Posted 3:23 PM by Jason
We interrupt our procrastination to bring you this important announcement.

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.  

1 comments

Posted 6:50 PM by Jason
Would you get off my back already?

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?"  

1 comments

Posted 11:36 AM by magnu231
Interesting Response to Posner

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.

0 comments

Posted 2:59 PM by Jason
More on Delahunty

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

2 comments

Posted 11:53 AM by magnu231
Despicable

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.

5 comments

Posted 11:53 AM by magnu231
Thanksgiving

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.)

0 comments

Posted 2:10 PM by Jason
Freedom

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.  

1 comments

Posted 2:05 PM by magnu231
R.I.P.

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.

1 comments

Posted 11:33 AM by magnu231
Canadian Churches

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.

1 comments

Posted 9:07 PM by Jason
At Least He Admits It

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!

0 comments

Posted 1:39 PM by Jason
Appreciating Gerald Ford

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.

0 comments

Posted 7:32 PM by magnu231
Borat in trouble?

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.

0 comments

Posted 2:31 PM by magnu231
Shoot

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.

0 comments

Posted 11:58 AM by magnu231
Great Summation

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.

0 comments

Posted 11:51 AM by magnu231
My Thoughts Exactly

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".

1 comments

Posted 12:16 PM by magnu231
Utter Nonsense

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.

0 comments

Posted 11:46 AM by magnu231
Important Things

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.

0 comments

Posted 3:37 PM by Jason
The Talented Mr. Buckley

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.

1 comments

Posted 5:27 PM by Jason
Anniversary

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.    

0 comments

Posted 4:26 PM by Jason
Shameless Promotion of Faculty

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.

0 comments

Posted 3:22 PM by Jason
Buchanan Channels Andrew Jackson

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.

0 comments

Posted 5:15 PM by Jason
The State of Race Relations in America (and my guess is that he looked Palestinian)

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.

1 comments

Posted 12:10 PM by magnu231
Mike J. Fox, Acting?

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.

0 comments

Posted 7:23 PM by magnu231
Not All Rock Bands Are Like Green Day?

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.

0 comments

Posted 2:46 PM by Jason
Voter Fraud

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.

0 comments

Posted 10:39 AM by magnu231
The New Malthus

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."

0 comments

Posted 5:21 PM by magnu231
Not a Good Idea

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.

0 comments

Posted 2:23 PM by Jason
No Obvious Academic Import

“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)

0 comments

Posted 11:44 AM by magnu231
Podcasts

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.

0 comments

Posted 11:18 AM by magnu231
Gorby

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).

0 comments

Posted 9:50 AM by magnu231
No.Ko. Keeps Forging Along

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".

0 comments

Posted 4:03 PM by Jason
See you at the gallows!

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...

0 comments

Posted 3:06 PM by magnu231
Not Surprising

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.

3 comments

Posted 2:23 PM by magnu231
Blank-Deniers

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.

0 comments

Posted 11:04 AM by magnu231
More Scary News

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.

0 comments

Posted 3:31 PM by Jason
The Imprisonment of Reason?

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)

0 comments

Posted 12:10 PM by magnu231
Nukes

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.

0 comments

Posted 10:14 AM by magnu231
Foley

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.

0 comments

Posted 11:30 AM by Jason
Guns

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

0 comments

Posted 10:47 AM by magnu231
Cabs and Booze

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.

0 comments

Posted 12:22 PM by Jason
Couldn't we color code pharmacists too?

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.  

0 comments

Posted 10:12 PM by Jason
To date, no burnings of A League of Her [sic] Own have been reported.

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.  

0 comments

Posted 1:19 PM by Jason
Have you seen Drudge?

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.  



0 comments

Posted 11:37 AM by magnu231
Bringing the ACLU back?

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

0 comments

Posted 2:04 PM by magnu231
Sports Law

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.

0 comments

Posted 9:28 AM by magnu231
Attention Hungry

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.

0 comments

Posted 12:09 PM by magnu231
Update

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.

2 comments

Posted 2:05 PM by magnu231
A Lack of Perspective

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.

2 comments

Posted 5:35 PM by magnu231
A Day Late

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

0 comments

Posted 9:31 AM by magnu231
Lest We Forget

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.

2 comments

Posted 9:58 PM by magnu231
Harbinger

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.

