The Fladen Experience

2010-09-28T07:58:00.006-04:00

The Seeming Contradiction That Is Colorado Gubentorial Candidate Jaimes Brown - A BIG-L libertarian Who Wants to Have a Big Tent.

I just had a shocking interview with Jaimes Brown, libertarian candidate for Colorado Governor. No, he didn’t come out for progressive taxation or banning alcohol; actually, we spoke for about an hour, and Jaimes Brown stated standard libertarian positions on all the usual topics: immigration, foreign policy, the drug war (including hemp cars!), income v. sales taxation, etc. Instead, what made Jaimes Brown a truly interesting interviewee was that he was a Big L Moral Libertarian who supports a big tent for the libertarian party.

Just as Gaul was loosely divided into three parts, Libertarians are loosely divided into two – Moral Libertarians and Pragmatic Libertarians. Moral Libertarians, otherwise known as the Big-L Libertarians, vote libertarian because they believe it is morally correct to be free and let other people be free. Pragmatic libertarians, otherwise known as the Small-l Libertarians, vote libertarian because we believe that libertarian policies lead to the best outcomes. The trouble is that moral libertarians tend to have a bit of a civil war with us pragmatists, with moral libertarians generally chasing us pragmatists away. The perception that we pragmatists (and others on the right) have is that the moral libertarians are so obsessed with purity of belief, that they would rather endlessly debate the minutia of any policy and leave this country to the progressives instead of agreeing to agree on 90% and building a movement. Of course this doesn’t win elections. So when Jaimes Brown made clear early on in the interview that he was a Moral/Big-L Libertarian, I prepared myself for the worst.

Jaimes Brown though then utterly surprised me with this quote “the only reason the libertarian party exists is to get candidates elected now or in the future.” He made clear that the libertarian party had little purpose if it is just a debate club. He bemoaned fighting “over the leftover scraps” when we agree on 90% of philosophy. Instead, he stated his philosophy of what the libertarian party needs to do to go forward – put off fighting over the minutia that divides and unite behind picking off the low-hanging fruit of statism.

To see a Big-L Libertarian reject the civil wars that have helped keep the Libertarian Party on the fringe got me curious. Could his view of the Libertarian Party welcome, contrary to the opinion of one prominent libertarian running for congress, a social liberal/fiscal conservative that supports an aggressive foreign policy? “Yes, so long as the aggressiveness is aimed at protecting the country’s defense and not raiding our enemies’ resources.” Does the Libertarian Party have a place for somebody who supports Personhood? “Yes, even though I disagree with it.” In fact, Jaimes Brown then went out of his way to tell me that he would have voted for Ron Paul (Republican) over Bob Barr (Libertarian) had the former won the Republican nomination.

This is the sort of analysis that a Libertarian running for Governor in Colorado needs to have. We all know that the Libertarian is not going to win this cycle – even Jaimes Brown seems to know it. However, it is impossible for a party to build for the future if it is constantly tearing itself apart. If Jaimes Brown’s future actions match his current rhetoric, maybe libertarians will actually have in the future a political party that is worth supporting instead of a debate club that is fighting for relevance. And in an election where your other options are Maes, Tancredo, or Hickenlooper, taking a chance on that future could be worth your vote.

2010-07-25T14:49:00.002-04:00

Tom Tancredo – Not A Free Market Conservative Before He Was Not A Republican
Tom Tancredo is threatening to enter the governor’s race, ostensibly to ensure that a conservative will hold the seat instead of a liberal democrat. The problem is that not only will Tancredo’s threatened actions, if he carries through with them, almost undoubtedly ensure that Hickenlooper will be our governor for the next 4 years, but even if Tom Tancredo somehow won the race, a free market conservative would still not be our governor. That is because although Tom has stopped being a Republican this past week, he stopped being a defender of free market conservative principles long before.

The heart of being a conservative is to defend free market capitalism, but Tom is not a defender of it. In January of 2010 he put forward an op-ed piece in World Net Daily that appeared to deal with the subject of immigration.

In it, Tom called for a three year moratorium on all legal (not illegal) immigration. Although wise people may disagree over whether this is an intelligent position, it is not — by itself — outside the free market conservative movement. The trouble was not the position itself – rather it was the justification – you see, Tom Tancredo justified this freeze in legal immigration as a necessary measure to protect American workers’ jobs.

Think about that. Tom Tancredo, the alleged defender of free market conservatism, advocated a government economic intervention of business X (who would have fewer workers to choose from) for the express purpose of protecting person Y’s paycheck. Regardless of your feelings of the topic of immigration and whether it should be restricted for culture, national security, political equilibrium, or rule of law reasons, how can one justify the restriction of immigration to protect the “right to a job” as possibly being compatible with being a free market conservative? Simple – one cannot do so.
This was not an isolated instance. On July 5, 2010, Tom Tancredo sat in for Peter Boyles on KHOW 630 AM Denver to substitute for Peter who was off motorcycling that day. While hosting the show he spent the end of the 6:00 am hour talking to a representative from Numbers USA (a successful immigration restriction organization).

During the conversation, Tom Tancredo said we are only bringing in people who take jobs (49:50) and that he was against immigration because it suppresses wages (54:30). These remarks were not limited to illegal immigrants – they appear to include legal immigration as well.

It gets worse – while on the same radio show, after lauding Numbers USA as the premier organization to deal with both legal and illegal immigration (37:40-38:10), he was rewarded with the following response from the Numbers USA representative: Numbers USA believes “legal immigration needs to be reduced for a variety of reasons including quality of life reasons because the more people you add to this country to the population the more infrastructure you need, the natural resources you need to use, the more farmland you need to pave over and all the things that come along with population growth …we also believe that American workers have the right to not to have to compete with third world workers and third world wages” (39:57 – 41:00) The Numbers USA rep also said we are moving towards a have/have not society due to legal immigration during the same time frame in the audio. Later, the Numbers USA rep blamed almost the entirety of our unemployment on our immigration policy – legal and illegal (44:00).

Did Tom Tancredo, our supposed defender of free market conservatism, tell the Numbers USA rep that “use of natural resources” was not an appropriate reason to restrict immigration? Did Tancredo, our supposed defender of free market conservatism, tell the Numbers USA rep that “paving over farm land” was not a legitimate reason for restricting immigration? Did Tancredo, our supposed defender of free market conservatism, tell the Numbers USA rep that it is preposterous to blame almost our entire unemployment on immigration or that there is no “right” to not to have to compete with third world workers and third world wages? Well, if he were a true free market conservative he would have done so.

Tom Tancredo in fact did not tell his esteemed guest that she was wrong on any of these accounts. Instead, not only did he appear to agree with the Numbers USA rep throughout the interview, but he even said at its end how proud he was of the organization. A true defender of free market conservativism would have done neither, regardless of their feelings on the topic of restricting immigration on other bases (again – national security, political equilibrium, culture, government expenditures, etc.) So when you hear that Tancredo is the only free market conservative candidate running, or something to that effect, realize that can only be true if the word “free market conservative” is stripped of its core meaning.

Update – To be absolutely clear I am not saying that a free market conservative must support open borders. Rather, I am saying that a free market conservative would not stand silent or egg a radio guest on while that guest supported the idea that workers are entitled to a job, a high wage, or the other stuff indicated above. Or write an op-ed along the same lines.

Second Update - This is originally a PPC post, but PPC is down, so I'm posting it at my long defunct blog for now.

2008-11-02T07:43:00.004-05:00

The Giant Blow to the Soloplexus

McCain's big mistake in this cycle was not Palin, rather it was how he reacted to the housing crash. As the market fizzled in September, Americans were ready to do what we do best when such mistakes occur - find a scapegoat. And, as usual, in such a financial catastrophe, the scapegoat ready to be slaughtered was "greed" or "lack of regulation." And of course, the common-man media was all to happy to oblige in framing it this way.

