... we revel in distortions.
October 7, 2010
A federal district judge has upheld Congress's power — under the Commerce Clause — to require individuals to buy health insurance.
Here's the decision, linked from Politico. How does the judge — George Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan — deal with the key problem, that Congress is trying to regulate persons who are not engaging in any economic activity? This is the key passage:
The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market.That is, everyone is already in the market simply by virtue of having a body which might require medical care.
As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check. How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce.So, if you are planning to pay out of pocket for your own medical expenses if and when they arise, you have, through that decision, done something that affected the health care market.
Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.
The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Raich, 545 U.S. at 30 (rejecting the argument that plaintiffs’ home-grown marijuana was “entirely separated from the market”); Wickard, 317 U.S. at 127, 128 (home-grown wheat “competes with wheat in commerce” and “may forestall resort to the market”); Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate decisions not to engage in transactions with persons with whom plaintiff did not wish to deal).
Get up in your grill/grille.
I'm reading the transcript of the oral argument in Summers v. Phelps — the First Amendment case that we were talking about yesterday — substantively! — here and here. This post is about the English language. At page 40, Margie Phelps, arguing in favor of the right to express outrageous opinions in the vicinity of a funeral, is quoted as saying:
Have I resolved it yet? If not, I submit the truly humble and unexceptionable request that spelling should be consistent within the transcript (and, if it's not too much to ask, all of the work of the Supreme Court). So pick one. I say "grille." (And I love those old Corvettes!)
I think approaching an individual up close and in their grille to berate them gets you out of the zone of protection, and we would never do that.(Boldface added.) Then, at pages 47-48, she's quoted saying:
Your body of law about captive audience... where they, by the way, specifically said at footnote this isn't about content. You've got to be up -- again, I will uses [sic] the colloquial term -- up in your grill. The term I think the Court used was confrontational.And page 49:
I do think that you could have a public event where there was not an element of vulnerability in the people going in. You might even let them up in their grill.So what is it? Grill or grille?
You cook on a grill (perhaps in a “bar and grill”), but the word for a metal framework over the front of an opening is most often grille. When speaking of intensive questioning “grill” is used because the process is being compared to roasting somebody over hot coals: “whenever I came in late, my parents would grill me about where I’d been.”All right. So when you get up in somebody's grill/grille, what's the image: getting very close to the front of his car or somehow snuggling under the lid of his Weber? I Googled "what does get 'get up in his grill' mean" and – the world is so strange! — the second hit was to my blog:
k*thy said... I'd have no problem if she'd get up in his grill and then gone after his cycles with a bat.Well, I didn't write that, and I think it's "grille." We're talking about the car, aren't we? Or do you think it has to do with that hip hop-style jewelry, worn over teeth? But what is that a reference to: the car part or the cooking surface? Wikipedia spells that "grill," but Googling around, I see a lot of pictures of Corvettes with "grille teeth." I even found one that I took:
Have I resolved it yet? If not, I submit the truly humble and unexceptionable request that spelling should be consistent within the transcript (and, if it's not too much to ask, all of the work of the Supreme Court). So pick one. I say "grille." (And I love those old Corvettes!)
Glenn Greenwald thinks I "thundered."
Hmmm. Here's my post, in writing of course. No audio track from me. If Greenwald heard thunder, does that say more about me or about Greenwald? He writes:
All of this, needless to say, is being depicted from predictable corners as proof that Terrorists do not belong in real courts. National Review's Andy McCarthy complained that "civilian due-process standards are crippling the government’s case" and that "we are intentionally tying our hands behind our backs and running an unnecessarily high risk of acquittal in a case involving a war criminal." Wisconsin Law Professor Ann Althouse thundered: "I want to hear President Obama explain his decision and the judge's decision to the American people." Politico announced that Judge Kaplan's ruling "could deal a major setback to those who favor civilian criminal trials for Guantanamo Bay prisoners, including those suspected in the September 11 attacks." McCarthy lamented: "the slam dunk has become a horse race, one the government could actually lose."Greenwald must think that there isn't a satisfying explanation for the judge's decision that Obama — an experienced constitutional law teacher — could provide to Americans. Hearing "thunder" in my measured remark happened — it seems to me — because of a background belief that the law is indefensible. It's so interesting to me when someone lets that show. Fascinating!
Stay-at-Home-Dad complains about the special treatment he gets as the one dad amongst the moms at a library storytime.
And the commenters — this is in the NYT — assail him:
This is all deja vu for me. 30 years ago — 30 years! — I was married to a writer who was the stay-at-home parent, processing this kind of material in writing. It became a novel, published in1991 1988. I thought we were in the middle and toward the end of this situation as a new cultural phenomenon. 30 years ago. And now... it's still fodder for a NYT parenting column. Good lord! Will these sex roles never go away?
I was all ready to be sympathetic to the father, but by the end of this piece I was irritated. People were trying to be nice and you ended up getting special treatment. Welcome to being a man! Has this never bothered you before? Or were somehow you able to suck it up in other situations?It continues. And yet... the guy got his little essay into the NYT. But it's ironic... if his point is he wants to not to be noticed.
I'm sure that if he continues to have such a negative attitude about his role as a stay at home dad, and all the activities involved, that all the moms will be more than happy to ignore him. I know I would.
This is all deja vu for me. 30 years ago — 30 years! — I was married to a writer who was the stay-at-home parent, processing this kind of material in writing. It became a novel, published in
Mario Vargas Llosa wins the Nobel Prize in literature.
His "deeply political work vividly examines the perils of power and corruption in Latin America."
Here's a quote of his about writing:
Here's a quote of his about writing:
"The first draft is always very difficult -- a kind of fight against demoralization... I feel I'll never get over the difficulties. What I like most is rewriting. To correct, to suppress, to add, to rebuild the story -- this process is the most exciting for me."And:
"It's so rewarding to produce this artificial life, which can enrich the life of others."