0 comments

Posted 7:13 PM by Jason
Hamdan Fallout

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."


0 comments

Posted 9:22 AM by magnu231
Outrage

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?

0 comments

Posted 11:15 AM by magnu231
Back

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.)

1 comments

Posted 5:24 PM by Jason
The Washington Post gets it right.

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."
    

0 comments

Posted 5:19 PM by Jason
Yet another reason that I don't have cable:

Al Gore lecturing the audience on global warming at the VMA's.  How rockin is that?

0 comments

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

Posted 12:46 PM by magnu231
Best. Deposition. Ever.

Check this out. Youtube is brilliant. Joe Jamail, a wealthy Texas law school alum, and prominent donor to the UTexas football team almost gets in a fight with an elderly man during a deposition. One of the best clips I've ever seen in my life. I had no idea that seemingly boring cases were infused with so much vigor and fraught with so much interest. This almost makes me reconsider my career choices (or would make me reconsider if I had made any, although of course I haven't even begun to consider them). What fun!

1 comments

Posted 1:15 AM by Jason
I should be studying for Wednesday's PR exam, but

I just discovered that Ken Jennings has a blog.  Thanks a lot Ivan.  I know you did this on purpose, so just as soon as I finish reading every post I intend to scour the law school's honor code and maybe the ABA Model Rules for some way to bring you to justice.  

1 comments

Posted 7:25 PM by Jason
Summer Reading

I've just finished reading Jeffrey Hart's The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times.  I've had the book since December but didn't get around to reading it until the past few weeks.  My take, in (very) short: very good, definitely worth reading.  Hart is thorough in his examination of the past 50 years, and his inside perspective, having been a senior editor (among other things) is invaluable. Do yourself a favor and pick it up, but be warned: reading this book will make your "Things to Read" list longer, not shorter.  

Incidentally, the book was published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.  I've been an ISI member for a couple of years now, and their Intercollegiate Review (a semiannual journal) is always a good read.  They are in the midst of some sort of membership drive right now, hence this short plug.  Membership is free for students and academics.  When I joined new members received one of their "A Student's Guide to (fill in the blank)" books, a short overview and introduction to a subject area, free.  I chose "A Student's Guide to Political Philosophy," by Harvey Mansfield, which was (and is) good, but for those of you already in or about to enter law school, the new "A Student's Guide to the Study of Law" by Notre Dame Law Prof. Gerald Bradley would be the natural choice.  
Like I said, all gain, no pain, it is FREE.  

0 comments

Posted 6:18 PM by Jason
All Judicial Review, All the Time!

An ABA committee calls for judicial review of Presidential signing statements?  

"Now, U.S. News has learned, an American Bar Association task force is set to suggest even stronger action. In a report to be released Monday, the task force will recommend that Congress pass legislation providing for some sort of judicial review of the signing statements. Some task force members want to simply give Congress the right to sue over the signing statements; other task force members will not characterize what sort of judicial review might ultimately emerge."

So some in Congress are contemplating a bill that would confer standing to sue on themselves.  Leaving aside political question implications and the complexity of standing doctrine mentioned in the article for the time being, what makes them think that the President would sign their bill?  

Of course I think that conflicts of this sort between Congress and the Executive should be resolved by, well, Congress and the Executive.  It isn't surprising that the ABA would call for more judicial review in general, since it would amount to more work for their members, but if those pushing for this somehow succeed, I wonder how long it will be until they regret it.  

I guess we can just add this to the list of reasons why I will most likely not join the ABA.  

7/24 UPDATE:  Ed Whelan takes on the committee report over at Bench Memos.

2 comments

Posted 12:01 PM by magnu231
Sad but Not Suprising

I found this article posted on drudge to be interesting but rather depressing. Racism (despite what some might think) is virulent in Europe, and anti-semitism is making an unfortunate comeback. But despite this, it's still shocking and frightening when a political leader is revealed as anti-semitic as Spain's leader is. Granted, the article I've linked to might be seen as reading too much into certain events. But it's still a dispiriting affirmation of the decline of Europe.

0 comments

Posted 6:07 PM by Jason
Two Guys, a Girl, and an Email Exchange

The Spring 2006 UMN Law alumni magazine Perspectives features a discussion of Presidential powers (in particular the NSA wiretapping program) in wartime.  The participants are Professors Dale Carpenter, Heidi Kitrosser (my con law prof), and Michael Paulsen.  