One problem - it isn't accurate. Stupidity, not greed, caused the financial crisis. Basically, for five/ten years we embarked in a global overinvestment in housing based on faulty premises. Large scale societal investments are not something that merely Capitalism does - command economies do them as well. The difference is that through the signal effects of prices and lost profits, the free market is more nimble at diagnosing when an overinvestment has occurred. In other words, if it were not for the free market system's signals, the stupidity of pumping our societal wealth into unwanted houses (or some other grand thing) would have continued for additional years on end.

Into this environment McCain should have fought back against the greed charge. Furthermore, he should have gone on the offensive. Something along the lines that "At this dangerous moment in America's financial history, the last thing we need is put a man (Obama) in charge who had the poor judgment to have a corrupt enabler of the crisis as one of his chief advisors (Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae). It was the stupidity of men like Johnson, not greed that put us in this mess - something I foresaw when I tried to pass a reform act three years ago only to be stopped by the Democrat party." Instead, McCain blamed the crisis on deregulation and threatened to boycott the first presidential debate so that he could go to Washington to solve the crisis.

This mistake hurt McCain on many levels. First, he allowed his party to be portrayed as responsible for the crisis when he had powerful arguments that it was Dems (and by extension, Obama's) fault. Second, he missed a golden opportunity to diminish America's impression of Obama's judgment through tieing Obama to the corruption at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Finally, by trying to cancel the first presdiential debate, McCain made himself look like he was unable to handle the 3 a.m. crisis phone call because he was unwilling to walk and chew gum at the same time.

As a result, it was in these weeks that McCain went from a small lead in the polls to being blown out. Of course, Palin may have played a role as well, but I think this was bigger.

2008-11-02T07:31:00.003-05:00

The Dazzler

Now that Obama just seems about ready to wrap everything up, a common thought is "how did he do it?" While some put well-earned (credit/blame) at the foot of the media, I think its more about Bush. Not Bush's policies, (which often seem to be recited in an ill informed rosary-type recitation before concluding with some variation of "worst president ever") but rather Bush's personality. Whatever Bush's and Obama's similarity in making verbal gaffes, they just come off as widely different people.

Bush is the guy you'd grab a drink with at a fraternity, the operator who while not necessarily understanding the big philosophical discussion at 3 a.m. in the stoners' room, knows how to stay on the member's good side. America wants more than that at this moment. After four years America wants the guy who just doesn't serve as the operator, but the guy who is phi beta kappa, the guy who talks like he actually understands and writes his own speeches. And Obama is that guy. It doesn't really matter whether the press is shilling for Obama (yes it is) or not, because Obama has the personality and tempermant that Americans want after 8 years of Bush.

Notice I said nothing about Obama's policies. Not a coincidence, as they don't seem to be what is at issue in this election.

2008-09-08T06:35:00.005-04:00

That's Not Change, Just More of the Same

With more gaffes like these, an Obama White House on the the "bushisms" meter won't reperesent "Change," just "More of the Same."

Then again, that wouldn't be all that bad as I never thought that Bush's misstatements were that big of a deal.

2007-06-26T06:39:00.000-04:00

The Rule of Law and Immigration

One of the arguments frequently that those against immigration reform make is that they are not against legal immigration, only its illegal form. Supporting immigration reform they argue, undermines the rule of law. However, supporting the rule of law is not an end in itself - we support the rule of law because of what it leads it to - greater liberty, greater prosperity. What the law tries to accomplish or protect matters just as much as the law itself, even more so when we are setting policy (i.e. see groundswell of support for Scooter Libby pardon even though it is clear that he is in technical violation of the law).

My contention is that with immigration, those who fall back on the rule of law argument are often using it as a fig leaf and what truly matters is how one feels about the immigration in general. If immigration is a good thing, then violating immigration laws is a victimless crime that harms nobody, even less offensive then a speeding ticket as speeding actually puts lives in danger. However, if immigration is a bad thing, or bad in certain circumstances, the offense cannot be forgiven lest it occur again.

What are the implications if I am correct? Well, the main argument we have been having is whether forgiving the rule of law's violation is a good idea or a bad idea. Such argument misses the point. What we need to ask ourselves is whether immigration is a good thing, a bad thing. A further question is whether we can improve immigration rules so that we can improve its effect on our country. At least those who made an attempt a "grand bargain" took a shot at answering these questions. I think they haven't gotten enough credit for their attempts, and I'll hopefully be back to defend them if the bill survives cloture today.

2006-09-07T10:04:00.000-04:00

Here Lies a Failed Blog
My clerkship is now over, and I have a few weeks off before starting my next job in DC. Unfortunatly, I have no plans of continuing this blog.

Thank you for reading/visiting.

2006-09-06T21:52:00.000-04:00

Amazing Judge to Clerk For
If you are applying for federal clerkships, for sure apply to Hon. David Godbey on the Northern District of Texas. Just got done working for him, and he is one of the best teachers/bosses I have ever had.

2005-10-06T21:10:00.000-04:00

Passed the Bar
No surprises here
One down, two to go.

2005-08-23T00:30:00.000-04:00

Starting Clerkship
The day after tomorrow.

2005-08-04T09:51:00.000-04:00

The Good Life
Bar is done. Cooking and cleaning are provided for by family. Been able to hang out with friends. Looking forward to new job. Apartment in Dallas has been picked out, and the furniture is set for delivery. All that is left to do is to get my clerkship applications for the 2006-2007 year completed. Oh yeah, and play lots of video games.

2005-07-31T09:48:00.000-04:00

Kelo v. Abortion?
I interupt my blogging retirement for this quick post on something that I have been thinking about. After Kelo (where a city government was given permission to seize a house for a private purpose by the highest tribunal of the judiciary branch), some began to propose using the decision against Justice Souter (who voted with the majority) by seizing his longtime house to build a hotel. As Professor Volokh pointed out, such a condemnation would not violate Kelo:
Under Kelo, it does seem that the government couldn't seize Souter's property just because it doesn't like his policies. But Kelo speaks to the intentions of the government, not of those who are doing the development.

Under Volokh's interpretation of Kelo, this means that under the decision a pro-life organization could seek to have a series of planned parenthoods in a geographic area condemened in order to put up shops that would yield greater tax revenue. That their motivations are suspect is irrelevent, because the only motivation that should trigger heightened court scrutiny would be the motivation of the city board that hears condmentations matters - and that boards' motivations would be to simply increase tax revenue. Nor would this be an undue burden under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, because Planned Parenthood would always be free to buy another plot of land to set up another planned parenthood - it would just be out the moving costs and be forced to watch the pro-life movement get a symbolic victory. Finally, even assuming I'm wrong on both of these, precedent does not speak explicitly to this legal tactic, and it would draw further negative attention to the Kelo decision, making any ultimate legal result mere icing on the cake for those who are pro-life (which I am not one of).

2005-07-05T17:24:00.000-04:00

The Limited Efficacy of Stare Decisis?
Good piece in Reason on something that I have been spending much time thinking about.

2005-06-26T20:24:00.000-04:00

Couldn't Resist One Last Political Post
But I have an excuse! My study partner for first amendment law wrote this one on censoring speech for the Washington Post! Seriously, this is my last political post!

2005-06-25T05:44:00.000-04:00

Goodbye, In a Way
Yes, this is the end for now of my political commentary on this blog. I may still use it to publish personal details or odd joke pages, however. I might have a big wrap up piece summing up my feelings on everything at some point after I take the bar in Late July, so there may be one last political post.

2005-06-15T05:40:00.000-04:00

DNC Chair Dean
I have always liked the guy's style, even if I disagreed quite a bit with his content (well, more than quite a bit). Anyway, one of the lines of CW is that Dean as DNC chair will be horrible for the democrtas. This little piece in the Nation rises to Dean's defense.

