Thursday assorted links

Comments

3. Twitter exposes journalists as even less interesting and compelling in person than behind an editor.

All Hail the Editors!

The gatekeeper function of the media establishment seems to function by keeping a lid on the silliness of their own reporters. Remove the gatekeeper and you get a bunch of blithering idiots lighting their hair on fire and threatening kids who remind them of their middle school years.

Yep, especially the middle school part.

If I was the kid, I would have knock down that old man and say:

Listen here, Geronimo, this land belongs to the White Man. You should be so lucky my ancestors didn't exterminate you people like we did the others. Now leave and go hunt some buffalo, collect some feathers or something or I'll shove a peace pipe up your Apache ass.

"3. Is Twitter ruining journalism? "

It's not twitter. It's ideology. Running major news stories before you determine the facts is going to lead to bad journalism. Journalists know they are supposed to interview both sides and to understand the concept that one side (or both) maybe selling you a narrative.

But they went with their gut instinct that told them the white boys in MAGA hats must be Bad and the Native American must be Good. So, Nathan Phillips feeds them a narrative with a couple of non-obvious (at the time) lies that agrees with their own preconceptions so they go with it.

Furthermore, their editors should have stopped the story before it ever got published/broadcast. It wasn't major news. At best it was a school age teens did something stupid on a field trip. That's not a Nationally important News story, that CNN should spend a good chunk of the weekend covering. It doesn't rate half a dozen editorials in major newspapers.

Oh well, they got burned pretty hard. Maybe they learned a lesson.

Aren't two twitter posts on a subject adequate as double sourcing? Even if they both quote the same original source?

No they won't learn a lesson. My 3 day rule on news events now has an addendum; the Canadian media three days after a story in the US will come out with the most ridiculous take imaginable. Our tax dollars at work.

"Aren't two twitter posts on a subject adequate as double sourcing? Even if they both quote the same original source?"

I don't know? It might have to be twitter posts from people that the journalist follows on twitter.

I disagree that the lies were non-obvious. Anyone writing an article about a 63 year old Vietnam vet should be able to do some basic math and realize that doesn't make much sense.

1. You mean that I have to do math?
2. When was the Vietnam war? Wasn't that Bush 93?

The level of intelligence shown by the media personalities this weekend isn't reassuring. As I said, the gatekeepers are there editors, remove them and this is what you get.

How could you even talk about the Vietnam War without comparing it to the Vienesse Succession movement? This group's exhibition policy was notable for providing the first dedicated space for contemporary art in the city, with the express aim of making contacts with international art movements and campaigning against nationalism in art.

Here's the water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Klinger#/media/File:Max_Klinger.jpg

Because the left wing doesn't like the constitution.

Neither does Trump, especially the emoluments part of it.

Apply the emoluments to Nancy Pelosi she is nutty as a fruitcake. But Trump is not only sane but may well be smarter than the entire congress. Your emoluments fantasy is a waste of your time.

I'm a 63 year old Vietnam vet too. I watched the whole thing on TV.

'should be able to do some basic math and realize that doesn't make much sense.'

The U.S. left Vietnam entirely in 1975, which is 44 years ago. It is quite possible to imagine an 18 year old serving in the Vietnam theater in 1974, making that person a 63 year old Vietnam vet.

Or is that math too basic? In particular regarding the more than 150 American service members that died in that war in 1975.

I wasn't aware that the Canuck gov't owned a newspaper.

But anything for a complaint, eh? ;)

"Journalists know they are supposed to interview both sides and to understand the concept that one side (or both) maybe selling you a narrative."

Umm, excuse me, did you just suggest that Nazis and the KKK get to have a side? No, they don't. I wouldn't have raised my kids to be like you or the Covington boys with such horrid opinions, that pure racist evil deserves to "hear their side".

Parody on "anonymous"?

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath

Well spotted, and a funny commentary on anonymity and identity.

" the Covington boys with such horrid opinions,"

They were peacefully protesting abortion. Killing kids should qualify as evil.