0 comments

Posted 4:59 PM by Jason
And now for something completely different...

UMN Law Prof. Jim Chen (also Associate Dean for Academic Affairs) has started a blog called Jurisdynamics (ht Ivan at JSW).  I've written briefly about Chen before here.  

Topics he's touched on so far: movies, farm bills, gun control, biological swagger, sluttiness, and linguistics.  And yes, I probably inadequately described half of those, but too bad, the point is that you should check it out.  

0 comments

Posted 8:38 AM by magnu231
Israel

So, the Israel situation is getting pretty ridiculous. I really don't know what to think about it. I'm pretty much behind Israel in this fight, but this is getting quite complicated. I think the main thing is, that Israel has the right to attack Lebanon, especially Hizbollah bases in Lebanon, if Lebanon is consciously shielding people who are attacking Israel. But again, it's tough to know what to think. Things are escalating pretty quickly over there. Maybe Israel will be able to calm things down again by putting the fear of God back in some of the surrounding countries. We know organizations like the Hizbollah are hard to convince, but at least perhaps some leaders can be convinced to stop shielding the groups. Then again, maybe these actions just upset people so much that those who hate Israel have even more cannon fodder.

Update: James Lileks, one of my favorite humorists, has some thoughts on the matter, especially on some of the coverage of the whole affair. (It's near the bottom, after the somewhat too complete description of his weekend.) Good stuff.

1 comments

Posted 10:13 AM by magnu231
Good Post

Here's a nice post on the ABA's stranglehold on accreditation from the volokh conspiracy. As an aspiring lawyer, my self interest tells me to support the ABA, considering that in some sense, I'm one of the "haves". But in another sense, competition actually is good for the public in general, in most professions. ABA accreditation should not be a prereq. for taking the bar in my opinion. If somebody goes to law school and passes the bar, they should be able to practice. If it's a crappy law school, firms will definitely take that into consideration. If the person wants to practice on their own, they'll have to charge much less, thus supplying more legal services to people with a lack of resources. It makes sense to me.

0 comments

Posted 4:02 PM by Jason
Unbelievable

A 17-year old from South Saint Paul signed up for the Minnesota Army National Guard (with his parents' consent), but then did not show up on his ship out date.  Not news in and of itself.  What's interesting is why.  Via the Star-Tribune:

"When Valle saw a video about the rigors of basic training, he decided he had made the wrong decision. 'I didn't want to do it anymore," he said recently. "They yell in your face and you take orders.'"

What's more:

"When Valle failed a 40-question [entrance] test, he got a tutor to help him pass the second time, Olson said."

0 comments

Posted 2:23 PM by Jason
Kirsanow on ABA Standard 211(a)

I posted a while back on the ABA's new Standard 211(a), the one that seems to compel law schools to enact racial preferences to maintain their accreditation.  I had not read anything new in a while, but today Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, has some comments on the changes on NRO.  

0 comments

Posted 10:29 AM by magnu231
Sports and Government

After the end of the World Cup, the future of soccer in America once again looks bright (though we've been hearing about the "bright future" of soccer in America for some time now). However, this can't be helping matters. Apparently, Massachusetts is trying to pass legislation to ban "headers" and mandate helmets for soccer players. And no this isn't a joke. And yes it applies to everyone in Massachusetts, not just children under 5. You know big government has gotten way out of hand when it's banning practices essential to a sport because it might cause some damage. Guess what? If the high school/college players are getting headaches and concussions from their sport, they can simply QUIT. Nobody's forcing anybody to play soccer. I played hockey, and got several injuries (mostly to my ego). If the injuries had concerned me that much, I would have stopped playing the game, not lobbied government to make sure that no injury would ever happen to me or anybody else. It seems to me that this is just the ridiculous continuation of seatbelt, motorcycle helmet, and to some extent even smoking laws. If a person knows the risks inherent in their activities, and doesn't mind risking injury or even death, they should be allowed to continue without interference from the government. Of course, this brings up the whole question of whether we should be forced to subsidize that risk, and pay for the risky behavior of others through government programs. But that's another question and another rant. So just sit and contemplate with me for a second. Massachusetts is trying to ban "heading" and forcing soccer players to wear helmets. What is this world coming to?

