Now that I've taken 2 days off from vlogging, I'm ready to talk again. But what about?
ADDED: It's almost ready. Just uploading. But let me use this time to write about some questions you asked that didn't make the final edit after I, as usual, went over the YouTube 10 minute limit. One thing I cut is my saying I probably really should pay for the "professional" level YouTube account where I'm not stuck with the 10 minute limit. What else? 1. I use Lancôme makeup because I like their moisturizers and from there it's mostly brand loyalty. 2. On preparing for the LSAT: I agree with this advice (written by my son). 3. I think one could learn to be a lawyer on line, and to say that isn't to say the classroom teaching I do is worthless. There can be more than one effective method. But, naturally, I think the live classroom is best. 4. I think "Big Love" is intended to heighten sensitivity toward different choices in family structure, but it's not really about softening people up about same-sex marriage, because polygamous marriage presents all sorts of problems regarding taxes, inheritance, eligibility for benefits, child custody, etc., and gay marriage is a far easier question. Also, the polygamous family in "Big Love" has great difficulties with respect to the subordination of women, and we constantly question whether it's a good idea. I don't think there is a similar problem with gay relationships. 5. Harrison is a very cool 9 month old. 6. I'd love to be on "The View." 7. Ooh, the vlog is ready:
August 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
92 comments:
Question: The relative importance of the Kos convention and it's effects, or lack thereof, to the 2008 elections.
Why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?
Why do think the editors at TNR know so few military personnel they were hoodwinked by Beauchamp? Is it cultural? Or personal?
How many days until the move?
Why Lancome?
Could you please give out some helpful tips for studying for the LSAT? Also, could you tell us what you did to study for the LSAT?
Thank you
Which constituency of your readers would you anger if you talk about religion?
Noting, of course, a wee religion connected post showed up this morning.
Or if not that one. I'm a socially conservative, Evangelical trained and raised, economic moderate who tends to be really liberal on the environment, not really at all interested in gun issues, and who thinks the war in Iraq was justified and is winnable.
Even though you've been harassed as not being a true believer liberal by the politics hall monitors who lurk around her, I suspect you don't share many of my political opinions. Where do you think I'm wrong and where am I possibly right?
I described your blogging style as tossing an interesting football out on the playing field and watching who trys to scoop it up and how.
Is that accurately dispassionate?
When are you going to ban Maxine? She's really getting tedious.
I'm tempted to ask the same question I did last time (because I'd really like a thoughtful answer), but I don't want to risk the severe emotional pain of not having my question answered -- again.
It (the emotional pain) was horrible. First the emotional high from the anticipation and excitement of waiting for the vlog to be posted. My question woudl be answered! Then, the first vlog had to be redone, which heightened the suspense and anticipation. Then the second vlog was posted. Nine minutes into the vlog and my question still has not been answered! Would she ignore me? The divine Ann asks if there is anything more. She has time for my question! She will address it!
No, she congratulates herself that she had answered all the (worthy) questions in under 10 minutes and signs off. Hope dies. Oh, the disappointment! (Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.) Which is soon intensified by embarrassment: All my Althouse classmates knew I'd asked a question (one even said it was a good question) and must have noticed it had gone unanswered. (Even more gnashing of teeth, but no more wailing. People were starting to look.)
No. I just don't think I can risk it so soon. Maybe after the wound is not quite so raw.
Will you take any of your DVD's with you to Brooklyn?
Do you listen to CD's anymore, or are your non-radio listening choices basically on your iPod and hard drives?
Why don't you get more advance notice that they'd like you for a guest on WPR's Week In Review?
Which restaurants in Madison will you miss while in NYC? Will you cook more or less when you're in NYC?
With the growth of universities providing degrees via online study do you think any law schools would extend thier curriculum to an online format or do you think law students need to physically attend classes?
If you don't believe in hell, would you be more justified in laughing at the terrorist burn victim? Or at least taking satisfaction in his unpleasant passing - if it was, in fact, unpleasant? If everyone gets the same ending, is it not more important how they met their end? If you must stand by and watch good, innocent people die painful deaths, is it not understandable that you would wish worse for those who deserve it? Whether you believe in hell or not, injustice is the natural order of things. If we can create justice on our own, without the help of some supernatural resting place, aren't we obliged to do so?
Do you believe it when after a tragedy, newscasters and the public in general say "our thoughts and prayers are with you?" Do you believe they take time out and assume a posture of prayer for victims?