Evidently, in the same way that some on the right view pro-choice women lustily braying about the death of babies ... off-putting, the left seems to find the idea of teenaged boys "marching for life" especially unattractive. I'm not sure what the boys have to gain by the position, though, at least as the left would (be able to) understand the issue.

Well, speaking as an erstwhile fetus...

Seriously, though, the long-term arc for abortion does not look good, particularly in view of our widening circle of ethical concern toward animals.

"Speaking as an erstwhile fetus"... it only half-works for me, speaking as an erstwhile fetus who wouldn't be here but for the abortion of another. (Like many others here no doubt, though note that my brothers know nothing of this ... it is much more likely to come up between mother and daughter, probably.)

Ethical concern for pets? It would be interesting if ethical concern for that with which we had filled up our lives, in place of filling it with people, led to a re-examination of abortion.

in view of our widening circle of ethical concern toward animals.

The widening circle doesn't seem to extend to dogs that work for law enforcement, one duty of which is to absorb gunfire meant for courageous hero policemen. The canine, who isn't intellectually capable of volunteering for really dangerous work that's rewarded with dog food, also doesn't understand the concept of a 14th century technology that involves a rapid chemical reaction driving a small metal pellet through its body. But people say that they love dogs.

Dogs accept action, danger and confrontation with larger predators and competitors in service to the pack. They are well-cared for in these duties.

I suspect most Police dogs really enjoy their life.

As a leftist, i have no problem with teenage boys marching for their right to provide all the needs of children from any poiint they consider to be the beginning until the child has a good job that makes them self sufficient. And i grant them the right to have a womb transplant to turn a zygote into a delivered baby.

But the Right to Life movement is all about government coercion of other women who rejects their religion into birthing a baby, which the majority of those in the Right to Life movement rejects as having an actual right to life, deeming it gods will they die long before becoming aa teen from homelessness and hunger, from child abuse in the hands of the state, from criminal violence, often at the hands of the state, or from treatable health problems. Their "Right to Life" ends at birth. Then the Life becomes a burden those advocates deem excessive, and death is a preferred solution, just out of sight, out of mind.

Yes the millions of desperately poor American starving children cry out for help! Those evil Catholics are letting them DIE!

Except they get free food (snap+federal school lunch)
And housing (Section 8)
And healthcare (chip+Medicaid)
And Cash benefits (TANF)

I’m all in on abortion and laughing at Catholics. But pretending Catholics are demanding the end to trillions of dollars in welfare spending is as ludicrous as it is characteristically mulpian.

Good thing Trump wants to build a wall. To keep out all those Catholics from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. This is a Protestant country not a Catholic one, we believe in work not welfare.

Now apply that to the old and unfit, maybe the unpopular. I hear you guys have great uniforms though.

Mulp,

I'm a Libertarian, but even I can see that the Anti-abortion stance doesn't necessarily violate the Non-Aggression Principle against the woman if the fetus has some degree of personhood/citizenship and a consequent claim to protection against violence.

That "if" is the entire crux of the problem, and one that in many ways cannot be solved. One side thinks a fertilized egg is a person even after day one. The other thinks it isn't, and many of the more strident on that side do not allow a fetus personhood even into the third trimester.

As your friendly neighborhood moderate/centrist, this issue is both one of the easiest and one of the hardest to take a moderate position on. I personally support legal abortion for any reason in the first trimester. After that only for health of the mother, or in extraordinary cases like a severely disabled/unviable fetus that isn't discovered until the second trimester. Third trimester, health of mother only.

This is 'easy' because it's pretty much common sense. 3 months is enough time to decide if you want to have a child, and up until 3 months it's not a baby, it's not even an animal, it's a clump of cells. It has zero chance of surviving outside the womb, it's not reasonable to say that 2 month old blastocyst is a person. It's also common sense to say by that third trimester, when the baby can survive outside, when you've had many months to figure things out....by then it's too late, sorry. On the other hand, this is 'difficult' because my solution isn't logical or principled. There's no science behind saying abort at 90 days ok, 100 days no. But you gotta pick a cutoff somewhere.