"'We are going for a ‘Hicky’ Blue Collar look,' read the casting call for the ad, being aired by the National Republican Senatorial Committee."
“These characters are from West Virginia so think coal miner/trucker looks. 'Clothing Suggestions' included jeans, work boots, flannel shirt, denim shirt, 'Dickie’s type jacket with t-shirt underneath,' down-filled vest, John Deer [sic] hats (not brand new, preferably beat up),' 'trucker hats (not brand new, preferably beat up).'"
Here are those actors in action:
It's not quite Red State Update.
ADDED: Why don't we see the text of more casting calls for political ads? This can't be the most embarrassing one, can it? Was it "leaked" to hurt the GOP? [Yes: "The casting material was provided to POLITICO by Democrats.] Doesn't the leakage with the intent to hurt the GOP embody the belief that the people of West Virginia are so backward that they think commercials like this are made with real people and will be offended to find out that slick ad men concoct these things to persuade them? Think about it. What is more offensive: the GOP using an ad agency that blatantly presents "hick" stereotypes when trying to persuade West Virginians or GOP opponents who think that West Virginians are so simple and naive that they'll be wounded to learn how ads are made?
IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo said:
Here are those actors in action:
It's not quite Red State Update.
ADDED: Why don't we see the text of more casting calls for political ads? This can't be the most embarrassing one, can it? Was it "leaked" to hurt the GOP? [Yes: "The casting material was provided to POLITICO by Democrats.] Doesn't the leakage with the intent to hurt the GOP embody the belief that the people of West Virginia are so backward that they think commercials like this are made with real people and will be offended to find out that slick ad men concoct these things to persuade them? Think about it. What is more offensive: the GOP using an ad agency that blatantly presents "hick" stereotypes when trying to persuade West Virginians or GOP opponents who think that West Virginians are so simple and naive that they'll be wounded to learn how ads are made?
IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo said:
I call bullshit.Yeah, well, maybe it's fake but accurate. Ever considered that? You know how much the GOP has been wanting to appeal to these people in these small towns, people who've lost their jobs and think that somehow their communities are going to regenerate, people who've gotten bitter — it's not surprising — and cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
I don't believe it, not without a copy from the casting folks. They had a pdf of the script. Where's the pdf of the casting call?
The Senate will end up 50-50.
I predict, after clicking on the details to the 6 races counted as "Toss Ups."
October 6, 2010
"It appears that at least a few of the justices really, really, really just hate the Phelps family and its manner of protest..."
"... and they might even be willing to whip up a little new First Amendment law to prove it."
Margie J. Phelps represents Westboro Baptist Church, and yes, before you ask, she hates you, she really hates you. She most likely hates the six Catholics and three Jews up there on the bench, too. But she hides it well....I absolutely agree with Dahlia Lithwick about this.
Scalia wonders whether these signs and Web posts could be unprotected words under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment, but Phelps says this protest was never intended to provoke a fight. Channeling Stephen Colbert, she says their message is just this: "Nation. Hear this little church. If you want them to stop dying, stop sinning."...
The headline writers are going to say that the justices "struggled" with this case. That may be so, but what they struggled with has very little to do with the law, which rather clearly protects even the most offensive speech about public matters such as war and morality. They are struggling here with the facts, which they hate. Which we all hate. But looking at the parties through hate-colored glasses has never been the best way to think about the First Amendment. In fact, as I understand it, that's why we needed a First Amendment in the first place.
"I could not have imagined doing this five years ago, as a guy who just plain likes paper."
Howard Kurtz, on leaving The Washington Post to join The Daily Beast.
Reporters [have] asked me what this meant for the death of print or the decline of The Post. I pushed back, as I happen to believe that newspapers are going to be around for a long time. Let's not get carried away here.... Still, there's an awful lot of energy and excitement in the Web world.Yes, there is.
"Age of Aquarius" or "Stars and Stripes Forever"?
I can say without hesitation that if you're a marching band, the answer is "Stars and Stripes Forever." I speak from direct experience, as a homeowner who has overheard the UW Marching Band practice sessions for a quarter century.
"I tuned in to see how bad Spitzer would look, and the dude was great."
"He asked hard, pointed questions to liberals and enjoyed it. The liberal guests seemed to accept being killed by a famous bad boy Democrat that they expected to be one of their own. But Spitzer was harder on the facts than O'Reilly ever pretends to be. His side kick, Parker used a sickening southern lady act to ridicule everything that she could pretend to be shamefully GOP. But Spitzer went after the Dems talking points with direct contradictions like a good cross examiner should. If CNN leaves him on, a star has been born."
Says traditionalguy.
Let's check it out.
Says traditionalguy.
Let's check it out.
Biden: "If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them."
Interesting. I wonder if WaPo columnist Richard Cohen will struggle to repress a tear contemplating these hateful words fired like bullets.
Things are going badly for Obama's prosecutors in their first effort at trying a Guantanamo detainee in federal court.
The NYT reports:
The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, was scheduled to begin trial on Wednesday in Federal District Court on charges he conspired in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks, orchestrated by Al Qaeda, killed 224 people....
Mr. Ghailani’s lawyers say that he was tortured while in C.I.A. custody, and argued that any statements he made or evidence derived from those statements was tainted and should be inadmissible.
Prosecutors say the witness, Hussein Abebe, sold Mr. Ghailani the TNT that was used to blow up the Embassy in Dar es Salaam. They say Mr. Abebe agreed voluntarily to testify against Mr. Ghailani, and that his decision to cooperate was only remotely linked with the interrogation.
But in a three-page ruling, Judge Kaplan wrote that “the government has failed to prove that Abebe’s testimony is sufficiently attenuated from Ghailani’s coerced statements to permit its receipt in evidence.”Did the judge — Lewis A. Kaplan — have much or any choice, applying the precedents about excluding evidence? If not — and I'm thinking not — then this all had to have been anticipated when the decision was made to forgo military trials. I want to hear President Obama explain his decision and the judge's decision to the American people. He must be capable of doing that.