A romantic coupling, a man and a woman: But, she's 6 inches taller than him !!!!!!!!
Can it work?
a) He has a Danny DeVito complex, that her imperious height will tame.
b) She's with him for his money.
c) Maybe he wants to be dominated, in any case... everything evens out in the bedroom anyway.
And now for something completly different:
Have you seen the any of the HBO series "Flight Of the Conchords"?
http://www.hbo.com/conchords/
Why are people on the left so desperate to prove you're a conservative? Lately they're not even just attacking you, the traditional ADS symptoms, but actively trying to assert that you must a conservative. Who are they trying to fool, themselves (to ease the pain of cognitive dissonance, perhaps) or their readers (to make you an unperson)?
paul d'barge: You don't like me because I'm taller than you.
How do you describe your fashion style?
Another question:
The creators of "Big Love" are a New York gay couple, according to NPR yesterday. Do you think that a show that mainstreams and portrays sympathetically the practice of one form of non-traditional marriage, viz. polygamy, is (consciously or unconsciously) an attempt to break down public resistance to another form of non-traditional marriage, viz. same-sex marriage?
Is this going to be a topless vlog?
How often do you have to dye your hair?
Do you work out? Yoga? Meditate? Massage?
What's your philosophy on keeping the beav trim or shaved?
Hitler Mustache? Brazillian? Full Garden?
you should talk about your new iphone and also address the fact that at least some of your readers are here because they think you're seriously hot and want to see some tits
Has the amount of money you'd need to get paid for you to eat an egg salad sandwich changed, and if so, what's the new amount?
Ann,
Why don't you like to be called Annie? I consider it affectionate.
Did you get the weird shoes? Are they any good?
You could tell us what you did for an art career before you went to law school.
You never answered my Paul Simon question--you could answer that.
P.S. I'd think you were hot, but you're older than my mother, so I'm not allowed to.
Follow-up on XWL's question: If the egg salad or devilled eggs were made fresh and still warm, would such a dish still gross you out?
[Fritz, perhaps so, but it's never used with affection here - it's sharpened into a belittling sobriquet by ADS victims]
Another one:
Do you think the ascent of political blogs has created a degeneration from intelligent debate to tribal drum-beating? As someone from a more print-oriented generation (while still being part of the TV generation), what do you think of the current state of media, where soundbites, pundits, and 1 to 2 minute "in-depth" news stories dominate the domain of television and insular mob-rule (communities like Kos or ThinkProgress, where people are drawn to other people who reinforce their existing beliefs), a lack of close reading (see Jakob Nielsen's "F-pattern"), and anonymous flaming rule supreme on the internet?
Jeremy, when was that rulee established?
"With the growth of universities providing degrees via online study do you think any law schools would extend thier curriculum to an online format or do you think law students need to physically attend classes?"
My bet is that Ann won't answer this question, cause she can't. She can't say that it's necessary for people to physically attend classes in order to learn how to practice law, because that would be untrue, and Ann is an honest person. On the other hand, she can't say that it's not necessary, because that would imply that her students are wasting their time and money courtesy of government-enforced protectionist laws that say you can't practice law unless you attend three years of law school. Plus, it would call into question her reason for existing as a law professor.
I speak as someone who jumped through the hoops and benefits by getting to charge people for services that could be performed just as well (i.e. assuming their as conscientous and careful) in the absence of UPL laws by technicians with less years of education invested for less money, but who on the other hand wishes I had back some of the time and money I spent on 7 years of education.
oops -- i meant "they're as conscientious and careful"
bad sentence for a spelling AND word usage mistake
Gee John Kindley get your act together regarding spelling and word usage in your sentences...
Althouse, do you look at other women in the shower?
John, I think that while one could reasonably assert that it's not strictly true that it's "necessary for people to physically attend classes in order to learn how to practice law" (in the "indispensable" sense of "necessary"), one could reasonably maintain that the formal, directed study of law (which includes classroom learning) is so massively beneficial compared to other approaches as to make it functionally necessary. Do you need to attend lectures? Perhaps you can still graduate without doing so, but I think that all the alternatives are a distant second-best.
Harrison, of course!~~~~!!! Who is leaving town for five days.
A second question:
Blu-Ray or HD-DVD?
Are you at all intrigued by the new generation of High Def media, or are DVDs plenty high def enough?