Unfortunately this is an issue where partisanship or no, there's almost no room to compromise. Either you think aborting a 2 month old embryo is murder, or you don't. And neither side will give an inch, fearing the start of a slippery slope where they lose everything.

"... their right to provide all the needs of children from any point they consider to be the beginning until the child has a good job that makes them self sufficient." It is hard to argue with someone only concerned with child welfare. I wonder if realized this standard of "wantedness" combined with "preparedness" (perhaps the helpful folks at the bank could make a reproductive/financial plans) would have the hoped-for eugenic effect. I like to read lives of people, if only on wikipedia. So often you find in the not-distant past that extraordinary people - distinctive enough, anyway, that their lives were worth the telling - had deeply un-nurturing childhoods, for one reason and another. Perhaps a sole parent died, or a step-parent more or less threw them out of the nest. Anyway, it's amazing how often people who made a difference in the world, left "home" at 12, thirteen, fourteen. It's like they got a head start on their ambitions when they were still full of youthful confidence.

Also striking how many there are, for whom work and education were one.

yeet
you say
" did you just suggest that Nazis and the KKK get to have a side? No, they don't."
here is the problem with your statement
those kids aren't nazis or members the kkk

the lefts strategy is to call people they don't like nazis/racists
who are clearly not nazis/kkk for the express reason of justifying silencing/punching them and it is intellectually dishonest

The "left" can call you whatever they want. Its called free speech, you Nazi.

again the point is
they are calling for restrictions on other peoples free speech.
that actually is the opposite of free speech

you mean the parents who are suing people for posting on social media? think that counts as anti free speech. also, twitter deplatformed the brazilian who first tweeted the infamous picture. nobody seems to care about the guy's right to free speeech.

again according to the law
inciting/threatening violence/murder against teenagers
is not automatically covered under free speech

Trump caved to Pelosi on the speech. What will he cave to next?

He's calling it now a "down" payment for the wall. Next week it will be "minimum" payments.

That's got to be a pretty depressing headline for all the ACS people.

ACS? American Cancer Society?

"There actually is one liberal analog to the Federalist Society, but chances are you haven’t heard of it: the American Constitution Society ... There’s no question that law school faculties are overwhelmingly liberal"

The author spends a lot of time on the ACS, but completely misses the point. He has all the facts but can't grasp the logic. He lists a lot of reasons, that presumably appeal to the Left as to why the Federalist Society is successful, but fails to notice the obvious.

Law schools are "overwhelmingly liberal". This leads to a counterweight, in the form of the Federalist Society. Whereas, a counterweight to a counterweight (the ACS) isn't nearly as important.

Furthermore, he doesn't believe in the actual ideological mantra of the Federalist Society, Constitutionalism, so he can't manage to create a counter-argument.

"So-called originalism gives the Federalists a catchy intellectual hook. ...In one study by Greene and his colleagues, 92 percent of people expressed support for the idea that a good Supreme Court judge should “uphold the values of those who wrote our Constitution two hundred years ago."

At the point 92 percent of American's agree on anything, it's a done deal. I'd say it's as American as Apple pie and baseball, but they wouldn't poll at the 92% level.

The author says this: "Originalism, for all its pretenses, is no more than a fig leaf for injecting politics into the judiciary."

A fig leaf implies an excuse that the person stating it doesn't really believe in or expect anyone else to believe in. It's just something that's plausible enough to provide some defense.

However the Federalists actually believe in Originalism. And if you don't understand the actual motives of your opponent, you are going to have a hard time countering them, particularly when 92% of American's agree with the premise.

92% of americans also agree that puppies are fluffy

Such contempt for the people, aka your fellow citizens, who are “sheeple” when they don’t agree with you!

No. I heartily agree that when asked a bland inoffensive-sounding question that seems to invoke something they were taught in elementary school, they should agree with it.

And the vast majority of puppies are fuzzy, and many are even fluffy. This is a statement of fact.

Actually I don’t think the vast majority of Americans would say puppies are fluffy, because they really aren’t.

McMike is a liberal. As long as he morally correct, the facts don't matter.

"However the Federalists actually believe in Originalism. And if you don't understand the actual motives of your opponent, you are going to have a hard time countering them, particularly when 92% of American's agree with the premise."