A question about the assumption that if more young people voted there would be more votes for Democrats.
I'm reading this in the Fiscal Times:
It's not surprising that young people who are floating along on the political periphery will say "Democrat" when asked which party they favor. What have they been paying attention to? Their teachers? Their friends? Presumably a lot of young people are for the good things the Democrats are supposed to be for. And so many nice celebrities seem to be Democrats. And there are those friends who go cold and sneer at the suggestion that anyone is an evil Republican.
When you're young, usually you want to get along. You want to be liked. But do you care about politics? Do you really know who to vote for? Apparently not, or you'd vote.
Now, if these young people got around to paying attention and studying the issues to the point where they really were interested and motivated to vote, would they still be Democrats? Would they still be young?
A CBSNews/New York Times poll conducted in mid-September found that only half the 18-29 year olds are registered to vote and just 55 percent of them say they will definitely vote in 2010. Moreover, a mere 15 percent of young people say they are paying “a lot of attention” to the election. By comparison, 84 percent of voters over 64 say they will definitely vote, and 50 percent say they are paying a lot of attention to the election.One is tempted to think that if only more young people would vote, the Democrats would have it made. But the young people who say they favor Democrats also aren't paying attention. They have to get interested before they'll be motivated to vote, and we don't know what they'd think after they paid attention.
Whereas young people favor Democrats by as much as 10 to 20 percentage points in most polls, among seniors, the most reliable of voters, Republicans hold an 11 point advantage over the Democrats.
It's not surprising that young people who are floating along on the political periphery will say "Democrat" when asked which party they favor. What have they been paying attention to? Their teachers? Their friends? Presumably a lot of young people are for the good things the Democrats are supposed to be for. And so many nice celebrities seem to be Democrats. And there are those friends who go cold and sneer at the suggestion that anyone is an evil Republican.
When you're young, usually you want to get along. You want to be liked. But do you care about politics? Do you really know who to vote for? Apparently not, or you'd vote.
Now, if these young people got around to paying attention and studying the issues to the point where they really were interested and motivated to vote, would they still be Democrats? Would they still be young?
"Keith Olbermann Interviews A 'Clown' And A 'Witch' About Christine O'Donnell."
"The clown and witch were played by comedian Angry Bob and Village Voice columnist Michael Musto, respectively."
From the other end of the political spectrum, here's Rush Limbaugh complaining about O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch" ad. He mainly objects to her letting her opponents know it bothers her and giving any more play to something so stupid. Then there's this:
And then when she got to the "I'm you" part, we'd be all Nooooo! You don't want me in the Senate. I'll screw everything up!
From the other end of the political spectrum, here's Rush Limbaugh complaining about O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch" ad. He mainly objects to her letting her opponents know it bothers her and giving any more play to something so stupid. Then there's this:
It's either navy, royal blue (very dark), or black background.... If you're gonna do a black background, it would be great to have Pelosi on a broomstick flying around or Harry Reid as one of the monkeys in the Wizard of Oz, "Oh-weee-looo'" if you're gonna do that. A dark background and say, "I'm not a witch"? Make it white. Make it a lighter, you know, a "morning in America" kind of background.A white background? I think that would come across not so much "morning in America" as... Ellen Feiss!
And then when she got to the "I'm you" part, we'd be all Nooooo! You don't want me in the Senate. I'll screw everything up!
"Get ready for an awesome adventure through a roaring sea of high tides, swirling whirlies, and gushing geysers — all at speeds that leave ordinary river rides eating this one's wake."
When you read "one's wake," you don't think of the funeral-related meaning of "wake."
Margie Phelps, a daughter of Fred Phelps, will be arguing before the Supreme Court today.
The issue is freedom of speech, and the speech in question is repulsive. (Phelps's church protests near military funerals, with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," to express the view that God is punishing the U.S. for its immorality.) The father of one soldier sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress — which is a tort — and won $5 million against the church.
Much more detail at SCOTUSblog. This is telling:
It will be interesting to see how Margie Phelps carries out her lawyerly task. Back in 2004, Michael Newdow argued his own case in the "Under God"/Pledge of Allegiance case and his nontraditional, passionate style seemed to work rather well.
Much more detail at SCOTUSblog. This is telling:
[T]his case has about it the promise of rewriting a considerable body of First Amendment law.The quality of legal advocacy... is that meant as a laugh line? How did it happen that the work of upholding First Amendment rights is in the hands of Margie Phelps? I don't know the story, but it's not that the usual free speech defenders have failed to support these profoundly unpopular and ugly speakers. There are amicus briefs from the ACLU and from law professors in support of the Phelps group.
For a Court that so recently had refused to create a new exception to the First Amendment’s protection (so as to permit the outlawing of animal cruelty videos and films), the task of crafting a “funeral rights” exception to free speech doctrine may be a forbidding one. But for a Court hearing this case in the midst of war weariness and an expanding fear of decaying morality, the prospect of drawing a First Amendment shield around the Westboro Baptists’ message may also be a daunting one.
Perhaps this is a case in which the quality of legal advocacy, during oral argument, could make a difference. If one side or the other’s lawyer were to falter, for lack of seasoning at that demanding podium, it might ease the Justices’ decisional choice — but, then again, maybe not.
It will be interesting to see how Margie Phelps carries out her lawyerly task. Back in 2004, Michael Newdow argued his own case in the "Under God"/Pledge of Allegiance case and his nontraditional, passionate style seemed to work rather well.
Dr. Newdow, a nonpracticing lawyer who makes his living as an emergency room doctor, may not win his case.... But no one who managed to get a seat in the courtroom is likely ever to forget his spell-binding performance.I doubt if there will be any clapping for Margie Phelps. Or any dinner-table-style repartee. She's coming in from the other end of the God spectrum, and we shall see how that sounds.