Would a super crisp HD transfer of My Dinner with Andre or Aguirre, the Wrath of God (not something I expect to be released any time soon, right now they focus on new releases and action pics for HD media) be what gets you to buy one or the other?
Simon: Alright, I put the numbers into a spreadsheet, and it turns out that, applying the "half your age + 7" rule, I can't be interested in her for ten years. Or does that only apply when the interested party is the older one? Maybe Ann can give a legal ruling on the subject in her vlog.
Look at Simon. That guy knows more about constitutional law than 99.5 or more out of a 100 lawyers, and to my knowledge he never went to law school. He presumably learned it cause he's interested in it, which is how most real learning gets done (whether you find something intrinsically interesting or you're forced to be interested in it to complete some necessary task). On the other hand, I assume he's not competent to actually practice constitutional law (gotta spend a few months learning where to file the briefs, when and how to write and serve certain motions, etc.), but I'm sure he's better prepared for it than the average joe just coming out of law school.
John Kindley: In California, you don't need to even need a degree from a law school to take the Bar. All you need is work experience.
By the way--- Clarins is much better than Lancome.
Self-taught is always far preferable than these assembly-line robots who go through the degree/diploma mills.
Sheep being herded, like cattle, to the slaughter.
Independent Study is best.
Jeremy, I deny the utility of any per se rule in this area, including that one. "such questions demand individualized consideration on the merits." Still, you raise an interesting distinction to the previously-decided case of Brezny v. Khronos, and I await a ruling from Althouse, J.
John, that's very flattering, and I appreciate it (and you're right that I've not been milled through law school), but I think you flatter me a little too much. I don't say this for the reasons you suggest (because civpro is one of my main areas of interest, I feel fairly confident that I could actually do much of the stuff you're talking about), but because there is an awfully large corpus of law that I don't know and/or don't fully understand. And I don't just mean in areas I haven't studied, I mean even in areas I specifically study like conlaw. There's a lot of doctrine, a lot of cases. If it looks like I have knowledge, it's because I have a process, I have a criterion: faced with a question I don't know the answer to, I have a process that I follow. But having a process is far from having all the answers, and it's a poor substitute for genuinely thorough knowledge of the doctrine and caselaw. Independent study is good to some extent, but believe me, it is a poor substitute (if any) for formal learning. If money were no object, I'd go to law school (not necessarily UW, but in our "money no object" hypothetical, of course. ;)) in a heartbeat.
What are the key ingredients that make your blog so popular?
"I feel fairly confident that I could actually do much of the stuff you're talking about."
Then you prove my point, which is that Unauthorized Practice of Law laws are bogus, and that you, Simon, should be free to practice law without the expense in time and money of attending three years of law school. (On the other hand, if you indeed want to attend law school for intellectual satisfaction -- and I did find parts of law school quite intellectually stimulating -- that's okay and your business.)
"But having a process is far from having all the answers, and it's a poor substitute for genuinely thorough knowledge of the doctrine and caselaw."
Teaching a process is all that law school purports to do. It certainly doesn't provide all or even most of the answers. One of the first things they tell you as a newbie 1L is that the substantive law is too vast to comprehensively teach it even in three years of formal schooling. I think this true in an obvious sense but also a cop-out. I think law professors have a tendency, being intellectuals and all, to want to focus unduly on fascinating little nooks and crannies of the law, when from the standpoint of actually preparing students to practice law and advise clients there is a lot of basic unsexy substantive law that would be very useful to know but somehow gets neglected. But then, you don't really need a professor to learn that stuff, just a statute book.
I've viewed often, but never commented. Your vlogs are clear and crisp as compared to what I see on BloggingHeads. What kind of camera and microphone do you use for the vlog's?
John, with all due respect, it proves the contrary to the extent it proves anything (which isn't much). A little knowledge and few scruples can deprive a person of money and adequate representation. The licensing of the practice of law is a good thing precisely because it protects consumers from being hoodwinked into hiring someone who can approximate the motions but who isn't in fact competent to litigate their case.
Do you think it should be legal to practice medicine, without a license, or dentistry?
As to the utility of law school to the business of learning law, I think you're rather in the position of the man who knew too much and I'm in the position of the man who knew too little, but I think that you vastly underrate the value of having gone through the formal process, because even if you don't learn all the substantive law that's out there, the methodology and the skillsets you acquire in lawschool will render the business of CLE infinitely easier. The unschooled independent learner is like a blind climber faced with mount everest: the answer to the question "where do I begin" is more complicated than just "up, dear boy, up!"
