Spring Break '99!

They must have had a good engineer

2006-07-22T14:41:00.000-05:00

Saw this in Newsweek:

Steve Lake is spending his summer at school—but not in class. The 56-year-old Caesars Palace pit boss, who set a goal in 1984 to visit 500 colleges, joins scores of high-school students touring campuses this summer. He spoke to Chrissy Balz.

***

You've said before that Colgate University is your favorite campus. Has that changed?
The last time I was at Colgate was 1986. I visited Sweet Briar on this trip; that was one of the most beautiful campuses I've ever seen. University of Richmond was beautiful as well. I don't know if my favorite has changed; I'm putting those two in my top five.

The Hold Steady

2006-07-22T01:58:00.000-05:00

After a brief respite, I'm hooked on the Hold Steady's second album, Separation Sunday, again. It's amazing. Check out a brief NPR bit about them here.

Prof. Carpenter's Agenda

2006-06-13T22:30:00.000-05:00

Clearly using his teaching position to proselytize to students who let their guard down.

Dan and Ashley's Wedding a Success

2006-06-13T22:26:00.000-05:00

Pictures here.

School Desegregation Report

2006-06-13T22:08:00.000-05:00

From IRP.

Grandmothers

2006-04-27T20:30:00.000-05:00

How awesome is this?

Good Fiction

2006-04-22T14:52:00.000-05:00

Can anyone recommend any good fiction? I hope to have more time to read once school is behind me, so I'm starting to compile a "to read" list. Currently, I'm making my way through "Master of the Senate," an LBJ biography (non-fiction, of course), and I'm thinking about Saul Bellow's "Herzog" and Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow."

Wow - School Districting

2006-04-16T13:58:00.000-05:00

Intentional, de jure seggregation:

He [Ernie Chambers - Nebraska's only black state Senator] was also a driving force behind a measure passed by the Legislature on Thursday and signed into law by the governor that calls for dividing the Omaha public schools into three racially identifiable districts, one largely black, one white and one mostly Hispanic.

The law, which opponents are calling state-sponsored segregation, has thrown Nebraska into an uproar, prompting fierce debate about the value of integration versus what Mr. Chambers calls a desire by blacks to control a school district in which their children are a majority.

Catch the full text here.

I think the point is partially empowerment and partially to target inequalities highly correlated with race, but still this is wildly anti-liberal.

Congrats to Jamie

2006-03-21T22:08:00.000-06:00

I thought this was worth a shout-out.

Onward and upward

2006-03-02T10:03:00.000-06:00

Well, looks like I'll be in Michigan the next two years. It was a tough call--Minnesota had a lot of intangibles going for it, not least of which was Vergasy's being around. However, Michigan had a significantly larger faculty, which meant more classes that were appealing, as well as more electives built into the curriculum. I remember the immense number of available classes being what I most enjoyed about Yale (apart from the comraderie, of course). And I recognize that grad school is a bit of a different ballgame in this regard, but in the end, that's what carried the day. I'm excited to get started on a career path that's going somewhere (I've been spinning my wheels in a law firm for a year knowing I wasn't going to law school).

So, Verg, sad to say, I won't be in town. It really is disappointing to me, because I do have very real aspirations of leaving near some of you guys down the road. My next best shot may be China for an internship next summer or perhaps as a job after I graduate.

Unless any of you are itching to move to a town with nothing apart from a university...or if Detroit beckons...

Right. I guess not.

Arrrghhh ye looking for another t-shirt?

2006-02-28T10:03:00.000-06:00

So true. So true.

http://www.rmxclothes.com/

Former Taliban spokesman is freshman at Yale

2006-02-27T21:00:00.000-06:00

Just thought you might be interested.

(Belated) President's Day FYI

2006-02-21T10:02:00.000-06:00

. . . Gerald Ford allegedly had a flatulence problem, often blaming the Secret Service men surrounding him.

From NYPost via Wonkette.

Dunk Contest

2006-02-20T14:31:00.000-06:00

NowI have to say I'm pleased that Robinson won the dunk contest, what with his crazy-nasty dunk over Spud Webb, (video here) since he plays for my boys and all, but the Iguodala dunk from behind the backboard was totally bananas.

More dog blogging

2006-02-19T00:02:00.000-06:00

They named the puppy Ivan. And he's not actually a great dane. He's a Scottish deer hound.

Valentine thoughts from Prof. Carpenter

2006-02-14T21:15:00.000-06:00

at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Help with name for puppy

2006-02-12T20:42:00.000-06:00

My parents, now empty-nesters, picked up a new puppy over the weekend and now need help naming it. Its mother is a great dane, and the father is unknown. Here's a pic:
Right now they're thinking about Ulf, Magnus, and Ivan. Any thoughts?

This is My Congressman

2006-02-04T22:13:00.000-06:00

And they say our representatives don't understand us. To think.

Next step

2006-02-04T12:45:00.000-06:00

At Chuck's request, here's the update on my applications to Master of Health Administration programs at public health schools. I've applied to Minnesota, Michigan and UNC-Chapel Hill. Interviewed at Minnesota a couple of weeks ago and got a call this week that I will be offered admission. So that's good news (I applied to Duke MBA in the fall and was denied admission. No fun.). I have an interview at Michigan on 2/13 and UNC on 3/10.

Michigan seems to be the consensus #1 program and Public Health school in general. I went by there in November and met with someone on staff and got the impression that their strength is the size of the full-time PhD faculty. Other schools tend to use a contingent of part-time faculty and non-PhD instructors. Average class size (35-40 students/year) is also larger than other programs (approx. 25): larger alumni network.

This summer I went and spent a weekend w/ Vergasy and figured I would go visit w/ someone at Minnesota. I hadn't really considered it too seriously as an option. The lady I met with there, though, gave me a very positive impression of the program: large endowment relative to student population, retain outside consultants to help students determine what type of role/organization would be the best fit, alumni nationwide. When I was there recently for the interview, I enjoyed the people and faculty I met. Seems like it would be a good place.

UNC seems to be a more regional program: a majority of their students and alumni are in the southeast. I met with a faculty member there and he wasn't much of a salesman about the program.

I get the feeling that on one level this process is essentially buying an alumni network, for better and/or worse.

Anyway, that's the story at the moment. I'm looking forward to being in a new spot. St. Louis has been fine and K and I may come back here down the road b/c it's a good spot geographically (about halfway between South AR and Cleveland). Even still, I look forward to a new place. Would certainly be cool to be in Minneapolis while Ver is there.

Any input or insight into this process would of course be appreciated.

The First Cut is the Deepest

2006-01-31T22:34:00.000-06:00

I'm writing today not only to celebrate my first actual post on Spring Break '99, but also to report on my own personal Spring Break '99: East Coast Tour '99. Hopefully when I get back to China I will figure out how to post from there and I can start detracting from the level of conversation on a regular basis.

I flew into Boston on the 12th of January, made a pit stop in New Haven for a lunch with Robert Reed (my art professor, JP's sister also had him last year I think.) I also bumped into DL in the new TD and had a nice chat with him.

I stayed with JP for 3 nights in NYC. I walked into his bedroom, the smell and decor of which were all E3 circa 1998, the only difference being that mario kart was now projected on a wall instead of through Raf's TV. Toad was now JP's racer of choice. I remember when only pansies like Tye Rattenbury raced with toad.

Lunched with Lebanese Lothario in NYC. He got tired of making obscene amounts of money in private equity about 3 years ago and went into film production with Ramone (the guy who made fake ID's upstairs) now he's the CFO of a reputable film production company with offices somewhere near soho. He's been finding himself, taking college courses and writing a screenplay.

In NYC I caught up with Ally Ro, Robert "Rob" Hsu, Mr. Huff, and Bert O'Connor in NYC for an all-too-brief beer at a bar near Union Square. It was the first time I'd seen Ally and Hsu since graduation in 2002. Ally was just back from the Carribean and Holy Land. Hsu was, as JP observed, "Scooby" Hsu one minute (the first thing he did after we saw each other for the first time in 3.5 years was paw me) and delivering incisive and nuanced observations about Taiwanese/Chinese relations the next. Mr. Huff had just been made partner in his private equity firm. Robbie's mom's latest children's book, Fancy Nancy, was just #1 on the NYT best seller list. Robbie also just scored a sweet job reading books and comic books to determine their suitablity for movie adaptations. Me? I just wrote a hit play and directed it, so I'm not sweating it either.

I got to talk with Drew, Luke, and Shata on the phone while Drew was interviewing in the frozen north for MHA programs. I hope we all get to hear how that's going as it goes.

I've been in VA for the past week and a half, and its been incredibly relaxing. I've been eating as much mexican food as I possibly can and enjoying the beautiful blue ridge mountains. I went on a hike last weekend with some good friends and had the rare pleasure of being witnessed to on a mountaintop. How is our friend Brother Steven doing these days I wonder?

I'll be in VA for another week, then I'll fly down to florida to visit friends and relatives. I'll be returning to China on Feb. 12, relaxed, tanned, and full of memories from a great Spring Break. I'll also have a new 20 inch intel imac with which I can hopefully keep in touch with everyone a little better.