That includes the justices, whom Dr. Newdow engaged in repartee that, while never disrespectful, bore a closer resemblance to dinner-table one-upmanship than to formal courtroom discourse. For example, when Dr. Newdow described ''under God'' as a divisive addition to the pledge, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist asked him what the vote in Congress had been 50 years ago when the phrase was inserted.
The vote was unanimous, Dr. Newdow said.
''Well, that doesn't sound divisive,'' the chief justice observed.
Dr. Newdow shot back, ''That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office.''
The courtroom audience broke into applause, an exceedingly rare event that left the chief justice temporarily nonplussed. He appeared to collect himself for a moment, and then sternly warned the audience that the courtroom would be cleared ''if there's any more clapping.''
October 5, 2010
Lawprof crosses street.
Husband stalks with iPhone.
ADDED: Instapundit asks:
WHY DID THE LAWPROF cross the road?And, I cross the street to get to the adorable husband again here.
A 55 square foot apartment. £43,000.
"In Rome, people now live like rats."
Ah! But it's the Piazza di Sant' Ignazio. Look! You'll be such a lucky rat.
Ah! But it's the Piazza di Sant' Ignazio. Look! You'll be such a lucky rat.
"There were no chimneys up until about 14th century. What you did was you had an open fire..."
"... and all the smoke just kind of leaked out a hole in the roof. A fire in the middle of the room radiates heat much better than a fireplace does, but it also meant that there was a lot of smoke and sparks and things drifting about."
Then the chimney was invented, Bill Bryson tells us, and with all that area near the roof newly cleared of smoke, it became possible to have an upstairs:
Then the chimney was invented, Bill Bryson tells us, and with all that area near the roof newly cleared of smoke, it became possible to have an upstairs:
"From that point, they started to discover the whole concept of privacy and having space of your own," he adds.Ah! A new Bill Bryson book is out today. It's "At Home: A Short History Of Private Life." I chose the audio version, because I adore Bryson's reading voice. It's charming and humorous, but also gentle enough to listen to while falling asleep. I buy all Bryson's books in audio form, and I listen to them hundreds of times. Since I fall asleep — in my boudoir! — while listening, I never really know when I've heard everything, but it doesn't matter. I'm never done listening.
It was at this point that the different rooms we take for granted — bedroom, study, closet — began to enter the common vernacular. However, Bryson notes that many of these rooms served very different functions hundreds of years ago than they do today.
Though a boudoir is now commonly connected with a sense of sexual intrigue, Bryson says that the French word actually translates into "a place to sulk."...
"Right from the very beginning," Bryson says, "[the boudoir] was a place for the mistress of the house to retreat to, and those private rooms upstairs were also where people now began to invite guests. So while we now think of a bedroom as a place that's dedicated to sleeping ... [in the Middle Ages, a boudoir] might be where you'd have a little dinner party."
"The freedom of expression of at least 1.5 million people is standing trial together with me."
Says Geert Wilders, on trial in the Netherlands for writing, among other things: "I've had enough of the Quran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."
Paradoxically, the right to free speech must protect the right to say anti-free-speech things.
Paradoxically, the right to free speech must protect the right to say anti-free-speech things.
A meditation on causality.
"It wasn't the anal sex that caused the orgasms. It was the orgasms that caused the anal sex."
I think that's the last line of "King Kong." Yeah. Here:
I think that's the last line of "King Kong." Yeah. Here:
"On the right, hateful words are fired like bullets. I still ride a bike."
Richard Cohen* still rides a bike, but his mind is going. I mean, he's riding his bike, listening to a folk rock channel he created on Pandora on his iPhone, and for some reason, instead of throwing new stuff at him, which I think is the point of Pandora, it keeps playing the old Neil Young song "Ohio."
Cohen plunges into his 40-year-old memories about how awful it was when the National Guard shot and killed 4 college students who were protesting the Vietnam War. And naturally, in Cohen's bike-drained, folk-music befuddled brain, that leads to what's wrong with... Glenn Beck!
Why don't you see? Back in 1970, the Governor of Ohio said the protesters were "worse than the Brownshirts and the communist element. . . . We will use whatever force necessary to drive them out of Kent." Cohen weaves his literary magic for us dogged old WaPo readers:
Cohen rants some more about how awful everything on the right sounds to his folk-music plugged old ears. He concludes:
_____________
*That's WaPo columnist Richard Cohen, or as we call him around here: the never-slept-with-Althouse Richard Cohen.
ADDED: Michael C. Moynihan:
Cohen plunges into his 40-year-old memories about how awful it was when the National Guard shot and killed 4 college students who were protesting the Vietnam War. And naturally, in Cohen's bike-drained, folk-music befuddled brain, that leads to what's wrong with... Glenn Beck!
Why don't you see? Back in 1970, the Governor of Ohio said the protesters were "worse than the Brownshirts and the communist element. . . . We will use whatever force necessary to drive them out of Kent." Cohen weaves his literary magic for us dogged old WaPo readers:
That was the language of that time. And now it is the language of our time. It is the language of Glenn Beck, who fetishizes about liberals...... fetishizes about liberals... To "fetishize" is to make a fetish of. How do you make a fetish of about something? Cohen's rugged bike path is studded with incomprehensible prepositions.
... and calls Barack Obama a racist. It is the language of rage...What language? You didn't even quote anything from Beck. Maybe you created a Pandora channel for Beck and you listen and ideate furiously while cycling, but I don't know what you're talking about. I don't pay much attention to the pudgy chattering TV pundit, but he doesn't seem to be raging. I have seen him crying. And oddly, in Cohen's first paragraph, he portrays himself struggling (while biking) to "repress a tear" when Neil sings "Ohio." Oh, compassion! It either builds credibility or it doesn't. (Depending on whether you're liberal or conservative.)