Will you come over for coffee during your time in Brooklyn?
(Let me add that, to be sure, you can learn a lot independently. More than I have to be sure. You start just by reading caselaw, and after a while, the culture shock starts to fade, and the vocabulary of law starts to feel more natural. As time goes by your eyes adjust and you start to be able to dimly make out the rough contours of your surroundings. In time, you start to develop an idea about what all this is in service of: what is law. You read the caselaw, you pick a treatise and hope it's the right one. You start to develop some familiarity and confidence in handling the materials, at least in a couple of areas. You reach a point where you read new cases and can slot them into an existing framework of knowledge; suddenly you have context! Finer-grained features of the landscape become visible - you know your facial challenge on appeal from a 12(b)(6) challenge from your as-applied challenge on direct appeal from final judgment. You know that younger abstention isn't a conservative talking point about sex ed. But this process takes a long time, and it is maddening at times. You're constantly reinventing the wheel, and going down dead ends that a professor would never have let you wander into. I remember having what I thought was a brilliant insight about six months ago, and full of enthusiasm emailed Ann to say "hey, is this dumb or brilliant," prompting the reply that, oh, there's a lot of scholarship dedicated to that point. CLE is one thing, but truly independent study? I don't recommend it. Law school may not be perfect, but it's better than no law school.
Would you like to be a guest host on the tv program, "The View"? I think you would be fabulous but perhaps a little high brow for their taste.
I like Lindsay's question! Which of the View commentators do you think you'd agree with most often/least often?
What's your favorite type or varietal of wine? Also, are there any wine regions you particularly like?
In this vlog Could you reach for a recommended dvd to watch and as you are reaching a tit falls out and you cup it in your hand and put it back into your tanktop and then laugh with your head back and sip a glass of wine and look seductively at the camera but be nonchalent during the whole episode?
"Do you think it should be legal to practice medicine, without a license, or dentistry?"
Yes, absolutely, because the AMA's special interest in limiting access to the profession, as enforced by the government, is a large contributor to the high costs of health care, which everyone agrees is such a critical problem in this country. Milton Friedman made the case against requiring licenses to practice occupations in "Capitalism and Freedom," and he focused on medicine because he realized that would be the occupation where public perception would be most inclined to see a need for licensing. I don't have time to regurgitate Friedman's arguments here, but highly recommend them to your consideration.
Titus, I think that's pretty disrespectful. Take it down a notch or several.
Titus--
I'm guessing you are about 12 years old and just discovered the "joys" of self amusement. You'll have to change your ways or you can look forward to a life-time of that same self-amusement.
Althouse-- you're an attractive lady and we'd like to see more of you but in an adult manner.
poor tit-us ...we'd all like to see herr althouse in an *ahem* adult manner
There are two kinds of males drooling over Annie. The first kind has pimples and they wear baggie shorts hoping to be cool. The other kind never figured out that brylcream is greasy; they wear fitted, plaid shorts. Too fitted.
So, A-House: if you were to be stranded for eternity with one man, would you rather have it be one from the first group or one from the second??
Taps foot.
Looks at watch.
There are two kinds of males drooling over Annie...
...Drooling is a cruel word, but one accepts the fundamental premise.
The taxonomy is, though, incorrect. There is, as always, a third way.
It's been more than 5 hours since I last asked a question in this thread, so here's one more:
Have you considered signing up for a "Directors" account at YouTube so you could post Vlogs that last longer than 10 minutes?
(a 100mb limit still applies, but with the right compression software applied you could squeeze 30-40 minutes into a single vlog)
Have you considered signing up for a "Directors" account at YouTube so you could post Vlogs that last longer than 10 minutes?
As far as that goes, it would be great for the vlogs to be available for download via iTunes! (Some of the other podcasts I subscribe to are video podcasts, so I know it's possible.) That way we wouldn't need to be tied to our computer to listen/watch the Divine Ms. A.
Why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?
You really want to know? Because there used to be two words inflammable (meaning catches fire)and imflammable (meaning the opposite), but too many people confused the two. So, to make it simple, a government safety agency came up with two new words flammable and non-flammable that everyone would understand. Your welcome.
"riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to
Howth Castle and Environs."
...Agree or Disagree? Your fate in our hands.
Have you intoned the Introit at the Martello Tower? Have you sunk the Black Stuff at Howth?
And if not, why not?