0 comments

Posted 1:00 PM by magnu231
This Post is Title-less...Like the Cubbies

I'm either too busy or too lazy to track down the links to all these happenings, but you're smart people. Find them yourselves. Seriously. Do I have to do everything? Despite the fact that this is supposed to be a legal blog, I figured it wouldn't hurt to branch out into the sporting realm, just this once. Two stories caught my eye.

Zidane headbutts some dude. Sure it was classless. Sure it may have cost his team the game, though Barthez was going to have to invest in a job lot of bricks and morter to keep any goals out. Seriously, worst goalie ever. I was on a hockey team where the goalie was very poor at shootouts. I was able to go five hole every time. In fact, he was the only goalie I was really ever able to score on with any consistency (read: more than once). But congratulations Ben Parker. I thought giving up goals to me was bad. But Barthez was much, much worse. And back to the point, I second Dr. Z's thought's on the matter (again I"m not linking to it, but it's at cnnsi.com). I'm happy to see some toughness on the field. The diving and whinging and crying and the frequent stretcher calls can get a bit ridiculous. It was somewhat nice to see a guy stand up for himself. (And no this isn't a anti-world cup rant. I liked almost every aspect of the world cup, except for the wussiness of the participants.)

A blogger fools WCCO by pretending to be former Twins nobody Dan Serafini. I actually heard the interview, and I had no idea. It's awesome that WCCO has so little fact checking that they just run with some guy from a blog with the name Serafini in the title. Maybe that's why you're losing the Twins, huh, Sid? By the way, the story's on deadspin.com

0 comments

Posted 12:17 PM by magnu231
America: Exclusive Home of Racial Tension

One of my favorite hockey blogs, off wing opinion, had a link to a story by the Guardian (or at least the guardian blog) on the at least distasteful, and possibly racist new PSP ads. There's nothing new in the story, and everyone's seen the pictures. But here's my favorite quote from the post:

Importantly perhaps, the ads are for the European release of the white PSP and are appearing on billboards in Amsterdam rather than in the US where racial tension remains a fraught issue.

Because Amersterdam has no racial tension. And neither does Europe. In fact, the US has the exclusive pattent on it. Oh, and in other news, Le Pen in France and a bunch of neo-nazis in Germany have been bemoaning the "impurity" of their world cup teams, and in the Germans' case, actually threatening some of the black players on their country's team. But anyway, the point is, that unfortunately, I see ads like this proliferating in the next few years. If one is sufficiently edgy/offensive, instead of being ignored, their ads will be widely disseminated and discussed all over the web, with people who are upset by them not upset enough to boycott, and people who aren't intrigued by the product being advertised. I see this as a harbinger of things to come.

1 comments

Posted 10:44 AM by magnu231
Here's the Deal

I know this is an old story, but this is a great court document. I would not be even remotely able to write up something like this while attempting to keep even a semi-serious tone, but this guy pulls it off. So, there's yet another reason I won't make a good attorney. I wouldn't be able to take some of the cases seriously. Upon seeing facts like these, I would immediately burst into uproarious laughter right in front of my angered client. And, in court I would be unable to contain my inadvised snickers at each new bit of testimoney. Seriously, how could you?

0 comments

Posted 2:02 PM by magnu231
Back Sporadically

I'm in Michigan right now, working on conservative legal stuff. (I'd get specific, but then I'd have to kill you. And then myself, for letting the world know the minutiae that now consumes me.) Anyway, I just wanted to comment that on a day that Vlad Putin's under a bit of scrutiny for smooching a young boy's stomach (I suppose that's a new way to campaign), and a MAD KILLER WITH A BUZZSAW WENT TO WORK IN A SUBWAY, MORE AT 11, the strangest story concerned Cindy Sheehan, who apparently would rather live under Hugo Chavez than the newly sextugunarian Pres. Bush. But I won't even comment on that (because she's a loonie, and I won't waste my time). What I do want to comment on is the fact that Ken Lay died. I don't understand the deal with Ken Lay. People have yelled and screamed about this man, calling him a monster, economic terrorist, and the like. I'm not defending what he did. He was not a good man. He was a swindler, a cheat, and he stole from a bunch of people, and he deserved to go to jail, probably for the rest of his life. But am I wrong in considering that your common every day rapist/drug dealer/murderer has done and will do much more harm in this world? Those criminals steal lives, not money. I don't know. It's not like I would have wanted to free the man, but in a world that contains Ahminajiad, Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, and the entire Italian Soccer Team, I'm not sure how Lay makes the "monster" list, or makes it out of the "swindler who deserves hard time" category.