Next Spring Break '99 is Beijing Summer 2006, I hear there'll be Dudes Aplenti, so everyone oil up and pile on!

Happy Year of the Dog!

Voting no

2006-01-25T12:16:00.000-06:00

What can be a sufficient reason for voting no on a supreme court nominee but not filibustering?

-threat of the nuclear option?
-some measure of deference to elected executive?
-nominee within judicial mainstream?
-political/re-election considerations

Are legislators who vote no legitimately able to disclaim future bad rulings if they don't filibuster? I'm having trouble figuring out why, if someone 1) doesn't approve of the nominee and 2) recognizes the importance of a lifetime appointment to supreme court, she doesn't feel compelled to filibuster. Seems like the poster child of the split-the-difference nature of politics.

It's official

2006-01-24T17:49:00.000-06:00

Vergasy begins his legal career 1-0.

Last week I handled an appeal of a denial of unemployment benefits, and today I got a letter telling me my client won. Not only is it a victory for my client, but I guess it's also a victory for big and bloated government--take that Robert Nozick and your night-watchman state.

Looking for some good non-fiction

2006-01-09T00:58:00.000-06:00

I've got a brother with a birthday coming up, and he's interested in some good non fiction. Any suggestions? I was thinking of getting him a couple of books by John Krakauer, but my mother tells me he's currently reading Krakauer's Into Thin Air.

Begging the Question

2006-01-06T09:23:00.000-06:00

For all you ignorant fools. . .

2005-12-23T21:52:00.000-06:00

2 more gems from overheard:

Remember That Whole Strike Thing?

Guy: God damn it! Where were you? I waited an hour for you to show up! Were you on a coffee break or what?
Bus driver: Sir, that's not possible, the lead bus was only ten minutes ahead of me. I watched him pull out of the depot.
Guy: Screw you! You guys are the real terrorists! You're what Homeland Security is trying to protect us against!

--Staten Island Ferry Terminal, Staten Island

and

Dangerous Showers There, Too

Professor guy: ...Then he was sent to Buchenwald. Have any of you visited any of the camps?
Girl: I did.
Professor guy: Yeah? Did you visit Buchenwald?
Girl: No.
Professor guy: Did you visit one in Germany?
Girl: No.
Professor guy: Did you visit one in Europe?
Girl: No, it was in America.
Professor guy: Are you talking about a summer camp?
Girl: Yeah.

--Fordham University, Rose Hill

Out of Opportunism or Guilt

2005-11-25T14:29:00.000-06:00

It seems our good and competent friend, Michael D. Brown, has started himself a little disaster prevention consulting firm.

In related news, I've started a slam dunk clinic for NBA centers.

Eavesdropping

2005-11-21T12:54:00.000-06:00

Overheard in New York had a gem today:

Old lady #1: Your grandson has not been with a girl in a while. He might be gay.
Old lady #2: Hey, he's not gay, don't be crazy. Your grandson needs to stop sleeping with every girl; he might get them pregnant.
Old lady #1: Hey, how much is this kielbasa?

Translated from the Russian.

--Grocery store, Bensonhurst

Man, do I love jokes with two punch lines. Then again, you can't really tell this one.

Moving away from the center

2005-11-20T11:50:00.000-06:00

So the Times magazine has an article by two well respected political scientists, Jacob Hacker (Yale) and Paul Pierson (UC Berkely) about Republican power, representation, and majority rule. Most of the conclusions they refer to are pretty well established results in the theoretical and American politics literature, but I was curious about what non-political sciencde folk thought about their argument, piece, etc . . .

Final #1 done

2005-11-19T19:15:00.000-06:00

My friend Prof. S. at Doneasasociety is a big fan of Toothpaste for Dinner, a daily online cartoon by some guy named Drew. I have to confess I wasn't all that impressed until recently, when I realized that these cartoons needed a shout out:
As a Decemberists fan, I would like to note that I consider myself to be thoroughly post-hipster.

It's Like Christmas in July, But in November!

2005-11-17T11:04:00.000-06:00

Granted, Woodward's credibility is somewhat damaged by withholding but he's made me think this really could go as high as Cheney. I doubt it, but it seems possible now.

Top story in Waukon this week

2005-11-16T21:38:00.000-06:00

Fire Department Gets Donation for New Laptop:

Well at least science still isn't getting in the way of politics

2005-11-15T00:52:00.000-06:00

From our friends at the New York Times - An article from today's paper discussed how:

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, concluded in a report released Monday that the Food and Drug Administration's May 2004 rejection of the morning-after pill, or emergency contraceptive, application was unusual in several respects.
Top agency officials were deeply involved in the decision, which was "very, very rare," a top F.D.A. review official told investigators. The officials' decision to ignore the recommendation of an independent advisory committee as well as the agency's own scientific review staff was unprecedented, the report found. And a top official's "novel" rationale for rejecting the application contradicted past agency practices, it concluded.

This makes me think of two things:

1) This administration's disregard for science is almost more disturbing than its disregard of the greater good. With regard to the later there are often tangible transfers or benefits to the rich or special interests with the costs being borne by the majority of us, or at least the poor. At any rate someone gains something that is a means. But in disregarding science, whether it be in the rejection of Plan B or the support of teaching intelligent design in science classrooms no such means is given, only an end which can be supported as victory. The religious right which supports the Republican party can't do so forever - they make up the margin, not the base (I think). If the middle leaves this type of pandering becomes even more disturbing.

2) Beauracracy is not a dirty word in political science. It indicates an organization with highly specific technical knowledge and seems to well represent the careerists at the FDA, EPA, GAO, etc . . . who are the one's whose work is manipulated for the politics of all administrations to some degree. What worries me is that we'll lose a rediculous number of the well qualified unbiased ones due to the utter disregard for their skills and effort shown by this administration. Actions now can hurt quality later.

Alito, Roe, and Prospects for the Future

2005-11-01T21:53:00.000-06:00

For the first time in a long time the prospect that Roe will be overturned is a reality. Considering that a majority of the country is in favor of the legalization of abortion it is interesting to think how things might develop if it is overturned. The prospects of abortion moving almost entirely into the legislative sphere seem better than ever.

The Alito nomination made me think of a piece I read in the Atlantic Montly a while back (Jan/Feb 2005). You need a subscription, so I include it below:

Letting Go of Roe

The Democratic Party's commitment to preserving Roe v. Wade has been deeply unhealthy for abortion rights, for liberalism more generally, and ultimately for American democracy

by Benjamin Wittes

.....

re we about to suffer through another horrible Supreme Court nomination dominated by abortion politics?

Bet on it. With Chief Justice William Rehnquist seriously ill, the prospect of a Supreme Court vacancy early in George Bush's second term looms over American politics. The script for this—and every—Republican high-court nomination was written long ago. You already know how it goes: Both his own convictions and the need to keep his political base happy require a conservative president to nominate someone expected to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established the constitutional right of women to terminate their pregnancies. He has only two realistic choices. He can name someone openly hostile to Roe—and thereby trigger a major confrontation with liberal interest groups and Senate Democrats. Or he can name someone with no record on abortion rights but whose jurisprudential approach suggests a predictable skepticism toward them—in which case liberals will insist on trying to divine the nominee's views on the question, which he or she in turn will endeavor to conceal. Unless the president nominates someone the Democrats deem it not in their interests to oppose, the nomination process will become an ugly spectacle in which a single narrow issue pushes to the sidelines discussion of the broad array of other important legal questions the Supreme Court handles. And that process will cast abortion-rights supporters as intolerant of those who disagree with them—or even those they fear may disagree with them.

What's the alternative?

Liberal abortion-rights supporters could chill out.

Do you mean surrender and let Roe die?

That's exactly what I mean. It wouldn't necessarily come to that, of course. Republicans have put seven of the nine current justices on the Supreme Court—and they still have only one more anti-abortion vote than they had in 1973, when the decision came down 7 to 2. Where reproductive rights are concerned, the bark of a conservative nominee is frequently worse than his bite—as three justices nominated by Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush proved in 1992, when, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, they voted that "the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed."

Still, if Roe ever does die, I won't attend its funeral. Nor would I lift a finger to prevent a conservative president from nominating justices who might bury it once and for all.

Are you a pro-lifer?

Not at all. I generally favor permissive abortion laws. And despite my lack of enthusiasm for Roe, I wouldn't favor overturning the decision as a jurisprudential matter. A generation of women has grown up thinking of reproductive freedom as a constitutional right, and the Court should not casually take away rights that it has determined the Constitution guarantees. Stability in law—particularly constitutional law—is critically important; the Supreme Court would do well to remember that. Still, the liberal commitment to Roe has been deeply unhealthy—for American democracy, for liberalism, and even for the cause of abortion rights itself. All would benefit if abortion-rights proponents were forced to make their arguments in the policy arena (rather than during Supreme Court nomination hearings), and if pro-lifers were actually accountable to the electorate for their deeply unpopular policy prescriptions.