... that fuels too much of the Tea Party...I'm supposed to have the right image of the Tea Party so I can just swallow that assertion whole. But I've been to Tea Party rallies — and heard about them from my husband — and the people seemed pretty nice and normal. To me, Cohen's attempt to smear ordinary people is what's ugly.
Cohen rants some more about how awful everything on the right sounds to his folk-music plugged old ears. He concludes:
I hear the song more clearly now than I ever did. It is a distant sound from our not-so-distant past, but a clear warning about our future. Four dead in Ohio. Not just a song. A lesson.Pedal on, aging columnist. Let the stream of consciousness wash down. Flow river flow. Wherever that river goes, that's where Richard Cohen wants to be.
_____________
*That's WaPo columnist Richard Cohen, or as we call him around here: the never-slept-with-Althouse Richard Cohen.
ADDED: Michael C. Moynihan:
And no, Richard Cohen doesn’t catch the irony: The dissent of Kent State protesters, he thinks, was met with deadly force because of rhetoric that “otherized them,” that turned them into a domestic enemy. Pretty much exactly what Richard Cohen is doing to the dissidents of the Tea Party movement.
I cover the clown news.
3 items today:
1. Tiririca — "Grumpy" — the Brazilian clown just got elected federal deputy for Sao Paulo. Ad copy: "What does a federal deputy do? Truly, I don't know. But vote for me and I will find out for you."
2. And speaking of "you," the Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell, known for her spooky assertion "I am you," is in trouble for claiming that her father was Bozo. TPM has untangled the web of possible lies. Why would you claim to be the offspring of Bozo if you weren't?
3. Clowns stage a protest against the anti-clown bigotry. "It's very unfair to portray us as evil. I have always been a clown, I have grown up around clowns, my father and my grandfather were clowns and we are not evil."
1. Tiririca — "Grumpy" — the Brazilian clown just got elected federal deputy for Sao Paulo. Ad copy: "What does a federal deputy do? Truly, I don't know. But vote for me and I will find out for you."
2. And speaking of "you," the Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell, known for her spooky assertion "I am you," is in trouble for claiming that her father was Bozo. TPM has untangled the web of possible lies. Why would you claim to be the offspring of Bozo if you weren't?
3. Clowns stage a protest against the anti-clown bigotry. "It's very unfair to portray us as evil. I have always been a clown, I have grown up around clowns, my father and my grandfather were clowns and we are not evil."
"A man was arrested after stealing author Jonathan Franzen's glasses from the writer and demanding a ransom of £100,000 ($158,808) at a book launch."
"Police said a helicopter was called to chase the culprit, who jumped into the Serpentine lake in London. The 27-year-old has since been released with no further action being taken and the glasses have been recovered."
A helicopter? I mean, I know Franzen's book — "Freedom" — is considered tremendously important, but... it was a pair of glasses. Why chase the guy with a helicopter?
Is it because those glasses are part of his signature look? Quick! Which one is Franzen?
Without the glasses... he could be... just anybody.
Some book journal editor who was at the scene of the crime, said: "It was frankly quite bizarre. Considering the seriousness of Franzen's work, this is the last thing anyone expected at his book launch."
Considering the seriousness of Franzen's work! I don't understand literary-journalist logic. It's exactly seriousness that inspires absurd prankish tweaking. (If you don't understand my logic, you need to watch a few Marx Brothers movies.)
A helicopter? I mean, I know Franzen's book — "Freedom" — is considered tremendously important, but... it was a pair of glasses. Why chase the guy with a helicopter?
Is it because those glasses are part of his signature look? Quick! Which one is Franzen?
Without the glasses... he could be... just anybody.
Some book journal editor who was at the scene of the crime, said: "It was frankly quite bizarre. Considering the seriousness of Franzen's work, this is the last thing anyone expected at his book launch."
Considering the seriousness of Franzen's work! I don't understand literary-journalist logic. It's exactly seriousness that inspires absurd prankish tweaking. (If you don't understand my logic, you need to watch a few Marx Brothers movies.)
October 4, 2010
"I'm not a witch... I'm you."
Okay. I agree. You're not a witch. But can you spare me the I am you as you are me and we are all together and that tinkling piano? It's scaring me.
"The Ground Zero Mosque will be so hip, everyone will stop fighting."
Could wacky, chaotic architecture make everyone happy... or at least flummox us long enough for the whole controversy to dissipate?
"The Roberts court has championed corporations. The cases it has chosen for review this term suggest it will continue that trend."
Says the NYT.
Of the 51 it has so far decided to hear, over 40 percent have a corporation on one side. The most far-reaching example of the Roberts court’s pro-business bias was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, the conservative justices overturned a century of precedent to give corporations, along with labor unions, an unlimited right to spend money in politics....
The cases scheduled for argument in the next few months may appear modest. But if there is one lesson from the Citizens United ruling, it is that nothing — for this court — is inevitably modest.By contrast, here's The Conglomerate, a stable, sober lawprof blog:
Looking ahead to the upcoming Supreme Court term, the pickings of corporate, securities, and financial regulation cases at first blush seem slim. We were spoiled last term by an amazingly rich set of cases in these fields, with Citizens United headlining....You decide if you want to read mainstream journalism or one of those crazy blogs.
The corporate/securities/financial cases generally look to be fairly specific to the industries involved. But, when you are dealing with the Supremes, you can never tell; the Court can unexpectedly uncork a broad, sweeping ruling. Moreover, thanks to the unceasing creativity of lawyers, even stray language in an opinion can have unintended ripple effects.
"Before we set up a watch in my village of Little Melton, about 90 per cent of toads were being squashed to death at our crossings."
"Now it's down to about 10 per cent.... On a warm, wet night they can all come out at once... I was the only person scheduled to patrol that night, and there I was frantically trying to place as many as possible in the bucket to take to the pond, while phoning for patrol reinforcements and trying not to tread on any toads myself."