2 comments

Posted 1:42 AM by Jason
Someone cue the Dolby.

After a restful extended weekend, solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations, just as John Adams would have wanted, it's time to get back to business.  

And by business I mean SCIENCE!  

First, on the serious side of the coin, we have Richard S. Lindzen (whose writings, incidentally, helped me get through college) taking Al Gore and his movie to school:

"So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky."
And that's just the end.  Read the whole thing.  

Now, on the lighter side of the coin we turn to math.  Why math? Because individuals in the legal profession are notoriously mathophobic.  When I saw John Derbyshire's link to this article on mathematical references in The Simpsons, I had but one hope, and it was fulfilled.  Among all of the serious nerd-caliber references that I never would have caught:

"Gender issues in mathematics take center stage in "Girls just want to have sums," which aired on April 30. It lampoons the scandal that ensued in 2005 when Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University, suggested that women are innately inferior at mathematics.

In that Simpsons episode, Springfield Elementary School Principal Skinner is ousted after casually remarking that girls aren't much good at math. Skinner's female replacement divides the boys and girls into separate schools since, she says, girls can't learn math around "aggressive, obnoxious" boys.

Brainy 8-year-old Lisa Simpson is delighted until she attends the girls' math class. "How do numbers make you feel?" the teacher begins. "What does a plus sign smell like? Is the number 7 odd or just different?" Aghast, Lisa poses as a boy to attend the ghettolike boys' school, where real math is being taught."

For my part, I thought the whole Larry Sanders affair was stupid and over-hyped, but that's not what's interesting here.  It's not even the gender issue at all, it's the fact that what the article describes actually passes as math education these days, and not just in third grade.  In college I knew a fair number of people who took a course called "The Spirit of Mathematics" to satisfy their math requirement.  If I recall correctly, one of their assignments was a two-page paper on their favorite number.  

What is also interesting is what the article left out, which is that there was a light/music show and strange little groove-dance that overcame the girls as they pondered the aroma of addition.  Not significant, just funny.  


1 comments

Posted 5:31 PM by Jason
Stras on MPR

UMN Law Prof. David Stras was on Minnesota Public Radio last week to discuss:

"Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions are revealing the new conservative influence from the Chief Justice John Roberts and associate Justice Samuel Alito."

You can access the show here.

I haven't listened yet, since that would be frowned on in the library, but I reckon it should be at least as interesting as Ann Althouse's podcasts.  I only wonder if it might be too soon to comment a great deal (Stras will probably say so), or if the rulings being handed down this week would change or reinforce his interpretation.  

0 comments

Posted 5:22 PM by Jason
NRO

It might be the sleep deprivation talking, but NRO has scads of interesting stuff today.  

Andrew McCarthy has a follow up of sorts to the piece on the Times that I linked last week.  

Blog Row just keeps growing, with the Mona Log (get it?) debuting today.  Mona Charen is a longtime commentator and sometime speechwriter with a JD from GWU.  

WFB weighs in on Slate's account of W's verbal clumsiness and alleged stupidity.  This was a topic much kicked around the Volokh Conspiracy lately (Maybe they could get Bill as a guest-blogger?  He's not a lawyer, but he was accepted to YLS at one point, so maybe he could get in as a 0L student.).  

A couple of amusing and mostly light reads: Tim Carney on the differences between Homeland Security and 24. Richard Stevens on the push for "fundamental rights" for great apes in Spain.  

There's more (as always, I've just been neglecting it lately), but I'll stop here for now.
Note: Jonah Goldberg's links no longer open in new windows.  Considering that when I first started reading The Corner this was an important factor in determining whether to follow links or not (though honestly, I often still did the right click-open in new window anyway), I am silently shaking my fist at him through the wires.  Then again, I got too lazy to insert the necessary line, so if I expect you to deal with it, I guess I should too.  

0 comments