That's absurd. How can you say that liberalism and abortion rights would benefit if their supporters gave up on the decision that protects reproductive freedom?

By removing the issue from the policy arena, the Supreme Court has prevented abortion-rights supporters from winning a debate in which public opinion favors them.

Since its inception Roe has had a deep legitimacy problem, stemming from its weakness as a legal opinion. Conservatives who fulminate that the Court made up the right to abortion, which appears explicitly nowhere in the Constitution, are being simplistic—but they're not entirely wrong. In the years since the decision an enormous body of academic literature has tried to put the right to an abortion on firmer legal ground. But thousands of pages of scholarship notwithstanding, the right to abortion remains constitutionally shaky; abortion policy is a question that the Constitution—even broadly construed—cannot convincingly be read to resolve.

Consequently, a pro-lifer who complains that she never got her democratic say before abortion was legalized nationwide has a powerful grievance. And there's nothing quite like denying people a say in policy to energize their commitment to a position. This point is not limited to abortion. For instance, the host of gay-marriage ballot initiatives in November came in direct response to the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to treat same-sex unions as a judicial matter rather than a legislative one. And less than a year before the Court handed down Roe, it single-handedly reinvigorated a public commitment to capital punishment (which at that point was on the way out) by striking down the death penalty as then practiced; within several years states had rewritten their laws, the Court had backed down, and executions had skyrocketed to levels unseen in decades.

But the Court has not backed down on abortion. Thus the pro-life sense of disenfranchisement has been irremediable—making it all the more potent. One effect of Roe was to mobilize a permanent constituency for criminalizing abortion—a constituency that has driven much of the southern realignment toward conservatism. So although Roe created the right to choose, that right exists under perpetual threat of obliteration, and depends for its vitality on the composition of the Supreme Court at any given moment.

Meanwhile, Roe gives pro-life politicians a free pass. A large majority of voters reject the hard-line anti-abortion stance: in Gallup polling since 1975, for example, about 80 percent of respondents have consistently favored either legal abortion in all circumstances (21 to 34 percent) or legal abortion under some circumstances (48 to 61 percent). Although a plurality of Americans appear to favor abortion rights substantially more limited than what Roe guarantees, significantly more voters describe themselves as "pro-choice" than "pro-life." Yet because the Court has removed the abortion question from the legislative realm, conservative politicians are free to cater to pro-lifers by proposing policies that, if ever actually implemented, would render those politicians quite unpopular.

In short, Roe puts liberals in the position of defending a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply while freeing those conservatives from any obligation to articulate a responsible policy that might command majority support.

But if the Court overturns Roe, won't we go back to the bad old days of back-alley abortions?

I doubt it. The day the Court overturns Roe, abortion will suddenly become a voting issue for millions of pro-choice voters who care about it but know today that the right is protected not by congressional politics but by the courts. At the same time, thousands of conservative politicians will face a dreadful choice: backtrack from the anti-abortion ground they have staked out and risk infuriating their pro-life base; or deliver on their promise to eliminate the right to abortion, and risk the wrath of a moderate, pro-choice majority. In the short term some states might pass highly restrictive abortion laws, or even outright bans—but the backlash could be devastating for conservatism. Liberals should be salivating at their electoral prospects in a post-Roe world. The simple fact is that a majority of Americans want abortion legal at least some of the time, and the majority in a democracy tends to get what it wants on issues about which it cares strongly. In the absence of Roe abortion rights would probably be protected by the laws of most states relatively quickly.

Sure, certain state legislatures will impose restrictions that would be impermissible under the Supreme Court's current doctrine; some women might have to travel to another state to get abortions. But the right to abortion would most likely enjoy a measure of security it does not now have. Legislative compromises tend to be durable, since they bring a sense of resolution to divisive issues by balancing competing interests; mustering a working majority to upset them can be far more difficult than rallying discontent against the edicts of unelected judges. In short, overturning Roe would lead to greater regional variability in the right to abortion, but this would be a worthwhile price for pro-choice voters to pay in exchange for greater democratic legitimacy for that right and, therefore, greater acceptance of and permanence for it.

Hang on a second. This is a constitutional right at stake. You don't argue that blacks should place their civil rights at the mercy of the majority. Why should women? Isn't fighting for fundamental rights a matter of principle?

Indeed it would be, if the right to abortion—like minority civil and voting rights—were unambiguously protected by the Constitution. But let's be frank: it isn't. The right to abortion remains a highly debatable proposition, both jurisprudentially and morally. The mere fact that liberals have to devote so much political energy to pretending that the right exists beyond democratic debate proves that it doesn't.

Lots of fundamental rights are protected by legal authorities other than the Constitution. For instance, the right not to be fired by a private employer because of one's race or religion is statutory, not constitutional. The right to abortion is in no way degraded by the fact that state laws may prove the best means of guaranteeing it. That simply reflects the absence of a national consensus about whether the right exists and, if so, what its limits should be.

This is an easy argument for a man to make. But could you be so blithe if you were a woman, and abortion rights were more than an abstraction?

I have no idea what losing my Y chromosome would do to my attitude toward this subject. But the costs of defending Roe have grown too high, and I'm just not willing to pay them anymore.

Do you seriously think that pro-choice liberals could ever come around to your view?

Self-confident liberals already would have. A liberal fear of democratic dialogue may make sense regarding social issues on which the majority is conservative. But it is a special kind of pathology that would rather demand a loyalty oath to a weak and unstable Court decision than make a case before one's fellow citizens on a proposition that already commands majority support. The insistence on judicial protection from a political fight that liberals have every reason to expect to win advertises pointedly how little they still believe in their ability to persuade.

The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/wittes.

UMN Prof guest blogging on the Volokh Conspiracy about gay marriage

2005-10-31T09:25:00.000-06:00

Read it here.

Read his bio here.

Prof. Carpenter is one of the best teachers I've had in law school. I've heard him speak on the topic of gay marriage before, and he's been active in opposition to the Solomon Amendment at UMN Law. I recommend you check back and read his comments all week.

Butterstick the Panda

2005-10-27T19:44:00.000-05:00

Read about it here.

Torture

2005-10-25T09:04:00.000-05:00

is reprehensible and the Dept of Defense should not be allowed to engage in it. But only DOD. Does torture and inhumane treatment provide good information? I would have to be shown mountains of evidence to believe. And even then, the treatment causes more p.r. problems than it solves when word gets out. And isn't that the long-term battle we're fighting, here?

Norquist's enemies

2005-10-20T16:18:00.000-05:00

Luke this story has all of your favorite punching bags. You love it.

Ironic Quote of the Day

2005-10-06T08:25:00.000-05:00

"There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq."

- British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a news conference with Iraqi
President Jalal Talabani.

Music Update

2005-10-02T14:43:00.000-05:00

I picked up the new Wolf Parade CD, "Apologies to the Queen Mary," on Tuesday, and it's excellent. My special lady and I will be going to see them play at the 7th Street Entry on October 13, and then we'll see the Hold Steady on October 30 at First Avenue. It'll be a good month for music.

William J. Bennett - Racist or Idiot?

2005-09-30T18:28:00.000-05:00

""I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," Mr. Bennettsaid in the broadcast. "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.""

Tricky? Read about it here.

Apparently he was tring to debunk or at least criticize one of the conclusions of Steven J. Dubner's Freakonomics, which I think are deemed by many to be quite dubious. However, the way in which he did so seems to betray what might generously be called latent racism.

Dewey Lecture

2005-09-29T12:10:00.000-05:00

I chilling in the law school auditorium waiting for Joseph Raz to give a lecture. I'll let you know what I think, including whether I understand any of it--I read Raz for my Jurisprudence class, something about a concept of a concept.

For fun, here's Raz with his big Marx-like beard (bigger in real life):

Here's my jurisprudence professor:

You guys

2005-09-27T11:03:00.000-05:00

driving less or planning on it? StL does not lend itself to walking anywhere (although there are some people moving into downtown lofts). This is one big strike against as a long-term home. Minneapolis seemed much more walkable.

K and I only have one car. We'll probably be getting another one when we move for my grad school. Looking at a civic, maybe a hybrid. You guys feel like hybrids have been on the market long enough that they are relatively as reliable as gas-only? I'm still a bit hesitant.

Will the increase in gas prices change what Americans buy or what Ford/GM produce? I'd guess probably not all that much, but it seems like it wouldn't take all that much to push these companies into more dire financial peril (junk bonds, hello). And they have been giving cars away for the past couple of months. Why would anyone really pay full price for next year's models?

Serge Lang

2005-09-25T10:01:00.000-05:00

So Serge Lang passed away recently. You'll remember him from the dining hall when you see his picture. I remember telling my dad that he was always there and he flipped because he had really been impressed by Lang's work when my dad was still in the academic math biz.