2005-06-15T05:33:00.000-04:00

How About 76 Instead?
GOP Senators mull raising retirement age to 69.

2005-06-12T18:00:00.000-04:00

The Sum of The Parts Isn't Worth All That Much Anymore
The many failures of General Motors. A good read.

2005-06-11T05:52:00.000-04:00

The Case For Tort Reform
Is aided when judges make "curious" decisions like this one.

2005-06-11T05:43:00.000-04:00

So What Is Their Argument Anyway?
As much as I try to find policy justification for our government's medical policy towards sick people, I am unable to locate it. Others are coming to the same conclusion. Take a look at this snippet in yesterday's Cleveland Plain Dealer:
[Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation] said the decision was a "victory for the future of our children and our families." Medical marijuana, she said, would cover "anything and everything people want to use as an excuse to smoke pot."

But she had another comment, too. Feeling good is not medical treatment, she said. "We don't want truly sick and dying people to be scammed into thinking they are being medically treated by smoking pot."

And it raises the question of why dying people shouldn't be able to do what they want.I have known a few people who died of lung-related illnesses and smoked cigarettes to the end. You probably do, too. It's a terrible thing. But I was always baffled by the expressions of shock and horror about stories that somebody was smoking on one lung, on oxygen or on his or her deathbed. What's the difference at that point? If there is one place somebody ought to be free to smoke without being hassled, a deathbed should be it.

"Where do you draw the line?" Fay asked in one interview. "Is crack cocaine a medicine?" No, it's not. But if it gave relief to a dying patient who wanted it, what's the harm? Who's the victim?

2005-06-10T08:36:00.000-04:00

Maybe There Is Some Merit to "The Starve The Beast" Theory
Ohio finds itself unexpectedly awash in cash, plans new spending.

2005-06-06T11:33:00.000-04:00

Go Todd Go
Todd Zywicki has a nice little rant poking fun at those against Wal-Mart in Cleveland. Over a year ago, I came up with the idea of having an "I SUPPORT WALMART" button on blogs that supported a great company against populist demogougery. I'd put such a button on this blog in a heartbeat, if I could find one.

2005-06-06T10:51:00.000-04:00

6-3 loss in Ashcroft v. Raich
So much for states rights. Long live Wickard and the living constitution!

2005-06-05T17:54:00.000-04:00

Moving Cars
I just wanted to put down that I recently got my car back without any problems from Dependable Auto Shippers who shipped it from California to Ohio at half the price as most of the competition. I had resolved that I would do my part to trash their rep on the web if they screwed up. They didn't, so I want to put down a thank you on my site.

2005-05-31T09:03:00.000-04:00

The PETA Spy
Yes, this is illegal. Yes, I disagree with the girl's beliefs. Yes, if I was on a jury hearing a case arising from these matters, I would vote against her in a second. But you know what . . . it is kind of cool in an odd irrational way at the same time. Go figure.

2005-05-30T09:36:00.000-04:00

Housing Prices Will Create Perverse Politics
Are you one of these recent home buyers in a hot market? Are you worried that after plunking down half a million for a one bedroom in a bad neighborhood in the bay area that prices are going to crash? Do you want to protect your investment that you probably overpaid for? Vote for putative zoning restrictions. Of course, this might not be efficient for the overall market, but is that really your problem?

2005-05-29T19:34:00.000-04:00

Something Is Rotten in Denmark.......
Some are suggesting that Bush should pick a "moderate" to replace Rehnquist. Others are hoping the Republicans learn from the past so they aren't condemned to repeat it.

2005-05-29T00:37:00.000-04:00

Homeland Security, Protecting America
From movie pirating that is. Aren't these guys, you know, supposed to be doing something else.........like fighting domestic terrorism?

2005-05-29T00:10:00.000-04:00

Man Released After Serving 35 Years for Stealing TV Set
No, he was not wrongfully convicted. But the sentence seems grossly extreme. There is a need for deterance and retribution in making criminals serve their time. But how much time is too much time? How much is not enough? How do we make these decisions? Things to ponder............

2005-05-28T09:57:00.000-04:00

Power Corrupts: Republican Ideological Drift
Witness the change in Republican policy towards the Department of Education.

2005-05-26T08:34:00.000-04:00

European Superiority Watch
Today: Superior Free Speech Rights

2005-05-26T07:37:00.000-04:00

Bar Prep 1
So I've set up a new sure fire system to fail the bar. I am going to do almost all my studying on.............EXCERCISE MACHINES!

Oddly enough, it is easier for me to focus on the BarBri Outlines while burning off 680 calories an hour on an elliptical machine. For example, yesterday I did three hours on the elliptical, read about half of the BarBri Contracts outline, and also listened to a Property tape. The two previous days I managed to read almost the entire Criminal Law outline over the course of 3 and a half hours. If you throw in the swimming that I am doing too, I hope to not only finish my bar studying by mid July, I hope to be in great shape when I take the exam too.

2005-05-25T07:57:00.000-04:00

Has PC Culture Infected Even the University of Chicago Law School?
Supposedly one of the last redoubts of free thought, Walker has a disturbing email that was received from dean of students.

2005-05-24T03:42:00.000-04:00

Now I Really Feel Bad For Him
Its always been clear that Professor Lessig has had more inner demons to confront than others. One of them has just been revealed.

2005-05-23T17:07:00.000-04:00

Treo 600 v. Treo 650
Does any reader of this blog have any experience with these phones? My dad is hassling me to upgrade to the 650, but for the price, it just does not seem worth it. Then again, I have had the 600 break twice on me now, so he might be right.

2005-05-19T20:30:00.000-04:00

Video Games May Be Good For Your Kid
Something I have suspected for a while (yes Professor Cuellar, that means your kids too, despite our disagreement). Of course, coupling video games with physical exercise remains a smart strategy.

2005-05-18T22:57:00.000-04:00

Let's Hope It Is Something The Authorities Are Not Telling Us
And not incompetence. Passenger on diverted flight to Bangor has some troubling thoughts about the experience.

2005-05-18T18:46:00.000-04:00

Graduation (and Post Graduation) Depression
I told my parents during graduation that the hapiness one has for the event is inversly proportional to the happiness had during the school experience. Throw in an ex (thanks Tai!) who did a good job screwing with my head during the weekend, and it was an "interesting" time.

2005-05-14T09:44:00.000-04:00

Throw the Book at Her
If the Wendy's Finger-in-the-Chili Lady made it up, she needs to go to jail for a long time. Not only would she have lied, she would have done so maliciously to destroy a company's good name (a valuable asset) for the potential of enriching herself in the process. In my mind and with my limited knowledge, such actions are worse than the balance sheet manipulations in the Enron type cases over the past year which at least had the benefit of being possibly legal. This would be extortion, pure and simple, different from the mafia only in that no violence was involved, and equally intolerable in well functioning society.

2005-05-14T09:37:00.000-04:00

White House Screws Poor for Benefit of Special Interest
The White House is reimposing quotas on textiles made in china. This will "save" supposedly a few thousand job. I put save in quotes, because it will do nothing of the sort. What this will do is transfer jobs from the overall economy to the american textile industry, destroying jobs in the process. How? Because the Chinese make clothing more efficiently than we do, giving effectively more money in the process, leading to even greater employment. Even worse, if you are concerned about issues of equality, the increase in clothing price is a regressive tax on those who can least afford it, the poor.

Can't say I am all that surprised. So we have a big spending, protectionist administration that is abandoning state rights when morality can be imposed (gay rights, drug war, and probably abortion when Roe Wade is struck down).

Why can't we have a real opposition party unlike the even worse dems?

2005-05-13T09:20:00.000-04:00

Could Have Seen This Coming
Take a look at this story:
In a pact brokered by the New York County Lawyers' Association, more than 60 law firms have agreed to tell their corporate clients the composition of assigned legal teams by race, gender, ethnicity and sexual preference.

