly have about racism in our country (which of course still exists and should be addressed). Meanwhile, the left idolizes countries in which the most virulent forms of racism are endemic. Similarly, some would rather focus on waterboarding in a few scattered camps than on mass genocides. Again, I'm not saying that we should ignore our country's errors, just keep them in perspective.

Hamdan Fallout

2006-09-07T19:13:00.000-05:00

Alykhan Velshi and Howard Anglin on NRO:

"Neal Katyal, who represented Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard Salim Hamdan before the Supreme Court, recently told the Legal Times that for every one piece of hate mail he has received, “there are 10 supportive e-mails from [American] troops, saying, ‘Thank you for defending me and my cause, because if I’m caught in some other country, what’s going to save me from a beheading, except for the fact that the U.S. plays by rules?’”This is nonsense. When militant Islamists slit the throat of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, there was not a single al Qaeda member in Guantanamo Bay and the only torture in the Abu Ghraib prison was by order of Saddam Hussein. What capacity for self-delusion is required to believe that granting captured terrorists Common Article Three protections will suddenly reduce their depravity? For Katyal to claim that militant Islamists are even aware of the Great Writ of habeas corpus, let alone Justice Stevens’s ipse dixit in Hamdan, is more than harmless self-aggrandizement; it is dangerous folly."

Outrage

2006-09-07T09:22:00.000-05:00

Say it ain't so! Old Clinton cronies are outraged, OUTRAGED, sir, at a new ABC docudrama that says that the Clinton administration may have not handled Al Quaeda perfectly in the runup to 9/11. I'm personally shocked that any media outlet would distort and twist the facts so as to reflect negatively... on a liberal or democrat. And a dramatization that seems to impute some measure of ineptitude towards a President? We've never seen that before, have we? I just think the whole thing's hilarious. I can just imagine the look on the faces of the Clinton aides. I imagine it's similar to that of Julius Ceasar. Et tu, ABC?

Back

2006-09-05T11:15:00.000-05:00

Apparently, the GOP is putting immigration reform plans on hold until the election, focusing instead on more bankable issues. On the one hand, this craven political pandering disgusts me, and reinforces my dislike of politics in general. Issues that really need attention (and immigration definitely fits the bill) are put off if they're unpopular, while popular issues likely to inflame the populace's sentiment, but that really need no attention, are emphasized. On the other hand, I tend to disagree with some of the Republican party's position on immigration, tending to believe in a free market of labor. On the whole, I think this qualifies as a bad thing. We elect people to take care of things that need to be taken care of by the government, a list which in my opinion is a lot smaller than most politicians think it is (MUCH smaller). So get your work done! (And don't think that this pro-work ethic screed is for the benefit of any employers who might happen to be visiting this site. Because I've seen the traffic reports. I'm fairly confident I know all of the readers of this site by name. Jason and James.)

The Washington Post gets it right.

2006-09-01T17:24:00.000-05:00

After a lot of build-up and a discussion of Richard Armitage:

"Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."