Toad patrol, in England, home of Toad of Toad Hall.
ADDED: From pre-Althouse+Meade days:
Toad patrol, in England, home of Toad of Toad Hall.
ADDED: From pre-Althouse+Meade days:
Meade said...
Great buzz!
Maguro said...
Ugh...hate those $#%^*! Japanese Beetles!
Meade said...
Here, Maguro, I feed them to a toad.
Ann Althouse said...AND: Later, Althouse and Meade, having found each other, go searching for something — it was morels — and find a toad.
That toad video is fascinating. I watched it 3 times. The speed is amusing, as is the subtly satisfied look on the toad's face. He's not that pleased. But he's pleased. You can tell.
Meade said...
Yes, Japanese Beetles are $#%^ers. They devour roses. No roses, no hortporn. No hortporn, and all I'm left with is my monochromatic imagination. That toad has become so addicted to Japanese Beetles, he waits at the greenhouse door every morning for me to bring him his fix. Every day he leaves a toad turd the size of your pinky finger with recognizable Japanese Beetle exoskeletons in them. I feed the turds to the roses and the cycle is oh so satisfyingly complete....
"We have our PhD's in Runwayology as well as our Master's in General Reality Television Studies and..."
"... reading between the lines and between the edits, we detect zero manipulation."
Did you think it was possible — 16 years after Pedro Zamora on "The Real World" — to wring intense pathos out of a reality show character's HIV-positive status? But that's what happened on "Project Runway," where perhaps there have already been HIV-positive contestants and the fact that a male contestant is gay is no revelation at all.
Anyway, I've loved Mondo Guerra all along, and Episode 10 made me cry. You can watch the whole thing here.
Did you think it was possible — 16 years after Pedro Zamora on "The Real World" — to wring intense pathos out of a reality show character's HIV-positive status? But that's what happened on "Project Runway," where perhaps there have already been HIV-positive contestants and the fact that a male contestant is gay is no revelation at all.
Anyway, I've loved Mondo Guerra all along, and Episode 10 made me cry. You can watch the whole thing here.
It's the first Monday in October, time for people like Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick to tell us "the court has taken the law for a sharp turn to the ideological right..."
"... while at the same time masterfully concealing it." And, annoyingly enough — to them, anyway — ordinary Americans still think the Supreme Court is too liberal.
Like TV's "Masked Magician," Friedman and Lithwick want to reveal the secrets behind what they'd like you to think are magic tricks the Court uses to conceal its terrible right-wingitude.
First, they say, there's "stacking the deck": "picking cases with facts so extreme that only one outcome seems possible." One of only 2 examples they give is Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the Supreme Court, in 2005, upheld the federal law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Friedman and Litwick say:
That it came to the Supreme Court in 2005 has nothing to do with the Court "stacking the deck"! Friedman and Lithwick just don't like what the case said about abortion rights, but the truth is that Gonzales v. Carhart was a moderate decision that avoided both extremes and, because of that, produced a separate opinion by Justices Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia (rejecting abortion rights altogether and questioning Congress's use of the Commerce Clause to regulate abortion), as well as a dissenting opinion consisting of the 4 Justices who, with the now-retired Justice O'Connor, had formed the majority in Stenberg.
The second "trick" Friedman and Lithwick identify is "misdirection":
Friedman and Lithwick have 3 more tricks to reveal/do, so if you're up for their whole show, click through and read.
How to explain the justices shoving the law rightward, while everyone thinks it is dead center or too far left?Their metaphor is magic — the article is accompanied by a photoshop of the Chief Justice in magician garb about to pull something out of a hat — and that question fails to acknowledge the difference between absolute and relative position. Obviously you can push — or shove as the exaggerated language of anguished liberals will have it — something to the right and have it still be on the left if the thing started out way the hell to the left. And obviously liberals know this: Tell Friedman/Lithwick that Anthony Kennedy is in the legal/political center because he's at the center of the current array of Supreme Court Justices. It will take them much less than a second to decide to inform you of the distinction between absolute and relative position.
Like TV's "Masked Magician," Friedman and Lithwick want to reveal the secrets behind what they'd like you to think are magic tricks the Court uses to conceal its terrible right-wingitude.
First, they say, there's "stacking the deck": "picking cases with facts so extreme that only one outcome seems possible." One of only 2 examples they give is Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the Supreme Court, in 2005, upheld the federal law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Friedman and Litwick say:
The law bans late-term abortions in which the fetus is partially delivered before its brains are sucked out and skull collapsed. If you find it hard even to read that, you've caught the point: That's deck-stacking.But the Court didn't choose that case out of a big pool of abortion cases in order to get something with "gruesome facts" that would keep us from "notic[ing] the major inroads the case makes on women's rights more generally." Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, right after the Supreme Court had stricken down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law in 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart. The Court in Stenberg showed legislatures what would be needed to pass a law against these abortions that would avoid the same constitutional flaw and Congress responded with a statute that we knew would have to go through judicial scrutiny and end up in the Supreme Court.
That it came to the Supreme Court in 2005 has nothing to do with the Court "stacking the deck"! Friedman and Lithwick just don't like what the case said about abortion rights, but the truth is that Gonzales v. Carhart was a moderate decision that avoided both extremes and, because of that, produced a separate opinion by Justices Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia (rejecting abortion rights altogether and questioning Congress's use of the Commerce Clause to regulate abortion), as well as a dissenting opinion consisting of the 4 Justices who, with the now-retired Justice O'Connor, had formed the majority in Stenberg.
The second "trick" Friedman and Lithwick identify is "misdirection":
While we are watching the term's "big" cases, it works its magic on the ones we aren't paying attention to, which often matter more. In this enterprise, the court is aided and abetted by the media.Speaking of tricks, calling this a trick is itself a trick! It lets Friedman and Lithwick discount all the big cases that came out liberal and cherry pick any and every case that came out conservative. Hey! Look what the Court did in here! They proceed to tell you about their least-favorite recent cases.