For several years, clients have asked law firms to sign statements in support of diversifying the legal profession. But with the formal agreement, firms have volunteered to put hard numbers behind their noble aspirations. According to the pact, "law firms should not object to requests by their corporate clients [to] report the number of hours devoted to the clients' matters by minority lawyers."

This Comment reacting to the story at Volokh's blog struck me as very disturbing of the implications of some of our laws:

I can remember very well when we were told that we could not keep records by race or gender or age because it would lead to discrimination. The next year we had to prove we did not discriminate on race or gender or age. I was responsible for personnel/payroll/benefits computer processing programs for a major firm in New England. We used to keep race and gener and age in the educational slots on the records. That way when they required us to report that we were not discriminating, we had the info. The whole concept reeks of PC crap!! If you keep it you are breaking one law, if you don't you are breaking another. The whole LLL PC crap has made this part of a company hell on wheels to work in.

And God forbid somebody claims you discriminated. Then you have to produce reams of paper every month to prove you have not discriminated and all it takes is someone apply for a job and not get it and then complain that your discriminating against them was the reason. Someone needs to get in there and clear out all these PC laws that make corporate life impossible. Once someone complains to the government for any reason at all, whether it is true or not, you are stuck. I used to have to devote a full weekend running reports that ended up being 4 feet high, 6 copies, and send them to the federal government every month. The reason is that we did not have the percentage of blacks working that matched the population. Of course the fact that blacks were afraid to venture into that part of the city meant that we did not have any blacks applying, but that did not matter. It was all our fault. I developed a very bitter distaste for the federal government working on those systems. The laws were totally insane, but the professors at Harvard thought they were wonderful.

2005-05-12T11:25:00.000-04:00

Good to Know
Clint got this piece published about an Al-Queda linked terrorist who owns his own airline. As he said to me when I received it - "Sleep well"

2005-05-10T21:08:00.000-04:00

Fed Courts and the Legend of the 150 page outline
I made a 150 page outline for my fed courts exam tomorrow. Prediction: it will be worthless on the exam.

2005-05-10T02:57:00.000-04:00

Gullible Law School Staff
Picked a hang nail, and it started bleeding. So I went to random members of the law school staff and asked if the squirrels in the area were rabid as I showed them my bloody finger. Yep - they mostly fell for it - I was told by quite a few of them to go the emergency room to get rabies shots :-)

Hey - it's exam time. Let me have my amusement in peace!

2005-05-05T06:18:00.000-04:00

Email worse for IQ than Marijuana?
Funny study if it holds up to peer review. Remember, since marijuana is a non-addictive drug without proven gateway effects, the one legitimate argument to keeping it illegal is lost productivity of society.

2005-05-01T13:03:00.000-04:00

Andrea Dworkin, Rest In Peace
One man's hilarious diatribe against Dworkin.

2005-05-01T10:57:00.000-04:00

Evangelical Overreach in the Military
I don't like this.

2005-04-30T10:57:00.000-04:00

Funniest Will Ever
Maybe I should have my last will and testament set up like this.

2005-04-30T07:39:00.000-04:00

HOLD ON!
It still is bad to be overweight, despite that recent study.

2005-04-29T15:32:00.000-04:00

Saving Silverman
Or Saving Cancellation Boy. One of my good friends thought he found the girl of his dreams. Earlier, he made a comment on my blog pointing me to the blog of his anonymous girlfriend and himself. I read both, and started to get very worried for my friend.

It was quickly clear that the girl he was seeing had unrealistic expectations of not only herself, but what she felt she deserved from members of the opposite gender. She wants it all - money, status, family, adoring husband - but does not appear to be focused in on what she has to offer of herself in return, or what sacrifices her partner would have to endure to bring all of this to her. For example, my friend goes to a prestigious law school (no, he is not here with me at stanford law). What happens if he wants in the future to give up the law to take up writing or some other dream? Could he honestly expect this girl to be supportive of him?

The last thing I wanted to see was a close friend end up in a relationship with a girl who expects to take a lot but is not prepared to give. But what is a friend supposed to do in that case? Simple - keep your mouth shut, and stay out of others business. Luckily, when this girl's identity was unmasked in the paper, she sent out a surprise call to all elgible men to win her heart in a dating contest - even though my friend was still supposedly dating her. Now that they are done with each other, I was able to have a nice long conversation with this guy, and told him that he was better off back in the dating pool.

Thoughts?

2005-04-28T17:39:00.000-04:00

A Worthwhile ACLU Suit
It is about time.

2005-04-28T10:55:00.000-04:00

Sit Tight. Don't Do Anything.
Newly-acquired RB Droughns is threatening to hold out from the Browns. His argument? RB with similiar yardage are getting four times his salary. Unfortunatly for him, there are also running backs who have stats that are roughly similiar to him who are getting paid even less than him. Even worse, these running backs, William Green and Lee Suggs, are playing for the Browns, reducing Droughns leverage and thus making it unlikely the Browns will feel excessive pressure to make a deal to redo this guy's contract. And when you are losing $6,000 a day for holding out, whihc Droughns will be if he goes forward with such little leverage, you better have an ace up your sleeve, because the Browns have one up theirs - nobody excepts them to win this season.

So maybe Droughns's agent, Drew Rosenhaus knows something I don't. Maybe this wasn't done at his urging, and his client made this decision against Rosenhous's urging. For this move does not seem all that intelligent, given all that is stacked against his client here.

2005-04-28T10:18:00.000-04:00

Unclear Your Future Is - Blogging is Dangerous, They All Sense It, Why Can't You?
All star wars references aside, I got just over two weeks until I graduate from Stanford Law, and I wanted to put a little bit down about the future of this blog. The entire time I have written this, I have been a student, where there are no issues with putting thoughts down in a public forum. In August, I start a job so there is a good chance I'll have to either restrict some of what I write about, or maybe even stop writing altogether. So far it has been fun sharing my thoughts with the world, getting linked on prominent blogs, and receiving some pretty snarky comments on a regular basis.

All of this helped me greatly with something that I only wrote about only briefly - the fact that I have spent the last year and a half getting over a shattered heart. So to those of you who have read my blog, commented on it (whether inane, well-thought out, or a little of both), or given me compliments in office hours or job interviews; to those of you who are private citizens, lawyers, doctors, prominent law professors, and judges; to those of you came just once, a few times a month, or daily; THANK YOU. You've made my life more enjoyable.

2005-04-28T10:07:00.000-04:00

If I Could Change One Thing About Myself....
I'd like to be taller. Maybe it was lifting weights at a young age, maybe just bad genes, but at 5 foot 7 inches I'll always have an insecurity about my height. It is probably the former, because both my younger brothers are well over six feet tall. This just reminded me of it (blog of a girl who just screwed over one of my friends having a competition requiring guys height). So why do I bother writing this one the web? My attitude is it is better to acknowledge your insecurities in life than to deny them.

2005-04-27T19:13:00.000-04:00

Planning a Move? Read this.
Oh, the internet is a wonderful thing. If you look around enough you can find sites like this. It is not so good if only look around a bit, because you are likely to get scammed.

I found these links to websites dealing with moving incredibly interesting. I am trying to figure out how to get my car from California to Ohio, and I got quotes from companies that upon further research, found out may likely be scams. Whatever happens, I'll be putting updates of the company's performance here, so that their good or bad work can be enshrined for public knowledge.

2005-04-26T12:12:00.000-04:00

Why Are These Guys Getting Held Up?
Juan Non-Volokh has some thoughts, but one of my classmates (keeping its identity anonymous) has some criticisms of them.