Priority and Aid

2005-09-22T10:48:00.000-05:00

In my philosophy class with GA Cohen (Vergasy - you might remember some of his readings from our class with Roemer), a philosopher who has done great work on egalitarianism and self-ownership, we discussed the idea of priority and aid. That is, do we have certain obligations to help friends, relatives, etc . . . in need before we help others? Obviously not everyone agrees on this but some, including myself, I think, would make the argument that it's definitional to being a friend that there are things you would do for the friend that you wouldn't do, or have to do for others. However, what I've posted below shows indivudual who have taken this argument to an extreme that I think ignores the fact that the obligations that we owe to those to whom we are close are not unaffeted by the particulars of the situations in which the obligations and needs arise.

LA Times

September 16, 2005 Friday
Home Edition
SECTION: MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 986 words

HEADLINE: KATRINA'S AFTERMATH;
After Blocking the Bridge, Gretna Circles the Wagons;
Long wary of next-door New Orleans, the town stands by its decision to bar the city's evacuees.

BYLINE: Nicholas Riccardi, Times Staff Writer

DATELINE: GRETNA, La.

BODY:

Little over a week after this mostly white suburb became a symbol of callousness for using armed officers to seal one of the last escape routes from New Orleans -- trapping thousands of mostly black evacuees in the flooded city -- the Gretna City Council passed a resolution supporting the police chief's move.

"This wasn't just one man's decision," Mayor Ronnie C. Harris said Thursday. "The whole community backs it."

Three days after Hurricane Katrina hit, Gretna officers blocked the Mississippi River bridge that connects their city to New Orleans, exacerbating the sometimes troubled relationship with their neighbor. The blockade remained in place into the Labor Day weekend.

Gretna (pop. 17,500) is a feisty blue-collar city, two-thirds white, that prides itself on how quickly its police respond to 911 calls; it warily eyes its neighbor, a two-thirds black city (pop. about 500,000) that is also a perennial contender for the murder capital of the U.S.

Itself deprived of power, water and food for days after Katrina struck Aug. 29, Gretna suddenly became the destination for thousands of people fleeing New Orleans. The smaller town bused more than 5,000 of the newcomers to an impromptu food distribution center miles away. As New Orleans residents continued to spill into Gretna, tensions rose.

After someone set the local mall on fire Aug. 31, Gretna Police Chief Arthur S. Lawson Jr. proposed the blockade.

"I realized we couldn't continue, manpower-wise, fuel-wise," Lawson said Thursday. Armed Gretna police, helped by local sheriff's deputies and bridge police, turned hundreds of men, women and children back to New Orleans.

Gretna is not the only community that views New Orleans with distrust. Authorities in St. Bernard Parish, to the east, stacked cars to seal roads from the Crescent City. But Gretna's decision has become the symbol of the ultimate act of a bad neighbor, gaining notoriety partly from an account in the Socialist Worker newspaper by two San Francisco emergency workers and labor leaders who were in a crowd turned back by Gretna police.

Numerous angry e-mails to Gretna officials accuse them of racism. (Harris and Lawson are white.)

New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin said Thursday that Gretna officials "will have to live" with their decision.

"We allowed people to cross ... because they were dying in the convention center," Nagin said. "We made a decision to protect people.... They made a decision to protect property."

Paul Ribaul, 37, a New Orleans TV-station engineer from Gretna, said New Orleans and the suburbs have a complicated relationship.

"We say we're from New Orleans, but we're a suburb," he said. "The reason we don't live there is we don't like the crime, the politics."

Ribaul was among Gretna residents who praised the decision to close the bridge. "It makes you feel safe to live in a city like that," he said.

Critics suspect a racial motive for the blockade. City officials heatedly deny any such thing.

Among black residents of Gretna, some say that although they get along with most of their white neighbors, a few of the neighbors harbor strong prejudices.

Some black Gretna residents also speak fearfully of New Orleans. "We don't have as much killing over here as in New Orleans," said Leslie Anne Williams, 42.

Nonetheless, Williams' mother, a lifelong Gretna resident who is also black, disapproved of the Police Department's decision. People fleeing New Orleans "probably had a better chance of survival over here," said Laura Williams, 70, "especially with all that shooting" across the river.

When Katrina hit, about 5,000 of Gretna's residents were still in town. Police zigzagged the trim streets of ranch houses and older wooden buildings, checking on those who had not evacuated.

Like New Orleans, Gretna lost power and water. Town officials pleaded unsuccessfully for help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Then they learned that New Orleans officials had told the thousands trapped in that city's downtown, similarly deprived of food and water but also dodging gunfights and rising floodwaters, to cross to Gretna.

Not sure how to feed even their own residents, Gretna officials were overwhelmed by New Orleans' evacuees. They organized bus caravans Aug. 31 to take the arrivals to Metairie, 16 miles away, where a food and water distribution center had been set up.

The evacuees waited for rides out of Gretna at the foot of the bridge, across the street from Oakwood Mall. As the hours ticked by and the crowd swelled, trouble began, Gretna authorities said.

Sometime on Wednesday, Aug. 31, a fire broke out in the mall, next to the local branch of the sheriff's office, and police chased suspected looters out of the building.

Mayor Harris had had enough. He called the state police.

"I said: 'There will be bloodshed on the west bank if this continues,' " Harris recalled. " 'This is not Gretna. I am not going to give up our community!' "

The following morning, Gretna's police chief made his decision: Seal the bridge.

The San Francisco paramedics said in an interview and in their article that there were gunshots over the heads of people crossing the bridge from New Orleans' convention center -- many of them elderly -- where they were stuck for days without food, water and working toilets.

Nagin, New Orleans' mayor, said that he'd heard similar reports about gunfire, as well as people being turned back by guard dogs.

Chief Lawson said that he was unaware of any of his officers shooting over the heads of evacuees on the bridge but said that one black officer did fire a shot overhead to quiet an unruly crowd waiting to board a bus.

Harris said Thursday that closing the bridge was a tough decision but that he felt it was right.

"We didn't even have enough food here to feed our own residents," Harris said. "We took care of our folks. It's something we had to do."

Best Bible verse ever

2005-09-21T07:46:00.000-05:00

2 Kings 2:23-25:

²³And he went up from thence unto Bethel. And as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him and said unto him, "Go up, thou bald head! Go up, thou bald head!"

²⁴And he turned back and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two shebears out of the wood and tore forty and two children of them.

²⁵And he went from thence to Mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

Mocking bald people! Shebears! Kids getting mauled! This verse has it all!

Progressive Sex Study Released

2005-09-16T00:34:00.000-05:00

So the first major sex study in the past decade or so was released recently. There were several things about it that I thought were pretty interesting:

1 - Even though it's an individual level study, the newspaper was reporting the statistics in aggregate. In one sense this is the least judgmental in that by not running any regressions the arguments about causation v. correlation are moot. Yet at the same time the age categories they use to describe experiences can mask critical turning points and moreover, if the sexual practices of urban v. rural v. suburban teenagers and adults differe significantly which I suspect they might be, all the talk about median in the article might be somewhat misleading.

2 - The idea is put forth in the article that the prevalence of oral sex among teenagers is due to either (1) the desire to maintain "technical virginity" or (2) being a method of birth control. I suspect that these have little to do with the level or oral sex among teenagers and that the attribution of these motives is due to a gap between generations. I think that most teenagers probably look at oral sex simply as less serious, less intense, and less emotional than actual intercourse. I'd be curious as to what older and younger readers of the blog think.

3 - I love the fact that a Dr. Manlove is quoted in a study on sexuality. You can't make that stuff up, unless, as Socalpundit says, the Times does.

Our Fearless Leader

2005-09-15T11:51:00.000-05:00

For no good reason except that I can:
check out the link for legitimacy -

5 Questions

2005-09-10T19:00:00.000-05:00

The Time Op-Ed section has 5 contributors today each giving five questions they would ask of Judge Roberts. . . .some of the academics were just having fun and the conservatives were lobbing up softballs. Clinton's man, below, just went for the jugular. Roberts wouldn't be able to really answer many of these.

Carols in the Court

By RON KLAIN

1. Some senators have suggested that you should follow the example set by Ruth Bader Ginsburg as to what sort of questions she answered at her confirmation hearings. Here's what she said at that time regarding a woman's right to choose: "It's a decision she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human." Was she right to make such a specific and clear statement regarding a woman's right to choose, and do you agree with the substance of her statement?

2. One of your roles as chief justice would be to comment on what matters should be in the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In a radio interview in 1999, you criticized the Violence Against Women Act - a federal law that put hate crimes against women on a par with hate crimes against racial minorities. You questioned the need for a national law, saying that "conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more relevant" because they are "more attuned to the different situations in New York as opposed to Minnesota." Why should a misogynistic attack be regarded differently in one state or another?

3. Over the past 50 years, 20 different men and women have been appointed to the Supreme Court. Recognizing that political labels are of limited value, and generalizations are generalizations, I wonder if you can identify one of these 20 jurists - just one - who you think has a view of constitutional rights that is "to the right" of your view, as that label is commonly used by legal commentators?

4. In a memo you wrote in 1981, you criticized affirmative action "preferences" based on race, calling them "objectionable." If preferences given to those born into families that have suffered past discrimination are objectionable, what is your view of preferences given to those born into the families of privilege - namely, the preferences that many universities give to the families of their alumni?

