this just unearthed: naomi wolf espouses return to the veil!!!
it seems the suffragettes were on the wrong track after all. what we females really need is a good hard dose of "archaic sexual intensity"!!!
I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has full-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. “Can’t I even see your hair?” I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. “No,” she demurred quietly. “Only my husband,” she said with a calm sexual confidence, “ever gets to see my hair.”
When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband—the kids are not allowed—the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day—in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair.
She must feel, I thought, so hot.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
The Bush Budget Cut Lie
Who is the Wall Street Journal kidding on the Bush budget? David Bernstein over at Volokh has it dead right. $4.9 billion budget cut is nothing after a $500 billion medicare benefit. Ok - maybe the $4.9 billion thing is annual - who cares?
Who is the Wall Street Journal kidding on the Bush budget? David Bernstein over at Volokh has it dead right. $4.9 billion budget cut is nothing after a $500 billion medicare benefit. Ok - maybe the $4.9 billion thing is annual - who cares?
Monday, February 02, 2004
Volokh's Talk at Stanford. Plus, should gambling on Sports be considered Investing?
Just getting back from lunch with the guy. A lot more laid back than I had expected. I'm hoping he accepts the offer to teach here in the fall, mainly because I think he would be a good prof to take Con Law II under.
One interesting tidbit from the conversation came about on gambling. We were all joking around about the Iowa Futures Market where you can bet on who will win the Democratic nomination, general election, etc. I think it was co-blogger Zummer who was the one teasing Volokh (I could be mistaken) that if there was such a market for Supreme Court cases, the professor could make a killing because he knows the law better than almost all investors (superior information wins money with bets). This started a conversation about whether the futures market was gambling, with somebody pointing out that the general rule is that futures are not gambling because they exist to defer economic risk, whereas gambling creates risk in of itself.
If this is the case though, why wouldn't betting on a sports game be viewed in the same light? Let's suppose that the Cleveland Indians are down a game in the race for the wild card to the playoffs to the Toronto Bluejays. You own a bar in downtown Cleveland, which will get a huge boost if the Indians get to play in the playoffs, and want to hedge against the risk that Toronto will win the rest of their games and keep the Indians out of the playoffs, depriving you of a large stream of income. So, for "purely business purposes" you bet on the Bluejays to win each game. While this is a sports gamble, it would be undertaken for "purely" business purposes, so one could obstensibly argue that it should be allowed.
Could this defense be tried? Hey - I'm not a lawyer, what do I know?
Just getting back from lunch with the guy. A lot more laid back than I had expected. I'm hoping he accepts the offer to teach here in the fall, mainly because I think he would be a good prof to take Con Law II under.
One interesting tidbit from the conversation came about on gambling. We were all joking around about the Iowa Futures Market where you can bet on who will win the Democratic nomination, general election, etc. I think it was co-blogger Zummer who was the one teasing Volokh (I could be mistaken) that if there was such a market for Supreme Court cases, the professor could make a killing because he knows the law better than almost all investors (superior information wins money with bets). This started a conversation about whether the futures market was gambling, with somebody pointing out that the general rule is that futures are not gambling because they exist to defer economic risk, whereas gambling creates risk in of itself.
If this is the case though, why wouldn't betting on a sports game be viewed in the same light? Let's suppose that the Cleveland Indians are down a game in the race for the wild card to the playoffs to the Toronto Bluejays. You own a bar in downtown Cleveland, which will get a huge boost if the Indians get to play in the playoffs, and want to hedge against the risk that Toronto will win the rest of their games and keep the Indians out of the playoffs, depriving you of a large stream of income. So, for "purely business purposes" you bet on the Bluejays to win each game. While this is a sports gamble, it would be undertaken for "purely" business purposes, so one could obstensibly argue that it should be allowed.
Could this defense be tried? Hey - I'm not a lawyer, what do I know?
Lobbyists and Corporate Attorneys are Republican?
Apparently, Kerry thinks that Washington insiders/polite society are a bunch of Republicans
Before some 700 supporters in Kansas City, [Kerry] said, "All those lobbyists. All those powerful interests that meet in secret in the White House. They hear us coming."