First, Juan Non Volokh's thoughts (in part, but you can read the whole thing here)
Whether their concerns are legitimate grounds for a filibuster -- or whether Republican Senators' obstruction of Clinton's nominees was any worse or less justified than Democratic obstruction of the first Bush's nominees -- is a debate for another day. Here I merely seek to correct the record as to why Senate Democrats are filibustering some of President Bush's nominees, and to make clear that those filibustered to date are not the "most ideologically extreme" of Bush's nominees.

Next, my classmate's crticisms of this argument:
This article conflates two issues and turns them into one. As Schumer's guy said at the panel yesterday [my note - ACS had a panel yesterday with 9th Cir. Judge Reinhardt, Prof. Mike Rappaport (fellow federalist), and Jeff Berman, Chief Counsel to Sen. Charles Schumer] of the ten judges being held up, _four_ . . . are in response to what was done during the Clinton administration. The other six, however, are being held up for something specific -- or, more accurately, a combination of specific things -- in their records.

Also, the phrase "ideologically extreme" really oversimplifies the issue (although, I admit, I'm confident Dems have used this phrase for marketing purposes). The reason I say this is because, of the 200+ judges who've been nominated, the politics of the vast majority are very similar, differing only on the margins. What distinguishes each of these particular judges of course varies by individual judge, but each of them has some combination of plus factors -- not only Owen's ideology, but her willingness to commit an "unconscionable act of judicial activism" to carry out that ideology, even if plainly in contravention of the law; not only Prior's ideology, but the personal attacks he has launched on the Supreme Court and its members, in particular Justice Souter (before attacking Justice Kennedy became oh so trendy); etc.

I am not sure what I think on this point as of yet....maybe I'll put some thoughts in on this later.

2005-04-26T09:53:00.000-04:00

Anti-Fraternity Stereotyping
This stuff really pisses me of.

2005-04-26T09:37:00.000-04:00

Movie Tax Shelters
I found this interesting. It also shows how it can, oddly enough, be CHEAPER to make a big-budget movie for studios than for a small company to make a small budget movie.

2005-04-25T13:02:00.000-04:00

Funny Stuff
Newly drafted Chicago running back Cedric Benson is upset that pundits keep comparing him to former Miami Dolphins RB Ricky Williams (who left football to smoke herb). Peter King at SI has some advice:

I think I have this advice for Cedric Benson: Get a hold of yourself, man. You were the fourth pick in the NFL Draft, buddy. Enjoy it. Strange moments, in the wake of Benson going to the Bears. Benson cried. You probably saw that. And he railed at the media and the NFL establishment for comparing him so endlessly to Ricky Williams, like we all were some sort of racial profilers. Let's see. Williams is 5-10 and 228. Benson is 5-10 1/2 and 222. Williams runs with powerful leg drive and has enough escapability to be dangerous. Ditto Benson. Williams admits that he has smoked marijuana. Benson was cited but never convicted on a college marijuana charge. Williams went to Texas. Benson went to Texas. Williams was a Major League Baseball draftee and played minor-league ball. Benson was a Major League Baseball draftee and played minor-league ball. Gee. I wonder why we're all comparing Benson to Williams? How strange.

2005-04-24T11:58:00.000-04:00

Year-Round Daylight Savings Time
This letter writer is on to something. The worst part of fall is setting your clock backwards just when it is starting to get dark REALLY early. You go from a 7:00 sunset to a 5:00 sunset in about a month and a half. I don't know many people who ever comment on what time the sun comes up, but I know plenty who comment what times it goes down; their happiness (or lack of it) is often directly tied to the time of sunset. Given this, if there is ever a time to have daylight savings time, it would be in the fall/winter, not the spring/summer. Or just keep it for the full year.

2005-04-24T00:21:00.000-04:00

More Problems With Public Broadcasting
I take a break from writing my outline, and this is what I find:
The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.
Anybody surprised? Anybody want to go fundraising for NPR?

Read the whole thing.

2005-04-23T22:30:00.000-04:00

Digitizing Conciousness
I stumbled on this post by Prof. Tung-Yin as I was preparing my fed courts outline [last exam of my law school career :-( ]. It is a fun little read. Enjoy!

2005-04-23T13:33:00.000-04:00

Browns Take Braylon Edwards #3
The good news here is that the Browns didn't bite on the Dolphins bluff. The Dolphins, who were picking #2 in today's NFL draft, were threatening to take Edwards, who the Browns wanted. What they wanted from the Browns to move up a slot was never made clear, but was rumored to be the Browns' second round pick. Thankfully, the GM Phil Savage called the bluff, and watched as the Dolphins took a RB instead.

2005-04-23T12:59:00.000-04:00

Please, Please, Please
Rule against the government in the medical marijuana case.....

2005-04-20T11:39:00.000-04:00

The More Things "Change" The More They Look The Same
Carville and Begalla demand that the Democrats "change". See for yourself, but I am reminded of that old Chris Farley line - you put a piece of @#$3 in a box with a warranty, it is still a piece of @#$3.

2005-04-20T11:32:00.000-04:00

Foam Party Leads to Rash Breakout
Not good for party goers.

2005-04-19T18:18:00.000-04:00

Anonymous Blogs
The adventures of Cancelation Boy and His Girlfriend.

2005-04-19T11:22:00.000-04:00

American Constitution Society - We need more rights!
Luckily these guys aren't running the country..........yet....

2005-04-19T01:52:00.000-04:00

Catherine MacKinnon's Hate Speech at Stanford Law
I was at the event that instapundit linked to. Actually, there were two events (yes at Stanford Law, one event featuring MacKinnon is not enough - we had to have two). The first was Thursday evening - it was a regular event. The next day, Friday, we had a book signing event for her new book "Men's Laws and Women's Lives" (or some other title similar to that).

Reason is correct - at the first event MacKinnon did not only in fact say there was a condition similar to "war" between men and women, but actually made it the central point of her talk. If I remember correctly, her test was systematic, culturally accepted violence the law chooses not to enforce punishment for (MacKinnon also said that if war, with its corresponding punishments was not the proper schema for the "conflict" then the behavior of men to women qualified as terrorism) What Reason mag left out was I tried to call MacKinnon out on her redefinition of the term war by pointing out how quickly it descended to absurdity. My example was in part that under MacKinnon's definition, there is a "war" between older and younger brothers (systematic culturally accepted violence the law chooses not to enforce)!

Of course the audience was agasp, and MacKinnon didn't understand my example (she said she was against sexual child molestation). Since then I have caught much flack from my female classmates for questioning this great thinker, but I have stood firm.

I even went to the second MacKinnon the next day when MacKinnon had some other "fun" insights:

Catherine MacKinnon was at Stanford just a few hours ago. When she brought up the need to protect rape shield laws so as to safeguard the equality of women, I asked her if she was willing to prevent inequality of men by making false reporting of rape provable beyond a reasonable doubt a felony. Her response was that she was unwilling to do so, because this would discourage rape reporting for the overall class of women.

If you don't think false rape reporting is that big of a problem read this post with oddly coincidental timing from my old Prof, Eugene Volokh.

UPDATE: Welcome instpaundit visitors. Maybe a little bit of sunlight from the national blogsphere can expose the ridiculousness in attitude as to what is going on here. Since the debate, many of the female attendees were radicalized by MacKinnon - one of my female friends agrees that it was almost akin to a brainwashing - she thinks that a large part of it is that MacKinnon not only sounded good, but looked beautiful, representing the women they all thought they should be.

With respect to the Thursday event, when MacKinnon said the actions of men towards women may constitute a war, I remember her mentioning human rights tribunals and the Geneva conventions as potentially applying. I didn't take a transcript for that, so I can't remember how it related to her overall argument (if they should be applied or if merely they could be applied for the sake of a thought experiment).