5. Chief Justice William Rehnquist held an annual Christmas celebration in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, complete with avowedly religious carols, despite periodic objections from some of his colleagues and non-Christian law clerks. As chief justice, will you continue with this practice, and do you find it at odds with the spirit of the court's edicts regarding church and state?

Ron Klain directed judicial selection for the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1994 and was chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas and David Souter confirmation hearings.

Big V

2005-09-10T18:58:00.000-05:00

Can we require people to sign in before posting comments. While I hate the idea that we'll miss some comments from people that don't want to be associated with them, the new appearance of adds by anonymous posters in the comments sections pisses me off.

Just Passing It Along

2005-09-10T10:03:00.000-05:00

This came from an email my dad got from and old co-worker down south. I think it speaks to another reason why people who had no where to go didn't want to leave (in addition to the fact that there have been warnings with little or no incident for 30 years):

> My brother lives in Florida and I go down there each year at this time and
> last year we got caught in a hurricane and ended up going to a shelter. It
> was a difficult decision to make, but since this was the first major
> hurricane my brother and his wife were experiencing in his current
> townhouse, they just weren't sure how it would hold up, and from the news,
> it was hard to determine what to do -- flee.. where? So, the first night
> in the shelter was an "interesting" sociological experience... We were in
> an air conditioned school room, bathroom in the room, TV.. Red cross
> delivered food at night --- What a life!
>
> But then, the electricity went out, bathroom problem, no A/C.. and then the
> roof started leaking.... so we had to move to another room that was packed
> (with a lot of snorers). That second night was just lovely... On the
> third day, we were all ready to move out! So while two of us were cautious
> about leaving without sheriff approvals (before they were able to determine
> if there were downed cables in the streets, etc...), one of us wanted out
> -- end of story..... So... out we went as did some others, ultimately
> with no problems. What is unfortunate is that after having an experience
> in what started out to be a "luxurious" shelter, you never want to have to
> go through such conditions again and may put yourself in danger in the
> future. (And fortunately my brother's home was fine -- they just had to
> live without electricity for awhile in humid Florida, no decent food, and
> limited gas..) I can only imagine what the people in LA and MS had to
> deal with.

"Separation Sunday" by the Hold Steady

2005-09-08T09:43:00.000-05:00

I can't say enough good things about this album. It's (self-aware) bar-rock cliche done really, really well. Plus they're from Minneapolis (originally).

See Pitchfork's review here.

A Bunch of Monkeys

2005-08-31T10:41:00.000-05:00

Here is a highlight from Times article on a recent survey about creationism and evolution:

"The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism."

I found the first number absolutely staggering. As far as I can tell the last major academic proponent of this idea was this guy Agassiz who helped found Harvard's version of the Sheffield Scientific school some time around the Civil War. Basically he lost out to those who practiced what we now recognize to be methodologically sound science. The thing that I can't believe is the gap that currently exists between scientists and the general public. I'd stake a fair bet that 98% of all scientists and 100% of all non-crackpot types believe that the evidence is overwhelming that evolution has occurred. 42% is out of hand.

2005-08-25T11:22:00.000-05:00

I read an interesting article by neocon Tod Lindberg yesterday about how the foreign policy aspect of Neoconservatism is actually a logical/realist extension of post-WWII Liberalism. The main thrust of the article was that Neoconservatism takes into account the "reality on the ground" while advancing the cause of "liberty", whereas the Liberalism of the '50's and 60's propounded a more universal applicability. Now I'm cautious about sounding the death knell in Iraq this early, but it seems like things are going completely to shit there as of late, and it's largely because of the sectarian/religious realities "on the ground" that the Neoconservative architects of the war either never took into account or ignored entirely for one reason or another. So if this "rigorous and realist case analysis" of the advancement of liberty is a central tenet of Neoconservatism, how did they get Iraq so wrong? How did they botch what they hail as a central tenet of the Neoconvervative foreign policy? I'm guessing it's just an utter and complete incomprehension of Iraqi society/internal politics, coupled with a gradual reconstruction of reality on their part via theoretical geopolitics, Iraqi dissident groups, securing oil insterests, and residual 9/11 vengenance. The upshot was that this original, geopolitically calculating version of Neoconservatism that Lindberg describes yielded to a more militant, post-Sept. 11 crusading neoconservatism that is both misguided and dangerous to the security of our country.

Anyone else find this mildly hilarious?

2005-08-19T10:32:00.000-05:00

Say what you want about Snoop Dog, he always manages to you surprise you.

Letter from an Iraqi

2005-08-18T09:33:00.000-05:00

This is an interesting letter written by an Iraqi at www.juancole.com concerning the Bush Administration's overreliance on Tribalism and the subsequent "braindrain" in the developing Iraqi state:

' It is remarkable how the "experts" on Iraq ignore the most important
section of Iraqi society: the non-tribal millions centred in Baghdad, Basra,
Mosul, Kirkuk and some other large cities. These may well belong to tribes and
may even be religious, but are totally independent. They regard their Sheikhs
[tribal leaders], if they know who they are, almost as a lower cast: Asha'ir
(Tribal people) who are considered clumsy, thuggish, and worst of all obeying
the tribes rather than following their principles or the country's
institutions.Until the 1980's Iraq enjoyed the best health, education and other
governement service, while the tribal areas were, and still are, quite backward
and even primitive, while the cities were as advanced as south western Europe.
The non-tribal Iraqis, call them Nationalist if you like, have had no place in
Bush's Iraq because the Americans promoted tribalism from day one in the hope of
controlling Iraq by buying its Sheiks and Mullahs. This policy worked in
Afghanistan and Kurdistan because these are collections of self-ruled tribal
areas, and not real countries, but have failed in Iraq's large cities with their
complex relationships and mobile population.These urban Iraqis are critical for
the future of Iraq because of their skills and patriotism - do not confuse them
with the corrupt Ba'athists though. The Iraqi ministries now are paralysed by
the corrupt and incomptent relatives and friends appointed by the Mullahs and
Sheikhs who now rule Iraq, which is being transormed into a failed state. The
militias and terrorists decide what happens to the people of Iraq. The
Constitution and state Institutions are irrelevant no matter how much fuss is
made about them.The Nationalists, who are more likely to be highly educated
professionals do not have militias, but can leave the country in droves.
Thousands already have, and the country can not function without them regardless
of who is in power. The bizzare collection of "Iraq Leaders" today are fighting
over spoils that do not exist. The Oil money is not enough even for basic needs,
and the failed economy and services will sooner or later trigger national
revolt. Unlike other nations, millions of ordinary civilians have AK47s in their
homes, and plenty of military training. '
Many of the Lebanese people I met complained about a similar exodus of educated elites during their civil war from 1975 to 1990, a situation that Iraq is quickly mirroring every day. Only now, 15 years later, are Lebanese professionals returning to their country.
Also, in their books, Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward document the U.S. Special Forces' tactic of literally handing out wads of cash to Tribal leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq in an effort to buy them off. Is this really the best allocation of U.S. tax dollars? Is there anyway to track where that money goes? We might as well just start sending personal checks to Sunni Insurgents.

Iran's Hand In Iraq

2005-08-10T15:47:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's Pentagon press conference finally corroborates what most officials have been suspecting for a while about arms coming over the border from Iran. However, I think it's semantically misleading when officials use the term "Iran", because everyone immediately assumes Iran's government has something to do with it. I'm guessing that this particular materiel is coming from extremist groups within Iran and not sanctioned by the government itself. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution that dominates the Iraq government right now is more or less an ideological/religious extension of Iran, (Sistani himself is Iranian by birth) so it makes little sense for the Iranian government to be undermining the very Iraqi government that could more of less secure their future economic/military interests.

This is also a possiblity though - the Iranian government is simply "looking the other way" while some of these bombs cross their borders because a weakened, but not utterly defeated, U.S. army in Iraq serves their particular self interest. It IS possible for Iran to simultaneously support the Iraqi government and undermine the U.S. military presence.

This is all assuming of course that this bomb making material was intended for the "insurgents". Since we've utterly failed to provide Iraq with anything approaching security, many local militias are taking it upon themselves to counter the insurgency, so this stuff could have been intended for one of these local militias as well. (btw, I think one of the misconceptions perpetuated by the American media/government establishment is that this "insurgency" is a shadowy united front of Jihadis/Baathists coordinating all attacks their together. While this is probably the most widespread and lethal facet of the insurgency, many of the attacks are also perpetrated by groups of people or individuals who are simply angry with the United States for a number of reasons - remember that back in April of '04, our main enemy on the battlefield was Moqtada al-Sadr and Co. holed up in the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf. You're telling me that none of them want retribution for A. their friends getting killed last year, or B. the U.S. abandoning the Shiites in '91 after exhorting them to rise up against Saddam, resulting in another classic "Saddam kills everyone" massacre?)