Well at this point Althouse is going to need a all-day Telethon to answer each question.
Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Althouse the flake. Get it together, Althouse!
How do you feel about bangs (strait up, nothing fancy) on a 20-something female who works in a firm?
Re ¶1 of my 12:52 PM comment - certiorari is granted! LOL.
[The allusion in my previous comment is to a post that probably on one except David Lat and I will remember; back when he was running a "superhotties of the federal judiciary" contest sub nom Article III Groupie, David reposted an email from a reader nominating David Souter, and the author of the email said some lusty innuendo and puns about Souter before concluding "Certiorari is granted, baby!" To which A3G responded, "Groupie, J., would dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, personally," which I always thought was beautifully snarky.]
Lancome is my fave as well. But, I went in the opposite direction. Their Bi-Facil, Artliner and Hypnose (not the perfume) drew me in and after expanding through almost every product category, I'm in love with Renergie Microlift. I'll have to remember to ask after your favorite moisturizers for the next vlog. You have gorgeous skin.
Ruth Anne will know for sure, but I thought the egg salad price from way back when -- with no spread width specified -- was $1000.
Lest we forget: $500 was the going rate for unspecified-thickness egg salad sandwich.
Although there is a dispute as to whether she's never eaten cold hard-boiled eggs.
"As far as that goes, it would be great for the vlogs to be available for download via iTunes! (Some of the other podcasts I subscribe to are video podcasts, so I know it's possible.) That way we wouldn't need to be tied to our computer to listen/watch the Divine Ms. A."
You can watch YouTube on iPhone.
On the egg salad sandwich, I said back here that I'd eat an egg salad sandwich and blog about it for $500. Here's the old "Ten Things I've Never Done" post where I talk about eggs. And here's where I say I'd go see the new "Star Wars" movie and blog about it if you paid me $500. $500 seems to be an important amount of money to me for some reason.
Ruth is right about the dispute -- which has to do with whether my exhusband snuck bits of hard-boiled egg into the chopped liver he made. I did eat that. I've probably had some cold hard-boiled egg in tuna too if that was some clown's idea of a good way to make tuna salad.
For Lancôme moisturizer, I recommend Rénergie Night. I recommend the foundation Rénergie Lift Makeup. But the choices depend on skin type, so don't just buy what I buy.
Just for fun, I'm gonna pony up my entire pay as Historian of the Althouse Blog, PLUS $50 in the old Amazon pay button right now. Althouse can verify this publicly. Are there 9 other folks who will pay to watch this egg-salad-sandwich-eating-performance-art on the next vlog?
It'd be especially funny if someone read "Green Eggs and Ham" while she did it, substituting "Ann" for "Sam". O.K. Here's my $50, but it is contingent upon actual eating of said egg-salad sandwich on a vlog.
Hey! I saw the email that you sent me $50 before I saw the comment here, so I suspected something like this was up. The $500 level is for an especially thick layer of egg salad. I said I'd eat a thinly coated egg salad sandwich for $200. And I will eat it on a vlog!
And I encourage other schemes of this kind, because I haven't had enough blogads lately...
She will eat it here or there.
She will eat it anywhere...
Would she, could she, with hdhouse?
Would she, could she, with Maxine Mouse?
Ruth Anne - Oh, it's a tight month, but I could be in for $10 initially, and we'll see how close we get. I could double-dip.
Ann:
Are you vlogging under the influence?
John Althouse Cohen: When you call the blogstress so she can demonstrate her cool new iPhone [at least it's you according to the screen freeze], you need to be out of the mike range or we'll hear you when you say hello....
Simon: Talk is cheap. Clink the can.
Susan said...
...too many people confused the two. So, to make it simple, a government safety agency...
Very interesting. I find it a little hard to believe that something about the English language was actually simplified, but I'll take your word for it. Where did you learn this? Is there a site that answers obscure language questions?
Thank you for the explanation.
Your welcome.
She noticed me! She noticed me! (Does Snoopy dance. Tosses rose petals into the air.)
Maybe I should have asked my question.
Ann,
Just to be clear, in my earlier remarks I didn't mean to suggest that the classroom teaching you do is worthless or that I learned nothing in law school about the law (though I learned far more about it through the independent process, guided by editors, of researching and writing a law review article). I just think it's ridiculous and self-serving of the legal profession for the government to prohibit anyone from practicing law that hasn't attended three years of law school.