At both of her events, a large factor contributing to the cult-like atmosphere was the flexible redefinition of terms to suit MacKinnon's ends. Not only were "war" and "terrorism" redefined as potential schemas for describing men's behavior to women, but so were Men and Women. It was strongly implied (from my perception) that throughout her talk that Men were unified in harming Women as a group who were represented by MacKinnon. Bear in mind that MacKinnon NEVER explicitly said anything about who men and women were - it was implied. If she had actually said it, the magic would have lost its effect. Instead she left it in the air, always hinted at never outright said, leaving the audience to come to that conclusion themselves. In the end this has probably made the prejudicial stereotype stick all the more.

Anyway, one of the current debates on the law school political listserves is whether the MacKinnon is incorrect and women who are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have knowingly accused men falsely of rape should be convicted of a felony. The debate got really got moving when I forwarded this post by Chicago Law Student Walker Wells to the federalist society listserve which in turn got forwarded to the Women of Stanford Law listserve. I got this angry response:

Given the writer's (representatively) inordinate concern for the possibility of false accusations for rape and sexual assault (with corresponding LACK of concern, or at the very least radical decontextualization with all other instances of false accusations/indictments/arrests---read rampant racial profiling and animus against people of color), I cannot help but be reminded of that telling phrase from Hamlet:

Methinks the [gentleman] doth protest too much. . .

I responded to the writer with this:

[Name deleted] is correc[t] that there is an inconsitency of false accusations in other contexts. Two points
1) As with what I would like to see with Rape, if it can be shown to knowingly be made falsely by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I think I'd like to see the penalties for that go up too.
2) As for whether in spite of this there should still be a difference in false reporting, I find Walker Wells policy distinction between rape and other crimes persuasive. Once again, here it is "The reason why I question the validity of treating rape like other criminal offenses is because intentions and consent are the critical factors in determining whether the act that transpired was rape or consensual sex."

We will see what WSL does next now that this story is breaking national.

2005-04-18T11:30:00.000-04:00

Walker Wells on NYT Conspiracy Piece
The New York Times recently ran a piece on the "Constitution-in-Exile" movement. Wells has a very good retort here. You should take a look at it and his other recent posts - I've been quite impressed with them.

2005-04-17T12:58:00.000-04:00

Infidelity
A cool little post.

2005-04-16T10:09:00.000-04:00

Big Sugar
A good read.

2005-04-16T10:03:00.000-04:00

"Japanese Pigs Get Out"
Japan-China relations continue to sink lower:

Chanting "Japanese pigs get out," protesters here threw stones and broke windows at Japan's consulate and Japanese restaurants as tens of thousands of people defied government warnings and staged demonstrations Saturday against Tokyo's bid for a permanent U.N. Security Council seat.

This is potentially very not good in the midterm. We don't want these two countries going to war.

2005-04-16T09:32:00.000-04:00

Afghanistan Style Theocracy and "Trembling Before G-d"
Kos "They won't stop until they have Afghanistan style theocracy" in reference to the social conservatives attempts to influence the judiciary. While I am no fan of the social conservative movement, this is a mischaracterization. Afghanistan style theocracy involved the cutting of limbs, the denial of the ability of women to attend the classroom, and the destruction of works of culture important to other religions (those thousand foot or so high buddhist statues - or maybe they were hindu.....). As restrictive as the social right wants life to be (ending of no-fault divorce, banning of gay marriage, vast restriction on sex outside of marriage), I think it is safe to say they are not going to go that far.

On a different note, last night I coincidentally met Sandi DuBowski who directed a film that I watched and enjoyed a long time ago, "Trembling Before G-d,". It is basically a movie of ultra-orthodox jews who will not leave their faith, but also are homosexual. He said his next project, to be completed in about two years, will be called "In the Name of Allah" which is (you guess it) about ultra-religious muslims who refuse to stop being observant are also homosexual. I asked him if he was worried about having a fatwa issued against him like Salman Rushdie, and he said no.

It has been a long-term mission of mine to get my ultra-orthodox brothers to watch Trembling, mainly because I am worried about what will happen if one of the twenty kids they will have combined turns out to be gay. Not going to happen anytime soon.

2005-04-15T18:33:00.000-04:00

MacKinnon at Stanford
Catherine MacKinnon was at Stanford just a few hours ago. When she brought up the need to protect rape shield laws so as to safeguard the equality of women, I asked her if she was willing to prevent inequality of men by making false reporting of rape provable beyond a reasonable doubt a felony. Her response was that she was unwilling to do so, because this would discourage rape reporting for the overall class of women.

If you don't think false rape reporting is that big of a problem read this post with oddly coincidental timing from my old Prof, Eugene Volokh.

2005-04-15T10:25:00.000-04:00

Palestinians - Protecting Their Future
By throwing away the past, one step at a time.

2005-04-14T17:28:00.000-04:00

Another Reason Not To Attend NYU
You get to avoid this sort of political climate that even libs like KOS are appalled by.

In all seriousness, back when I was looking at law schools, the first thing that struck me at the NYU admit day was the level of intolerance of libertarians/conservatives that I saw in just a few short hours.

2005-04-14T11:09:00.000-04:00

Is It Too Late To Buy Swampland in Florida?
Guy bought out for over $4 million.

2005-04-14T02:13:00.000-04:00

Ting-Ting has got a blog
Oh no!

2005-04-13T10:51:00.000-04:00

Why Stanford Law (as opposed to Harvard, Yale, NYU, Columbia, etc.)
It is that time of year again for law school decisions to be made, so here is my plug for Stanford. To start with, here are the reasons why NOT to come here:
(1) You got a ton of money someplace else that is comparable in reputation
(2) You don't want to be on the West Coast
(3) You want the absolute highest chance of being a legal academic
(4) You need to be at the most politically conservative law school
(5) You want the advantages of a large school - such as widest possible range of classes to choose from, larger alum network, and more anonymity during law school
(6) You need to go to school in the middle of a big city

That being said, here are the reasons to come here:
(1) You want a degree with a reputation that is in reality second to none: Looking at the only portion of US News worth counting - the reputational surveys - Stanford is only a tenth of a point behind the leader, Harvard. Keep in mind that with gaming of the rankings (i.e. lawyers/judges marginally subconsciously lowering the scores of rivals to their alma matter) more likely to adversely affect the smaller schools, this difference is probably non-existent.
(2) You want to enjoy your three years in law school as much as possible: In terms of quality of life, Stanford is tops. The natural beauty is amazing - I am looking at mountains from my university-owned studio while typing this - and the weather is unbeatable. During my three years here I (a) Went skiing over ten times at nearby Tahoe (for those who need to have a winter) (b) Studied for exams by sunset at the beach (c) Never wore more than a light jacket (d) Went hiking in some of the best parks in the country (e) Swam in the Stanford outdoor pool multiple times per week even in January (f) Relieved occasional stress by taking walks in the mountains behind the school that are easily accessible
(3) A name not a number: One of the biggest reasons why I think students at law school become so unhappy is that law school is the first experience where they fail to make their mark. Unless you are at the top of your class (which the odds of are slim), you will most likely not be remembered (rightly or wrongly) for your intellectual wit. At the bigger schools, that is your only chance to feel like your presence actually even matters in your latter years, because the professors are inaccessible. This is not true at Stanford. The smaller size makes it easier to be known, and the institutional memory of the school - its staff and professors - go out of their way to get to know the student body.
(4) You want excellent job placement: Some say Stanford does not have enough partners at top 10 law firms. This is because those firms are concentrated in New York, which students here often make a conscious choice to avoid. Plus, with fewer Stanford students to compete for relative to Harvard/Columbia/NYU students, those who are interested may be in increased demand
(5) You want to be with the most laid back student body possible at a top law school: Students who get into Stanford get into other schools that provide equal job opportunities. The ones who choose to come here make a conscious choice to prefer a laid back experience to the downsides of the school listed above. In the aggregate, this adds up to a relatively more laid back experience than other top schools (which students who have transferred here largely seem to agree with)
(6) If you want to be an academic you don't believe the hype that Yale is the only path to the legal academy: Stanford places quite well in the legal academic world. Although I am not interested in academia myself, my friends who are and chose Stanford over Yale on this point did so because they felt the margin that Yale has over Stanford on academic placement is due to self selection. Per Capita, we are ahead of everybody else based on the information from that link.
(7) Access to the Big City: In case you HAVE to be in a big city, many students do choose to live in San Francisco and commute down for class.