Personally, I think we're fucked. No one really gives damn about democracy when you don't have power or water or a job, and and the only thing distracting you from the bullets whizzing by your head are the giant car bombs going off down the street. I'm guessing it'll probably be a "declare victory and leave" situation that comes back to haunt us in 25 years.

The Alternate Universe of Donald Rumsfeld

2005-08-05T09:31:00.000-05:00

Donald Rumsfeld's Recent Comments attempting to delink the recent London bombings with our invasion and occupation of Iraq either A.) betrays that he knows absolutely nothing about the people we're allegedly at war with, or B.) he understands the roots and intricacies of Islamic Extremism, but yet again is attempting to construct his own Rumsfeldian version of reality.

Many of the London bombers were British-Pakistanis with links to Jaish-e-Muhammad, an Islamic militant group with ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, operating in the hinterlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This and groups of its ilk are explicitly infused with al-Qaeda's atavistic propaganda of "The West is at War against Islam" and "Kick the Crusaders out of the Middle East", and impressionable/dislocated young Muslims from Manila to London are recruited by operatives plying pictures of dead civilians in Gaza, Falluja, and Kabul.

And Rumsfeld's comments are even more surprising after Ayman al-Zawahiri's lastest chart-topping music video yesterday:

"The truth that has been kept from you by (President) Bush, (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice and (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld is that there is no way out of Iraq without immediate withdrawal, and any delay on this means only more dead, more losses. If you don't leave today, certainly you will leave tomorrow, and after tens of thousands of dead, and double that figure in disabled and wounded."
To me, it just seems like the Bush team has always had an agenda since 9/11, and they won't like anything, (including reality) get in the way. But to think that you can barge into a region that's already seething with anti-Americanism because of our history and policies, (Support for Israel aggression and Arab Police States) destroy their infrastructure, uproot their society, kill 20,000 civilians, instigate an influx of crazy jihadis, and then to say the countervailing reaction (which I'm not condoning at all - I think these extremists are the craziest of the crazies) has "nothing to do" with our policies in the region is just batshit insane. It's like a fat kid who's been whacking a beehive with bat for 30 years finally sticking his head into a beehive and then acting surprised when all the bees sting the shit out of him. (yes, he this hypothetical fat kid is at least 34 years old.)
Then Rumsfeld attempts to further his "we have nothing to do with why people attack us" illogic by saying something like "there was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when terrorists attacked the Beirut barracks in 1983". True, but the U.S. WAS shelling Shiite and Druse positions in Beirut and its environs, killing hundreds of civilians, as well as finacially aiding an Israeli Army/Maronite Government that was committing unspeakable atrocities.
If this conflict with Islamic Extremism is ever going to be resolved, our elected officials have to start being more honest with the American people about its actual causes and stop propounding this disingenuous notion of perpetual American exculpability.

Harry Potter and Class

2005-07-18T23:38:00.000-05:00

I had to weigh in on the new Harry Potter release. You can find my brief thoughts here. I'm the second letter.

Wrens concert a success

2005-07-17T15:02:00.000-05:00

Great show. The band was awesome, and my special lady and I stood right next to the stage. I did have a bit too much to drink, but that was more of a problem this morning than last night.

Anyone seen a good show or heard a good CD lately?

I recommend Sufjan Stevens's "Illinois" disc.

Non-political Truth

2005-07-15T17:27:00.000-05:00

I know we've spent a lot of time here lamenting the strategy of the Bush Administration's strategies for achieving its ends, but Krugman's column from today's Times gets to perhaps my favorite aspect of it:

"What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth."

Do you guys think this assessment is accurate? And if so, what is the answer to the concluding question, "How did our political system get to this point?" Does the answer have its roots in recent politics, the building of the conservative message machine built over the last 30 years, or elsewhere?

Per Professor Crain's request

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

I'm sure you all know this already, but the new edition of the Blue Book has been released.

SCOTUS

2005-07-01T11:58:00.000-05:00

I am REALLY not looking forward to a confirmation battle. Does the Supreme Court have too much power?

Concert news

2005-05-22T00:36:00.000-05:00

Wrens at the Triple Rock on July 16. Should be good.

New apartment

2005-05-22T00:25:00.000-05:00

My lady friend and I are getting a place together. After putting down a deposit 2 months ago, we finally signed a lease Thursday and were told we could move in right away, which is what we had asked for. While we weren't going to begin moving in until Saturday, we decide to take a look at the place once more. Turns out there was a mix up, and there are still people living in our apartment up to June 1. This is very bad, what with both of us working and me having to be out of town part of the next two weekends. In brief, after dealing with some embarassed leasing office people, they end up giving us a better apartment (extra bathroom, better view) for the same price, and most of my non-furniture possessions are already there.

If y'all come and visit, we can offer you your own bedroom and bathroom. Gernandy: I have to go to a wedding the weekend of June 25, but let me know what you're thinking.

Lion Battles Midgits

2005-05-19T19:48:00.000-05:00

Can we expect a retraction by the BBC for this ?

A Surprising Review

2005-05-16T11:06:00.000-05:00

Considering how terrible the last (first?) two Star Wars movies were I was surprised to see that A. O. Scott's review in the New York Times didn't pan the movie. Even more surprising was that he said "This is by far the best film in the more recent trilogy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed. That's right (and my inner 11-year-old shudders as I type this): it's better than "Star Wars.""

A Plea for Cross-Cultural Communication

2005-05-08T19:58:00.000-05:00

When is a door, not a door?

Go to the first footnote.

Jury duty

2005-05-06T16:01:00.000-05:00

I served on a jury in a Murder I trial this week. The principals were all Vietnamese and most of the testimony was translated into English. We found the defendant not guilty.

Eyewitnesses saw the defendant stab or stab at the victim on the front porch of an apartment building. One saw him chase the victim through an alleyway and into a nearby backyard and saw them wrestling in the back. The most reliable witness, the victim’s teenage daughter, saw a cohort of the defendant run away from the backyard as her dad fell. The victim had some superficial cuts as well as two deep, complex punctures in the chest, which killed him. These undoubtedly took place in the backyard. The defense story was that both men were asleep the whole time.

Police were on the scene quickly and upon arriving in the defendant’s home, found him and the cohort. No blood or anything found on them or discovered in the home. The murder weapon, a knife, was found in the backyard. No testimony or evidence about fingerprints was admitted.

In the end, I thought the guy definitely stabbed the victim, but couldn’t ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant and not the cohort delivered the punctures that killed him. The only options we had were Murder I or Murder II. There were no other charges, such as attempted murder or assault w/ deadly weapon, etc. I was working under the assumption that the cohort was being prosecuted separately. He was not a witness in this case.

I felt decent about our verdict. Frustrated that this bad guy is being found not guilty, but unable to do anything about it.

As we were leaving, the judge came back and told us that the defendant and cohort are serious gangsters and had been suspects in another crime with striking similarities: knife stabbing to the chest. They had not been found guilty for that crime either. The judge said that one of the witnesses who testified against the defendant would likely be the next victim. The defendant in this case was willing to plead guilty for 15 years, the prosecution wouldn’t go below 30. The judge said he understood why we found him not guilty, that the evidence was not overwhelming, but he was clearly disappointed. He said there would soon be an article in the paper that would likely describe the defendant as an assassin. The judge also said that the cohort had been a party to this lawsuit and charged w/ brandishing a deadly weapon, but was dismissed; the circuit attorney’s plan was to prosecute the cohort for murder if the defendant was convicted in this case. I don’t know what the plan is now.

Needless to say, I felt awful after hearing this. I don’t think that we were wrong, but I do think we could have legitimately found the guy guilty and so I just feel sick. The take away message for criminals: kill in pairs.

I’m mad at the police. 15 officers were at the scene, not including the CSI types, and yet no bloody clothes were collected. This was a bloody killing and those clothes didn’t disappear within the 6-8 minutes before the police arrived in the defendant’s home. For years Rich, the attorney I work for, played on a softball team w/ officers and he says that the quality of their work depends on the color of the victim.

I’m mad at the prosecuting attorney’s office. Their witnesses were in no way prepared to testify and contradicted themselves during the state’s own questioning, before the defense attorney even got up. The judge said that all of these people speak English just fine. I can understand the defense wanting their witnesses to feign a language barrier, but why wouldn’t the state have its witnesses testify in English if they’re able?

I’m mad at the system. I guess there’s not a better alternative than the presumption of innocence and the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard. Nonetheless, justice was not done and I feel awful for the victim’s family.

This sucks.

Just Because It's There

2005-05-02T21:20:00.000-05:00

Some one's got to post something of substance

2005-04-28T18:20:00.000-05:00

So you all may have heard of the coordinated strike that went on here at Columbia and at Yale last week. I've tended not to side with the graduate students forming a union on 2 major grounds. First of all, I think that graduate students are students and not workers. Second, I felt that the quality of academic work overall might suffer from collective bargaining agreements (I'm pretty sure it would make it more expensive for the University to fund us, thereby decreasing the number of graduate students as well as Columbia's ability to compete with other top research universities) and that we could wrangle concessions from the University (dental insurance, child care . . . ) through striking without being affiliated with the UAW.