Iqbal, Twombley, Garrett, Gross, Rapanos, Rent-a-Center. Maybe you haven't heard of most of those. But these are the cases that, read together, are making it harder and harder for everyday litigants to walk into a courthouse and hold unscrupulous employers, manufacturers of defective products, or polluters to account.And you could pull out an equivalent list of little cases that make it easier. So what?
Friedman and Lithwick have 3 more tricks to reveal/do, so if you're up for their whole show, click through and read.
October 3, 2010
At the Meadhouse Campsite... in Blue Mounds.
The accommodations... at dawn.
From the inside:
The ring of fire... at breakfast:
A morning tablescape:
A vintage label:
Was your sleeping bag manufactured in Berkeley?
ADDED: I laughed a lot when I took that picture of the Snow Lion label. My camera has face recognition and it identified the picture of the lion on the left as a face.
From the inside:
The ring of fire... at breakfast:
A morning tablescape:
A vintage label:
Was your sleeping bag manufactured in Berkeley?
ADDED: I laughed a lot when I took that picture of the Snow Lion label. My camera has face recognition and it identified the picture of the lion on the left as a face.
"Ten things I've never done... I've never: 1. Gone camping..."
A blog post from May 2005.
And I'm here to say that Meade got me to go camping! One night only, but I was able to do it. Sleep in a tent. And the temperature went down to 35°.
Photographs soon, not that they are earthshaking, but it was a big deal for me.
And I'm here to say that Meade got me to go camping! One night only, but I was able to do it. Sleep in a tent. And the temperature went down to 35°.
Photographs soon, not that they are earthshaking, but it was a big deal for me.
October 2, 2010
"Man Walking Down the Side of a Building."
Where's the line between art/dance and stuntwork? Don't let the fact that the building is an art museum muddle your thinking.
(Video.)
(Video.)
The reason to read fiction: to engage with the mind of someone who isn't trying to sell you anything.
Argues Lorrie Moore (who's not saluting but having trouble keeping the light out of her eyes):
I love the idea that what we want from reading is to intertwine our minds with the mind of another human being and I understand why Moore connects that to freedom from commerce and why she find that purity in fiction. The funny thing is to want to write when you don't want to sell anything — even any ideas. It's not always true of fiction and not only true of fiction, but it is what we really want to read, isn't it?
I love the idea that what we want from reading is to intertwine our minds with the mind of another human being and I understand why Moore connects that to freedom from commerce and why she find that purity in fiction. The funny thing is to want to write when you don't want to sell anything — even any ideas. It's not always true of fiction and not only true of fiction, but it is what we really want to read, isn't it?
A dedicated teacher gets a "less effective" rating... and kills himself.
The LA Times reports:
ADDED: Of course, if everyone's pretty bad, you can get a false idea of how good you are when there is grading on a curve. I've been grading law school exams on a curve — it's required — for a quarter century, and I know it is much easier to make relative judgments.
[Rigoberto Ruelas] tutored his students after class, visited their homes and met their families, steered them away from gangs and toward college. He arrived early for work every morning at Miramonte Elementary, and had near perfect attendance for 14 years, right up until last week, when he disappeared.If most teachers are excellent, it's not bad to be below average, but it will feel terrible nonetheless. That's the trouble with grading on a curve. Your performance is judged relative to others.
Ruelas' body was discovered on Sunday in a ravine beneath a Big Tujunga Canyon bridge. He left no note, but the Los Angeles County coroner has ruled his death a suicide. Family members have said he had been upset over his score in a teacher-rating database our newspaper created and posted online, which ranked him slightly below average.
ADDED: Of course, if everyone's pretty bad, you can get a false idea of how good you are when there is grading on a curve. I've been grading law school exams on a curve — it's required — for a quarter century, and I know it is much easier to make relative judgments.
Is it unfair for tennis players to grunt?
Supposedly, this scientific study lends support to those who say it is:
Why is being noisy and annoying okay in some sports but not others? (I'm thinking of golf.)
Hundreds of video clips were shown of a player hitting a ball to either the left or right. The students had to determine the direction quickly, but on some shots were subjected to noises simulating grunting.Is distracting a video-watcher similar enough to annoying someone who's actively playing the game under pressure? It's different... but which way is it different? Is the real-life player less or more affected by the noise?
..."The findings were unequivocal. Basically, when the video clips did have a grunt, the participants were not only slower to react but they had lower accuracy levels. So they were basically slower and could actually be wrong-footed, if you could extend that to a real-world tennis court."
Why is being noisy and annoying okay in some sports but not others? (I'm thinking of golf.)
"To want to own a restaurant can be a strange and terrible affliction."
"What causes such a destructive urge in so many otherwise sensible people? Why would anyone who has worked hard, saved money and often been successful in other fields want to pump his hard-earned cash down a hole that statistically, at least, will almost purely prove dry? Why venture into an industry with enormous fixed expenses (rent, electricity, gas, water, linen, maintenance, insurance, license fees, trash removal, etc.), with a notoriously transient and unstable workforce and highly perishable inventory of assets? The chances of ever seeing a return on your investment are about one in five. What insidious spongiform bacterium so riddles the brains of men and women that they stand there on the tracks, watching the lights of the oncoming locomotive, knowing full well it will eventually run them over? After all these years in the business, I still don't know."
Wrote Anthony Bourdain years ago, offered up now for insight into the 2 suicides by a chefs who appeared on the TV show "Hell's Kitchen." Bourdain wasn't writing about chefs who try to make it via TV show, and back when he wrote that, Bourdain himself hadn't leveraged his cooking into TV celebrity. So what is it — cooking or reality TV — that's more dangerous to the will to live? I'd guess reality TV. I think there is more delusion there and less likelihood of getting what you want.