2005-04-11T02:48:00.000-04:00

White Flag
The Cavs look like they are going to miss the playoffs. LeBron looks like he might demand a trade. I give up.

Update: Or maybe not.

2005-04-07T11:26:00.000-04:00

How Long Will China Grow Fast?
If you got time, this and this are excellent reads.

2005-04-05T23:42:00.000-04:00

Business School Hackers
I think Stanford and Harvard Business schools made the wrong decision to deny admission to those who "hacked" into system to find out early whether they got in to each school. Why? Because it wasn't a hack job! All they did was delete part of the URL web address! The information was all public!

“I don’t think that billing it as ‘hacking’ is acceptable because all you had to do is delete part of the URL to get access to the admissions site,” Hill said. If accessing the information was more difficult, Hill said he believes many of the students would have more readily taken a moment to reflect on what they were doing.

Jeez!

2005-04-05T06:09:00.000-04:00

More Proof That Affirmative Action Is Working
Students more likely to stick to "own race". Isn't the justification for affirmative action that it creates a climate of diversity, with people of different backgrounds interacting? Right.........

2005-04-03T11:14:00.000-04:00

Good Analysis of War on Drugs
I am in complete agreement with this take down of the war on drugs by Judge Posner, with the exception of Posner's last paragraph. In that paragraph he argues steroids should be an exception partly because there is no difference between the enjoyment of a sport if everybody is on steriods, and nobody is on steroids. I can't speak for other people, but I am not sure that is the truth for the average fan. Either way, fans who enjoy their athelete's on 'roids are probably unlikely to admit it to themselves, meaning they'd agree with Posner in the end anyway.

Sorry for my musings. Go read the piece. Its good, and I'm going to have start reading that blog more often.

2005-04-02T10:20:00.000-05:00

Dark Chocolate - AntiOxidants Galore!
Great news! Make sure it is not treated with alkali though.

2005-04-01T14:55:00.000-05:00

Happy April Fool's Day!
Here is one of the better pranks I have read about. Another favorite is from when I was pledging Phi Gamma Delta. It was a rainy day, and we were expected to be at the House for activity night promptly at 7:00 p.m. (or maybe it was 8:00?). So an anonymous email was sent to birthday-boy Jeff Blankman, telling him that the active members of phi gamma delta had placed a note for him under the trashcan in the dorm bathroom. The note of course told him to be at Ridge & Davis at precisely 6:30 p.m. (which was 30 min. away from the Frat House on foot). Of course, when he arrived, he was yelled at and told to report immediatly to the frat house. Upon arrival, the rain soaked Blankman eaked his way up the stairs, and our pledge class all started singing happy birthday as he came in the door (before we ruthlessly pinkbellied him [pinkbellying involves the distinct honor of celebrating a birthday by dozens of frat brothers smaking your stomach until it turns pink]). Memories...........

2005-04-01T09:32:00.000-05:00

Too Far
I've been quite conflicted (and rationally ignorant) on what I feel is appropriate in the Schindler case. However, now that its over, this seems to be going to far: The family was not allowed to be present at the moment of death, nor will they be allowed at the burial.

2005-03-31T20:29:00.000-05:00

Technically, My Writing Is Awful
Well, the last week I have been quite ill, but I have also been working very hard on getting something published. One of my smarter friends reviewed an earlier version of my work, and had this classic comment:
your ideas are excellent. i am as impressed as i expected to be. technically, your writing is awful. i say this out of genuine concern. you should take a remedial course.

Ouch!

Update: I tried defending myself by arguing I am just careless, and that my writing is quite acceptable when I bother to review it. My friend had none of this:

i'd like to see some writing you've done that you've checked carefully. then i would be able to know if you really know how to do it.... i don't mean to pick on careless errors. i would never even be able to write a draft that looks like what you did. it also shows a basic ignorance of some simple grammar rules you have never been taught because of inadequate schooling (and a gigantic lack of interest i suspect). but that's your deal....

Big Ouch!

2005-03-28T13:15:00.000-05:00

Amtrak
Classic.

2005-03-28T11:13:00.000-05:00

Maybe It Isn't an Old Wives Tale....
I've always teased my mom and my grandmothers that their idea that getting caught in the rain will get you sick is just an old wives tale. Well, I went running in a downpour last night, and sure enough, I feel like crap today.

2005-03-27T10:34:00.000-05:00

$3.00 a Gallon Gas?
Bring it on! Seriously, this may become the reality with the growth of the Chinese economy (not to mention the growth of the Indian economy). Ever-increasing demand and stable supply equals long-term price increases. I've said in the past that we need to create incentives to consume less oil. The best incentive would be a tax on gas, but accompanied with tax cuts in other sectors to keep the government's revenue and the change in overall tax burden neutral.

2005-03-23T07:46:00.000-05:00

Schiavo
A lot of people have asked me what I think about the Schiavo case. I've been avoiding it in general, but now that the case is now coming to an end (the 11th circuit denied appeal, and you can bet good money that the supremes aren't going to grant cert.), I'll put down a few general thoughts.

1) Everybody's motivation here is suspect
2) We get quite animated when we look at the possiblity of triage in health care, whether it is real or presupposed.
3) The question of who gets to make the choice in deciding to triage is just as difficult, yet important, as the decision of whether triage is acceptable. Should we care about the husband not being able to move on when the parents are more than willing to keep their daughter alive? In different cases, should there be a diminshed standard of tolerance for unlikelihood of recovery when relatives are not willing to pony up the money to pay for life support? Should it matter that the daughter may have told the husband that she would not have wanted to end up like this?
Mickey Kaus pointed me to NRO which had this interview with Professor Robert George dealing in part with this last question.

NRO: As you know, there's some question about what Terri Schiavo's wishes were or would be now. How much should turn on this question?
George: It is the wrong question. It is pointless to ask whether Terri Schiavo had somehow formed a conditional intention to have herself starved to death if eventually she found herself in a brain-damaged condition. ...[snip]
Even if we were to credit Michael Schiavo's account of his conversation with Terri before her injury — which I am not inclined to do — it is a mistake to assume that people can make decisions in advance about whether to have themselves starved to death if they eventually find themselves disabled. That's why living wills have proven to be so often unreliable. One does not know how one will actually feel, or how one will feel about one's life and the prospect of death, or whether one will retain a desire to live despite a mental or physical disability, when one is not actually in that condition and when one is envisaging it from the perspective of more or less robust health.
Consider the case of a beautiful young woman — an actress or fashion model perhaps — who is severely burned in a fire. Prior to actually finding herself in such a condition, she might have supposed — and even said, if the subject had come up in a conversation — that she would rather be dead than live with her face grotesquely disfigured. But no one would be surprised if in the actual event she did not try to kill herself by starvation or some other means, and did not want to die.