A number of students I know who are ambivalent about the union went on strike out of solidarity. I was still sustpect since it lent support ot a cause I'm not sure I or they agreed with.

However, a lot of us were recently galvanized when someone in the administration leaked this memo regarding punitive action that could be taken against graduate students.

I'm not sure how I can let this letter piss me off without being a hippocrite, but I'm open to ideas.

That all being said, I still think coal miners, steel workers, auto workers, administrators, custodians, etc . . . have a right to unionize.

I also still think that teachers' unions are extremely harmful and that teacher's rights should be protected through legislation rather than by interest groups that have an interest in maximizing pay and minimizing effort.

Now for something really important

2005-04-28T14:00:00.000-05:00

Waukon High School prom queen.

Tye

2005-04-28T10:29:00.000-05:00

Well, looks like in June I'm going to go visit the Mario Kart champion of Fall '98. Should be fun. It was too bad the guy left after only a semester--although I guess it's clear that he made the right decision, what with their getting married and all.

I've seen Gabe in Chicago a couple of times since graduation. He's out in LA now, trying to break into filmmaking.

I expect that when I go back to school, it will be closer to most of you guys (alas, Chuck) and there will be visiting.

I punched Saddam in the mouth

2005-04-14T13:52:00.000-05:00

There is a large article this week in Riverfront Times (riverfronttimes.com) that tells the story of a Iraqi guy living in St. Louis who served in Iraq as an interpreter attached to the unit that found Saddam. He was a civilian contractor and was the guy who actually pulled Saddam out of the bunker (after punching him in the mouth). He is telling his story in response to the article that came out recently calling into question the Pentagon line, which we earlier discussed. He's got photographs that were taken shortly after he and some of the soldiers beat Saddam. Anyway, it's a pretty interesting story I thought might be of interest.

Joke from a law professor

2005-04-13T08:32:00.000-05:00

Q: How many University of Chicago economists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Zero. The market will take care of it.

Updating our Debate on Acadmic Diversity

2005-04-05T11:22:00.000-05:00

Krugman has an interesting twist on conservatives being so sparse on academic campuses.

In case our current career paths don't work out

2005-04-05T00:08:00.000-05:00

there are, apparently, alternatives . . .

Akira Yoshizawa, 94, Modern Origami Master, Dies

2005-04-01T08:31:00.000-06:00

A groundswell?

2005-03-31T10:34:00.000-06:00

The following article says 22 million Chinese people are trying to keep Japan from joining the UN Security Council. The level to which the Japanese have absolutely ravaged and raped China is disgusting. Nonetheless, this drive doesn't seem like an overwhelming display of mass sentiment, in that the drive has been hyped on state-run television, so it's safe to say the government is likely to be "encouraging" participation. Secondly, 22 million is a lot of people. But that comprises 1.7% of the population.

At any rate...Wiley, have you heard about this? China seems to be getting a little bit more boisterous, with this scenario and the recent shot across the bow directed towards Taiwan. How's the military spending going over there?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/international/asia/31cnd-china.html?hp&ex=1112331600&en=8b247aaa37cf1b88&ei=5094&partner=homepage

What Used to Be in the News

2005-03-23T22:31:00.000-06:00

From a reading of mine on the welfare state. More timely before the news got obsessed with one woman. If you're interested in the full chapter, I can send it on per request:

Most countries operate pensions on a pay-as-you-go basis:
current workers pay ‘contributions’ that finance the previous generation’s
retirement. Once they have been in place for a long time, pay-as-you-go systems
may face incremental cutbacks and adjustments, but they are highly
resistant to radical reform. Shifting to private, funded arrangements would
place an untenable burden on current workers, requiring them to finance
the previous generation’s retirement while simultaneously saving for their own.
Even partial privatization has generally proven possible only in the relatively
few countries lacking extensive and mature pay-as-you-go systems.

The Stressful Life of the NBA Player

2005-03-22T00:31:00.000-06:00

"I was really nervous," said Rose, who spent seven-plus seasons with the Spurs. "There were a lot of emotions going on at the beginning of the game. All day, I was sitting around and couldn't really get a good nap."

Not as good as Wallace's quote, but still.

Let's all run around and wave hand guns

2005-03-08T20:40:00.000-06:00

These people must not have jobs. Nor the opposition.

For Wiley

2005-03-01T23:35:00.000-06:00

Here.

Girls Basketball update

2005-02-25T22:53:00.000-06:00

The Waukon Indians defeated Dubuque Wahlert 46 to 34. Apparently it was an ugly game, but, as legendary coach Gene Klinge has been known to say, you only need to win by 1. They advance to the state tournament and play a week from Tuesday in Des Moines.

Late Update: Finally got my dad on the phone, and he said it was definitely a sloppy game. After being up 17-3 in the 2nd quarter they let them get within 6 in the second half. Emily had 7 points. Here's the newspaper write-up:

The coach is a 68-year-old local legend reliving his teenage years and discovering exactly who Snoop Doggy Dog is.
The star guard is a 23-point per night force [Sam Reiser] and NCAA Division I prospect.

The spunky, sure-handed point guard doesn't even reach 5-foot-6 in heels. The bench is a deep collection of seasoned, skilled role players who have been playing together since grade school.

Add it all together and it's an unbeatable, state championship combination. The Waukon girls basketball team is playing in Iowa Class 3A, but in another league than the rest of the state. The Indians are also wearing a size 24 Bulls'-Eye.

"We love the pressure," senior forward Stephanie Snitker said.

Apparently. The unbeaten Indians survived a furious coup attempt by Dubuque Wahlert and booked another trip to Des Moines with a laboring 46-34 triumph Friday over the unranked Eagles before an estimated standing room crowd of 1,300 in the Region 6 final.

. . .

The Indians' 52nd straight victory came on a night when their shot went south and the Golden Eagles lowered the volume Waukon's high-voltage 70-point-per-night offense by 24 points in a dazzling defensive performance.

Read the rest here (you have to register but it's free). 1300 isn't bad for a high school girls game where both teams are playing away from home. Waukon has a population of about 4000.

Blowing Up Old People

2005-02-20T20:19:00.000-06:00

Now, I'm not surprised that the conservative lobby is taking the fight for Social Security privatization to the lowest possible denominator but I am surprised about the crassness with which they speak about it. Here's a nifty little quote from the president of the lobbying agency fight the AARP. Incidentally, it's the same group that consulted the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth from what I gathered.

"They [the AARP] are the boulder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts," said Charlie Jarvis, the group's president and former deputy secretary for the interior in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "We will be the dynamite that removes them."

This Reminded Me Of Freeloader Luke

2005-02-18T13:09:00.000-06:00

I work for an organization that places volunteers around the United States in nonprofits that help alleviate poverty. This organization provides us volunteers with a biweekly subsistence allowance at the poverty level of the communities we serve and encourages us to apply for food stamps. I am a college graduate who could earn a decent living, but I choose to do this work. I could perhaps live on my allowance with strict budgeting. Is it ethical to apply for food stamps? S.B., Chicago

It is indeed ethical to apply for food stamps. And when you do, fill out those forms honestly and comply with all eligibility requirements, which refer not to some hypothetical earning power but to your actual income. Those who designed the program could have required you to seek more profitable employment (recipients of unemployment benefits must demonstrate that they are able and available to work, for example), but they chose not to. No nurse's aide or poet (or poetical nurse's aide) is compelled to return to school for an M.B.A. And you have no obligation to set more rigorous food-stamp eligibility standards for yourself than your state has.

And beyond legalisms, there's no ethical reason that your efforts to do a bit of good for others should require you to shun a federal program to which you are entitled. Ideally, of course, those who work so altruistically would make a decent living -- or at least a living -- and not have to struggle at the subsistence level. It is sad when soldiers or anti-poverty workers are so poorly paid that they need food stamps to feed their families.

As far as I know, not a single wealthy person declined his tax cut and sent the I.R.S. extra money; similarly, you need feel no reluctance to participate lawfully in a government program meant to benefit those without wealth.

Baseball season

2005-02-18T09:16:00.000-06:00

Gentlemen: It is upon us. Let's get a fantasy league going. Luke, I presume you have one ongoing w/ some of your high school friends. You need another.

Solomon Amendment

2005-02-16T14:14:00.000-06:00

Had a meeting over lunch regarding educating the student body about the Solomon Amendment, which is the law/reg requiring universities to permit military recruiters on campus and backed by the threat of loss of all federal funding for the whole University (across departments). To be accredited by the ABA, law schools must have an anti-discrimination policy. They are forced to violate parts of this policy when they are forced to allow military recruiters on campus, as the military discriminates against homosexuals.

This brings up two issues as I understand it. First, there is a potential problem when Congress uses it's tax and spend power to achieve an end which is arguably forbidden by the First Amendment (infringing school and student speech association rights). Second, it invites debate on the underlying policy, here whether gays should be excluded from the military.

Any thoughts?