Edwards said something similiar in his stump speech
He said I was this little trial lawyer and went up against the corporate interests, the corporate lawyers, the best money can buy, dignified people. You can hear them thinking Republicans. Then he says 'and they looked at me and said what's this guy doing in the courtroom with us? We're the best and the brightest.' Then he turns to the crowd and says, 'you know I beat them and I beat them and I beat them' and the crowd is going crazy because they know this is the guy who can beat the corporate Republicans.
One problem - when exactly did corporate lobbyists and lawyers become Republicans? When did the "elite" of Manhattan and Bethesda, Md. switch their radio listening habits from NPR to Savage Nation? Most of the corporate lawyers I've met have been very supportive of Democrats. I also know that while there has been a bit of a shakeup along K Street, for a long time most of the lobbyists were Democrats as well. So should Edwards be saying "I beat them" or "I beat us, I beat us, I beat us!" Somehow the last one doesn't sound quite as good.
Apparently, Kerry thinks that Washington insiders/polite society are a bunch of Republicans
Before some 700 supporters in Kansas City, [Kerry] said, "All those lobbyists. All those powerful interests that meet in secret in the White House. They hear us coming."
Edwards said something similiar in his stump speech
He said I was this little trial lawyer and went up against the corporate interests, the corporate lawyers, the best money can buy, dignified people. You can hear them thinking Republicans. Then he says 'and they looked at me and said what's this guy doing in the courtroom with us? We're the best and the brightest.' Then he turns to the crowd and says, 'you know I beat them and I beat them and I beat them' and the crowd is going crazy because they know this is the guy who can beat the corporate Republicans.
One problem - when exactly did corporate lobbyists and lawyers become Republicans? When did the "elite" of Manhattan and Bethesda, Md. switch their radio listening habits from NPR to Savage Nation? Most of the corporate lawyers I've met have been very supportive of Democrats. I also know that while there has been a bit of a shakeup along K Street, for a long time most of the lobbyists were Democrats as well. So should Edwards be saying "I beat them" or "I beat us, I beat us, I beat us!" Somehow the last one doesn't sound quite as good.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Midnight Parking Lot Watch
location: law offices of wilson sonsini
date: january 31, 2004
time: 11:59 p.m.
number of cars: 25
update: a light night by wilson sonsini standards. but after all, this is super bowl weekend and i've heard lawyers like to take advantage of this all-american holiday by giving special attention to their kids' unruly mommies.
location: law offices of wilson sonsini
date: january 31, 2004
time: 11:59 p.m.
number of cars: 25
update: a light night by wilson sonsini standards. but after all, this is super bowl weekend and i've heard lawyers like to take advantage of this all-american holiday by giving special attention to their kids' unruly mommies.
Why Black People Are Tall and Chinese People Are Short
According to an article in the October 27, 2003 issue of The New Yorker, one of the few African-Americans appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan asserted in a 1997 case involving alleged environmental contamination in a largely minority neighborhood that physical differences among races were the product of their environment. "'Why do you think Chinese people are short?' Hoyt told the laywers in the case. 'Because there is so much damn wind over there they need to be short. Why are they so tall in Africa? Because they need to be tall. It's environmental. I mean, you don't jump up and get a banana off a tree if you're only four feet. If you're seven feet tall and you're standing in China, then you're going to get blown away when that Siberian wind comes through.' The court of appeals in that case called Hoyt's remarks 'unfortunately, grossly inappropriate, and deserving of close and careful scrutiny.'"
I found this in my Capital Markets readings.
According to an article in the October 27, 2003 issue of The New Yorker, one of the few African-Americans appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan asserted in a 1997 case involving alleged environmental contamination in a largely minority neighborhood that physical differences among races were the product of their environment. "'Why do you think Chinese people are short?' Hoyt told the laywers in the case. 'Because there is so much damn wind over there they need to be short. Why are they so tall in Africa? Because they need to be tall. It's environmental. I mean, you don't jump up and get a banana off a tree if you're only four feet. If you're seven feet tall and you're standing in China, then you're going to get blown away when that Siberian wind comes through.' The court of appeals in that case called Hoyt's remarks 'unfortunately, grossly inappropriate, and deserving of close and careful scrutiny.'"
I found this in my Capital Markets readings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