Wrote Anthony Bourdain years ago, offered up now for insight into the 2 suicides by a chefs who appeared on the TV show "Hell's Kitchen." Bourdain wasn't writing about chefs who try to make it via TV show, and back when he wrote that, Bourdain himself hadn't leveraged his cooking into TV celebrity. So what is it — cooking or reality TV — that's more dangerous to the will to live? I'd guess reality TV. I think there is more delusion there and less likelihood of getting what you want.
"According to Bob Woodward, National Security Adviser Jim Jones called Emanuel and his fellow political aides 'the water bugs.'"
Writes William Kristol:
“They flit around,” Jones said. “Rahm gets an idea at 10 a.m. and wants a briefing by 4 p.m., and I will say no,” because the work can’t be done that quickly. According to Woodward, Jones believed “the water bugs did not understand war or foreign relations . . . and were too interested in measuring the short-term political impact of the president’s decisions in these areas.”UPDATE: Jones goes.
But Emanuel turned out not to be particularly good at measuring the political impact of the president’s decisions. Or was his sage political counsel too often rejected by the president—as he has suggested on not-so-deep background to friendly journalists?
October 1, 2010
"Pennsylvania judge arrested for handing out acorns filled with condoms."
A judge did this? Well, I'm sure he can explain it.
"Reasonable gun control is one thing, this another. Chicago requires 1 hour on range for handgun permit but bars ranges."
A tweet, cited in a legal brief.
And all the nerds ask, what citation form was used? Answer: www.twitter.com/ adamwinkler, Aug. 16, 2010, 3:18 p.m. (citation omitted) (last visited Sept. 26, 2010). Is that properly Bluebooked?
And all the nerds ask, what citation form was used? Answer: www.twitter.com/ adamwinkler, Aug. 16, 2010, 3:18 p.m. (citation omitted) (last visited Sept. 26, 2010). Is that properly Bluebooked?
"Obama's speech to Gen44 tonight knocked my socks off.... If you've forgotten why many of you worked your ass off for this guy..."
Socks off... ass off...
You can discuss the substance of Andrew Sullivan's new celebration of the amazing oratory of Barack Obama, but I see this as an occasion to reprint what I consider to be the single most useful item of advice in George Orwell's essential essay "Politics and the English Language": "Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print." Background:
You can discuss the substance of Andrew Sullivan's new celebration of the amazing oratory of Barack Obama, but I see this as an occasion to reprint what I consider to be the single most useful item of advice in George Orwell's essential essay "Politics and the English Language": "Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print." Background:
Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying.I, the reader, am interested... and totally distracted by an assless man running around barefoot.
Lawrence Lessig on that Facebook movie that we all have to see.
It's been a long time since we've had a movie in that category, don't you think? (Remember when Pauline Kael single-handedly forced everyone to sit through "Last Tango in Paris" and believe this was the movie we'd talk about for as long as human civilization endured?)
Lessig says:
ADDED: Here's the famous Pauline Kael review — the most famous movie review of all time that we will think about for as long as there are movie reviews:
Lessig says:
[Aaron] Sorkin crafted dialogue for an as-yet-not-evolved species of humans—ordinary people, here students, who talk perpetually with the wit and brilliance of George Bernard Shaw or Bertrand Russell. (I’m a Harvard professor. Trust me: The students don’t speak this language.) With that script, and with a massive hand from the film’s director, David Fincher, he helped steer an intelligent, beautiful, and compelling film through to completion. You will see this movie, and you should. As a film, visually and rhythmically, and as a story, dramatically, the work earns its place in the history of the field.
But as a story about Facebook, it is deeply, deeply flawed....
The total and absolute absurdity of the world where the engines of a federal lawsuit get cranked up to adjudicate the hurt feelings (because “our idea was stolen!”) of entitled Harvard undergraduates is completely missed by Sorkin. We can’t know enough from the film to know whether there was actually any substantial legal claim here. Sorkin has been upfront about the fact that there are fabrications aplenty lacing the story. But from the story as told, we certainly know enough to know that any legal system that would allow these kids to extort $65 million from the most successful business this century should be ashamed of itself. Did Zuckerberg breach his contract? Maybe, for which the damages are more like $650, not $65 million. Did he steal a trade secret. Absolutely not. Did he steal any other “property”? Absolutely not—the code for Facebook was his, and the “idea” of a social network is not a patent. It wasn’t justice that gave the twins $65 million; it was the fear of a random and inefficient system of law. That system is a tax on innovation and creativity. That tax is the real villain here, not the innovator it burdened.But great movies about law really do shape what people think about law and that affects what law means. How many will read and understand Lessig's pushback?
ADDED: Here's the famous Pauline Kael review — the most famous movie review of all time that we will think about for as long as there are movie reviews:
This is a movie people will be arguing about, I think, for as long as there are movies. They’ll argue about how it is intended, as they argue again now about The Dance of Death. It is a movie you can’t get out of your system...
CNN reporting on Gloria Allred reads like a press release — an embarrassingly written press release.
Apparently, CNN is shameless. Its headline is "Gloria Allred is a girl's best friend." Text highlights:
Her clients include mistresses, starlets and allegedly wronged women from all walks of life. So, when Gloria Allred calls a news conference, media types know they're about to hear some dish.So so so... dish me you dish, juicy curvy CNN, you big slut.
So it was on Wednesday, when Allred and her latest client tossed a big, juicy curve ball into the tight California governor's race.
Nicandra Diaz Santillan blotted tears from her eyes as Allred announced she'd be filing a claim against her client's former employer, Republican candidate Meg Whitman, accusing her of emotional abuse and financial exploitation....Emotional abuse and financial exploitation? Clue me in, CNN. I'm just a law professor. Are those real torts in California? Contracts claims? Or are these just Wrongs Against Women in some Allred-y scheme of causes for press conferences that make CNN reporters drool?
To say Allred, 69, is well-known is an understatement.To say CNN is a news organization is an overstatement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