We show up in google

2005-02-14T23:49:00.000-06:00

Just search for "spring break 99 blogspot"

Vergasy posting for Wiley

2005-02-14T07:20:00.000-06:00

Just found out that a colorful character from our years in college, the "reverend" stephen white, or "brother stephen" as he affectionately encouraged others to call him, was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to three years in prison for attempting to pay a 14 year old boy $20 to be allowed to perform oral sex on the boy. You might remember stephen standing between beinecke and cross campus denouncing gays, pedophiles, liberals, and other evildoers with a megaphone and generally making an ass out of himself.

You can find out all the sordid details you want to by typing the words "reverend stephen white sex" into google.

Tort reform

2005-02-11T12:44:00.000-06:00

So, what's the consensus here, boys?

There's no denying that trial lawyers manipulate the system and the rules to maximize their takehome pay. There's also no denying that corporate pushers of the effort to limit class action suits (and reform broadly) are exclusively concerned w/ their takehome pay. My sense of the issue is that there are two distinct debates that are being effectively merged into one. There should be a discussion about current medical malpractice litigation and a separate discussion about defective products/class action litigation. The proponents of efforts to limit the second have piggy-backed on the arguments to limit the first. They have effectively made the public debate about about med mal lawsuits, but want the alterations proposed to remedy the problems to affect class actions. I think this is bad.

There is a fundamental difference b/t the way litigation affects corporate and individual defendants. Yes, insurance companies defend doctors, but doctors as individuals must take a lot of time and effort, and have their reputations tarnished when they are named. Corporations have to respond similarly, but the effects are spread over dozens or hundreds of people. Responding to a lawsuit is a qualitatively different burden for an individual and affects the way they can provide their service.

Now, recognizing this, I think that doctors who are named AND THEN ARE EITHER DISMISSED AS DEFENDANTS OR WIN A JURY VERDICT, may very well be in need of some additional protections. How can such doctors be protected while still holding to account those who do in fact deviate from the standard of care to cause injury?

Creating a cap on damages may reduce the number of these "frivolous" lawsuits by lowering the incentive for attorneys to file such cases. I doubt it, though, b/c the "frivolous" cases should never win a large award from a jury anyway. It's common sense: the stronger cases get larger awards.

Restricting venue options could be more effective and I'd argue would be more just.

At any rate, what I'm getting at is that while I do think that medical malpractice litigation may need some new law, I don't think that corporate defendants are in need of similar protections. And I think they know they can't win a public debate on the matter, so they are hitching their wagons to the medical malpractice reform, broading the argument to "tort reform." And their efforts appear to have been successful. Boo.

Effects of the Iraqi Election

2005-02-06T15:28:00.000-06:00

I figure there are two fronts where the implications are important. First, and overarching, should be the effects on long terms stability and freedom in Iraq and the region in general. Does the, relatively, peaceful voting and large turnout signify hope and how "freedom is on the march?" Or is it just the first step of an enthusiastic populace's attempt to install an Iran-style theocracy.
Second, what does it mean for the Hawk agenda and, perhaps more importantly, the Bush agenda.

Unfortunately, I think that it's very likely that Iraq will evolve quite quickly into an Iran style theocracy. The elites that the US wants to rule will be forced to leave and many of their assetts along with the assetts of foreign investors wil be nationalized. Regarding the homefront, I think that if there's one adminstration that's going to be able to usethe "success" of the election to further it's domestic agenda, it's this one. It was nice to see everyone vote and all and it will provide Bush and his folks with lots of great rhetoric for the time being, but I'm still worried about Iraq and that this veneer of success will lead to further policy blunders. But these are just first thoughts.

Leninist party politics alive and well in Republican Party

2005-02-02T11:24:00.000-06:00

Dan Froomkin calls attention to a Newsweek story with this passage:

"Rep. Tom Tancredo was stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on his way to the Capitol one Friday morning in April 2002 when his cell phone rang. Though the caller ID read unidentified, Tancredo had no trouble recognizing the voice on the other end of the line: it was White House adviser Karl Rove, and he was seething.

"The congressman had been quoted in that morning's Washington Times attacking George W. Bush's immigration plan, which he warned could be an 'open door' for illegal immigrants and a national-security risk. As Tancredo remembers it, Rove screamed at him for more than 20 minutes, accusing him of disloyalty to his party and the president in the wake of 9/11. The conversation grew so heated that Tancredo had to pull over. As the congressman recalls, Rove ended the call with a warning that Tancredo should 'never darken the steps of the White House again.' (The White House disputes Rove's comment.)

And of course we shouldn't forget the Arlen Specter fiasco, in which his expected chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee was threatened for what he described as daring to acknowledge that 60 votes are needed to end debate in the Senate and confirm a judicial nominee.

It's Nice to Know Athletes Have Political Opinions Too

2005-01-31T21:48:00.000-06:00

"One player who wasn't as enthusiastic about the team's White House visit was Rasheed Wallace. Asked on Sunday what he would say to President Bush when they met, the Pistons forward told the Free Press: "I don't have [expletive] to say to him. I didn't vote for him. It's just something we have to do.""

From espn.com

Pushing the Agenda

2005-01-28T22:54:00.000-06:00

Paul Krugman's piece on Bush playing the race card in trying to justify the privatization of Social Security is excellent and right on for this purpose. It is also, I think, revelatory of the "by any means necessary" strategies employed by the Bush administration in pushing an unproven agenda based solely on ideology which it's not clear that Bush himself understands. What troubles me though isn't that there's one man, or rather, a small comitted circle, pushing this through faulty reasoning (the statistical lies of the Social Security argument, the falsified uranium documents from Africa, the Medicare drug benefit, the logic behind No Child Left Behind). The most troubling thing is that the massive infrastructure of people it takes to support this reasoning exists. Whether it's the academics who run a sham study or the folks working in the private sector putting piece together some of this legislation for a paycheck or even government workers, I'm apalled. They knew there was little evidence that there were WMD's. They knew that cheaper drugs from Canada were safe. They know that black males who receive social security receive as much if not more than whites.

So beyond the outrage I have a question: If they know that they have to lie or mislead to achieve the policy goals that they are committed to, what makes so many people committed so committed to the goals?

Before your respond, click on the link to the Krugman piece. It's short and well worth the read independent of position.

Exposure to Alternative Lifestyles

2005-01-27T14:54:00.000-06:00

Do you think the debate regarding federal (NEA) spending on controversial art is the same as the oen regarding federal spending on controversial public broadcasting (NPR, PBS, CSPAN, etc . . .)?

I tend to think that they differ with the money spent on the latter more justified. While I support almost complete "no strings attached" funding for the arts, I think I support controversial public broadcasting even more. While no one needs to experience Sensation
in order to be a productive member of society, we do need to learn to be respectful of other people even if we disagree with their life style.

To make it clear, I'm talking about art/programming that doesn't violate people's rights.

I've added links to the sidebar on the right

2005-01-27T08:52:00.000-06:00

any suggestions?

Gentle Breed

2005-01-26T17:32:00.000-06:00

From the Rhapsody description:

"Kenny G has single-handedly transformed jazz into a genre that actually sells records in numbers normally associated with modern pop stars (over 30 million sold so far). Unlike such Smooth Jazz pioneers as Grover Washington Jr. and David Sanborn, however, Kenny G only concentrates on what the mass public likes and doesn't branch out from what is expected of him. His melodies are of the most gentle breed, churning out endless hits and assisting in the conception of many children. A master of the ancient art of circular breathing, Kenny G also holds the record for holding a single note longer than any other musician."

I would personally like to add the fact that his duets album is called "At Last - The Duets Album" and includes a cover of I Like the Way You Move.

On the Trolly!

2005-01-26T15:00:00.000-06:00

As my test run entry, music that I'm bumping:

"Small Talk" - Sly and Family Stone
"Twightlight of the Gods" - Wagner
"Brandenburg Concertos" - Bach
"Thick as Brick" - Jethro Tull
"Cornballs and Boners" - Rob Hsu

Iraqi elections

2005-01-26T10:06:00.000-06:00

Well, what are your thoughts? I'm actually more optimistic than I was a couple of months ago. Of course there are a large number of people who consider the insurgents to be doing something good, which underlines our image problem in general moreso than our conduct in this particular war, I'd say. Although our conduct in this war has dramatically exacerbated our image problem. But the fact that the Sunnis are saying that they want to participate in the writing of the constitution (even if they have to continue to denounce the elections to save face) indicates to me that there is a groundswell of desire to see this process through. Plus, Sistani and his guys have indicated that, whatever the elections show, the Sunnis have to have some role in the drafting of the consitution. And the displeasure of the Kurds that seemed about to boil over a few months ago has abated. Clearly there will be many problems writing the constitution but everyone seems to recognize that they need to be involved in that process, and isn't that the idea?

Some tune suggestions

2005-01-25T13:39:00.000-06:00

Check out unclejemima.com. I most enjoy Dice and # One. This album and Sunny Day Real Estate - Diary have been in the car stereo most recently. Along w/ a new flamenco compilation I got the other day.