4) Regardless of all these points, involving the federal government is a questionable at best decision, and is a further signal of the hypocrisy of some of my republican allies professed concern for state rights. Take a look at the following thoughts by Charles Fried:

Congress's intervention in the Schiavo case is equally mischievous. It demanded that a federal court decide this issue without giving any deference to state law or the previous course of state court proceedings. This is exactly the sort of episodic federal intervention without regard for the integrity of state processes that plagued death penalty cases for years, and that Congress moved to end when it passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. And the real possibility now of the case bouncing back and forth between the federal district court and the federal appeals court, and maybe even back to state court, is just what Congress tried to shut down in death penalty cases.
For years now, Congress has more and more stringently demanded that federal court intervention be limited to cases where the state courts have acted not just technically incorrectly, but with egregious lack of reason. Whatever might be said of the Florida state court proceedings in this case, they certainly have not crossed that line, and indeed probably accord with what state courts all over the country have ordered or permitted for years in these difficult and agonizing cases.
Finally, the law passed by Congress on Monday was an obvious attempt - under the pretense of allowing the determination of federal constitutional rights - to delay the outcome decreed by Florida state law with the hope of making that outcome impossible. That is precisely the worrisome tactic employed with increasingly imaginative stays and orders of re-litigation in a number of federal courts, most noticeably the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers nine Western states. And it is also precisely the sort of tactic that Congress sought to discipline in the Effective Death Penalty Act.

5) Finally, the mainstream media (MSM) has once again failed us. Some good examples here and here.

Well, those are my general thoughts. Hope you either enjoyed them, or stopped reading them a bit ago.

2005-03-21T20:48:00.000-05:00

This Is What Happens When You Slack Too Much
Spring Break. 83 Pages of Fed Courts reading down. 118 pages to go. One Elliptical Machine. 20 Calories per page. 2360 calories to go.

Thankfully, since I don't need to lose the weight, I'll just eat more ice cream.

2005-03-21T09:15:00.000-05:00

Report on San Jose Iraq Invasion Anniversary Protests
A friend sends this email:
My friends,
Really not much to report: Pretty small turnout, I'd say, about 500 to 1000 at the Ceasar Chavez Plaza in San Jose for the Anti American, end the war, end the occupation everywhere, protest. Actually most of those present were the hard core, burntout, 50 to 70 year old Caucasoid commie peaceniks from the usual peace and justice brigades. There didn't seem to be a lot of Muslim/Arab folks who are usually younger and more threatening. However, (this is an exaggeration) about every third person seemed to be a Jew...Jews for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, and even an Israeli Jew with an "End the Occupation "T"shirt. There were six of us good guys: Bob and Lisa Cohen (of course), Marty Wasserman (who has an amazing talent to keep calm and soft-spoken in his verbal encounters with these guys,) Isaac Kight, a young man who's been active in pro-Israel causes on the college campus, Dan Milgram and his two young sons about 5 and 3 years of age, and myself. There was also a guy from a group called "proAmericaspirit.org" who stood with us. While the rest of us carried American flags, and signs denouncing terrorism and promoting democracy and liberty in the Middle East, Dan draped himself in the Israeli flag (not real crowd pleasing attire for most of the "end the occupation" protest attendees.) Several of them read our signs and tried to engage us in debate. Nowadays, before I talk to any of these folks, I ask the standard (Ward Churchill) question: "Did America get what it deserved on 9/11?" All the protesters I spoke to answered in the affirmative. Maybe it's just me, but I find it really kind of hard to have a reasoned discussion with such people. (I'm open to suggestions and tutorials about this.) We did encounter an unusual protester who bears a mention. This guy, it turns out, seemed to be one of your old-time, old school, no bones about it, anti-semites. He belonged to none of the organizations or groups at the rally; he was, he proudly claimed, an "independent jew hater." As he walked by us, he stopped and advised us how all jews should be killed. He said he would like to do it himself if he could. I pointed to Dan's two young children and asked if he wanted to kill those children too. "Absolutely," he responded, and then he took a step toward me and asked if I had a problem with that? (Actually I think guys like this are valuable to have around. I was looking for a TV person to get him interviewed; for our puposes, he would have made a great protest rally poster boy. But alas, where are the cameras and reporters when you need them?)

We kept an eye out for media but it wasn't too heavily covered. Lisa gave a long interview, in Spanish, to Channel 14 Spanish Language TV. We also gave an interview to a very nice young woman who was reporting for the San Jose State Univ. newspaper. We got to express our views. And we tried to paint these protesters as out of touch, Ward Churchill type fanatics on their own misguided warpath of hate Americanism. And of course, I suspect, we caused a lot of annoyance to the great humanitarians of this rally who still long for the days of Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms.
Respectfully submittted,
my impressions only.

2005-03-20T09:46:00.000-05:00

But Night and Day Aren't The Same Length!
Spring has arrived. Confused as to why day and night aren't equal on this day? Here are some reasons why:
A look in your almanac will reveal that day and night are not exactly 12 hours long at the equinox, for two reasons:
First, sunrise and sunset are defined as when the Sun's top edge - not its center - crosses the horizon. Second, Earth's atmosphere distorts the Sun's apparent position slightly when the Sun is very low.

Have these facts on hand when you get the inevitable calls at the equinox from people saying your sunrise and sunset times must be wrong because they are not 12 hours apart.

2005-03-19T08:58:00.000-05:00

Kirkwood Moot Court, Deadlines, and Sleep Deprivation
My week from hell is behind me. I've slept, and am now resting and relaxing.

So I took the MPRE on Saturday. That night, we had the Stanford Public Interest Law Foundation (SPILF) auction, which I went to, and partied at afterwards. I ended up buying a wine tour for 10 people for $30 (in spite of not drinking myself). But I digress.

The main point is starting Sunday morning I had been working nonstop on our moot brief for moot court.

Well, I had been wrestling with the case issue for a long time, but by Sunday, I was ready to put my thoughts down. The problem was I had waited just a little too long. I had to work all day/night Sunday and all day Monday to get my section done. I did not sleep Monday night. On Tuesday, my partner told me midday that he thought stylistically, my writting was not up to snuff. As a result, we spent that afternoon and early evening making corrections. I slept only a few hours that evening. Finally, by Wednesday, we faced a 3 p.m. deadline, but still had much to do.

What did we have left to do? The table of contents and the table of authorities. The former needs no description, the latter is a listing of every case that is cited and the page number that it appears on. In short, you can't do it without having finished writing, as then the page numbers would get screwed up. To top it off, even though there was a 3 p.m. deadline, we had decided we had to finish by 2 p.m. because we fully expected all printers to be occupied during the last hour.

So there I was, sleep deprived, delirious, and stressed out that we were going to miss the deadline all through Wednesday morning. I was such a head case that I am probably lucky my partner didn't slug me. Long story short - we got the brief in in time, but there are errors that we didn't have time to correct. :-(

So now I can relax, and hope to make the lost points up in oral arguments. I'll write more about that later.

2005-03-14T09:16:00.000-05:00

Heteronormativity
Harvard group is offended that speaker urges women to have it all - husband and career. Why are they outraged? Because husband implies that heterosexuality is the norm. Yup.

You cannot please all the people all the time.

2005-03-13T12:46:00.000-05:00

MPRE
I took the ethics exam requirement to pass the bar yesterday. Ironically enough, the exam took place at a Masonic Temple in San Francisco. Even more ironically, we had people marching in a seemingly Falun Gong type exercise outside. Gotta love California - I'll miss the place.

2005-03-08T13:12:00.000-05:00

Confession: I Hate the Yankees
No, I am not a Red Sox fan. I am an Indians fan who is sick of listening to New Yorkers speak about all their "home-grown" talent, when they never have to worry about another team signing away one of their players that they want to keep. In this spirit, here is a cool little tongue-in-cheek excerpt of an ESPN piece:

[T]he vast majority of Yankees fans simply cannot fathom the possibility that anyone could hate their team unless he or she also roots for the Red Sox. It's simply beyond their capacity to imagine that there are people all over the world who hate the Yankees for their own very legitimate reasons, and not just because they live in Boston.

The thing is, though, people hate the Yankees everywhere. And I mean everywhere. Brazilian researchers recently discovered an Indian tribe in so remote a part of the Amazon that these natives had never been exposed to western society. Although I cannot absolutely, positively vouch for this, I believe the only words they were able to understand were "Jeter sucks."

For those of you who agree, you might like this website to buy anti-Yankee apparel.