John: It's about protecting the public -- both the clients and others -- and the court system.
But you could have a system of apprenticeship and bar exam. I think there is one state that still does that.
Aren't you speaking from the point of view of a hardcore libertarian?
"Aren't you speaking from the point of view of a hardcore libertarian?"
You make that sound like a bad thing! It's similar to the line I got from people in response to my law review article' argument that women considering abortion have a right to be informed about the potential increased breast cancer risk, who asked "But aren't you one of those pro-lifers who believe abortion is immoral?" In fact, (with all due respect, because I highly respect you) your question is less relevant than that one, because it's things like the pernicious effects of unnecessary occupational licensure and taxation on the necessities of life (or income consistent with the same) that reasonably awaken one to "hardcore" libertarianism, rather than hardcore libertarianism leading to those conclusions.
BTW, if I recall correctly from your earlier spat with Reason magazine one of your main objections to libertarianism is in the economic realm where it comes across as unrealistically and uncaringly ignorant of the problems and needs of lower income people. I would agree that the prejudices of many self-styled libertarians lead in this direction, which is why I subscribe to the corrective conception of natural justice called "geolibertarianism" or "left libertarianism," which recognizes that while people own themselves and the products of their labor, natural resources (such as land) are the equal property of all and therefore those who appropriate such natural resources to their exclusive use owe compensation to the rest of society (Thomas Paine's essay "Agrarian Justice" is a good and historically-important summary of this concept, also expressed in the political philosophy of Henry George and the Georgists).
Also, occupational licensure hurts the poor because it prevents many of them from entering fields like law, or causes them to go deep into debt if they do so, and it greatly increases the prices that they have to pay for legal services.
Finally, my rants are based not only on my libertarian philosophy but also on my personal experiences of both law school and the practice of law. I draft a lot of wills and trusts (among other things in my general solo practice), and I didn't know the first thing about drafting wills and trusts when I graduated from law school. Everything I learned about it I learned after law school, which leads me to recognize that in the absence of UPL laws an intelligent and careful person without a law degree could learn to do the same thing and earn a decent little living for himself or herself.
Some state regulatory boards in some professions have been found to institute arbitrary and draconian punishments to licensees without reasonable due process. Still other boards have proven to be ineffectual, rarely limiting the practices of unethical, unprofessional, or incompetent licensees. There appears to be considerable variability in the quality and effectiveness of regulatory licensing boards across professions and across states. Successful law suits have been filed against some of the more dysfunctional state boards. Finally, as John has pointed out....some view these boards as serving a guild function....limiting competition and maximizing the economic leverage of the profession it is designed to regulate.
Has there been any research looking, for example, at the relationship between scores on the bar exam and effectiveness and skill in the actual practice of law? Also, have there been studies examining the relationship between continuing legal education and changes in legal practice? In some professions, virtually no relationship has been found between scores on a licensing exam and skill and competency in practice. Moreover, other studies in some professions have found no changes in the behavior of professionals after they receive continuing education. I am not suggesting at this point the elimination of licensing and professional regulatory boards. However, they are coming under more scrutiny as to whether they function effectively to protect the public and regulate the profession.
In a related vein...how does one measure the effectiveness of a particular lawyer...and the efficaciousness of the legal system as a whole?
John: My point is only that if you're hardcore libertarian, you're so firmly against this kind of regulation that none of the good arguments are going to matter.
Ann Althouse said...
John: My point is only that if you're hardcore libertarian, you're so firmly against this kind of regulation that none of the good arguments are going to matter.
I am not a hardcore libertarian....but I am more interested in the evidence than I am arguments as to their utility or dysfunction.
The reputations of these state boards have become increasingly questionable as the public, the professionals themselves, and media scrutinize them. Like so many other aspects of local, state, and federal government we are unearthing more and more episodes of gross mismanagement, inappropriate politicization, inproper financial dealings, corruption, and so on.
These boards, like other governmental programs, need to demonstrate that they benefit the public more than they cost us.
Where are we at on the egg-salad-eating tote board?
So we know what you would do for $200, and we know what you'd do for $500.
Don't stop now. PLEASE! What would you do in vlog form for $1,000? $10,000? I seriously think I would come up with some high-end cash for your most expensive, uh, performance.
Justin - Where did I learn this? I'm old and I'm just remembering it from when it happened a few decades ago.
For $1,000, I will travel to Door County, take photographs, and tell you what I saw there.
Post a Comment