Only Christian white men are free to own property, including other persons?

Of course, what a Christian was was debated widely, requiring the first amendment to prevent Christian leaders of one State denying the legitimacy of a so called Christian from another State. Thus a Christian male citizen of Maryland could not be a citizen of northeastern States, until floods of economic immigrants flooded these States and the fact of their blasphemy was discarded because their vote was need by partisans who believed immigrants shared their values of what was real American: killing or driving off the people who had lived on the land for thousands of years. When it came to taking property and killing people originalists do not consider worthy of rights, those who believed in a book written by hires of an English king as the basis of history and law, vs idol worshippers under the control of Rome, shared enough to take the property and liberty of others for personal profit.

Remember, the right of each State to dictate religious belief existed until at least the 14th amendment when all the Originals were dead. Women having the right to vote came long after the Originals were dead, a right none considered legitimate.

Absolutely nothing authorizes Congress to build a wall, much less restrict immigration.

Citizenship had zero to do with a right to live and work inside the United States or territories, so if you look to the enumerrated powers of Congress, nothing Trump is demanding is consistent with Original Intent.

And we know that restrictions on immigration by the British was enough of an offense to the Originals it was included in the indictment of the crown, and thus part of the call to war for independence.

Jews were explicitly intended to be allowed to own property per one of the signers. The were considered citizens by every state at the time of the Constitutions writing.

Further no, citizens of any state were understood to be citizens of all of them. This had been the case since 1781 when the Articles of Confederation stated that the free inhabitants of each state would entitle to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states. Further, these protections included full property rights.

Originalism isn't the deifying of the founders. The Originalist interpretation of the 14th and 19th amendments is how the political and legal establishment in 1868 and 1920 would have understood them.

Congress has explicit power to ban the "migration and importation" of peoples after 1808. While this was almost certainly meant to curtail congressional authority over slavery; it was not solely limited to slavery even though the authors could easily have written it as such.

Originalism allows Congress to broadly function and legislate on areas not fully enumerated as long as they are consistent with the Constitution as it would have been understood at its writing. If you don't like some part of the Constitution, you are, of course, free to work through the amendment process.

[leaning myself out of the window way too far, because IANAL; half of this is conjecture, the other half bad info, the third half speculation (in other words I'm full of it), please tell me where I'm wrong, if you can!]

I'm certain that many different judges will pronounce differing and contradictory interpretations and call it and earnestly believe it to be originalism and in the spirit of judicial neutrality. The author is right, that this is of course bullshit, but it's hardly hypocrisy. Lawyers are by their nature earnest bullshitters.
The SC isn't about interpreting the founding father's will. Give me any two founding fathers, and it's ten opionions anyway. Often those people didn't even like each other all that much. It's a dampening block, to preserve the status quo from changing too fast. If originalism was a coherent conecept (the idea, that there IS only one correct and intended interpretaton, that the young Republic must always adhere to), then the damn document would be way more specific. Just look at the Commerce Clause. Under several, plausible, originalist interpretations almost all of the government activity in the modern United States would be unconstituional. Would it have killed the founding fathers, to settle a basic question like that from the beginning? No, but they might have killed each other over it, if they tried. I think that's half of Ron Paul's schtick, when he always votes 'No' in congress, because CONSTITUTION. Is he right? Sure, why not. Does it matter? Hell no!
Is the individual mandate really a tax, instead of a forced purchase? Does it even matter? Of course not.
Was killing the US citizien al-Awlaki's constitutional? Sure. Why? The Obama administration thought so. And Obama taught constitutional law, that makes him almost a magic constitution fairy in his own rights. He knows those things. Don't worry about it. [note: I agree with Obama. That guy needed killing, but if the most powerful government on earth thinks it's allowed to kill it's own citizens, then that is very scary in it's own right. So I think Obama fucked up a little. Now Trump and Kanye West after him (or whatever clown, you guys put next in line) can kill Americans (shhhhhh, nobody tell them!)]

A constitution isn't a founding document, which will never be contradicted in spirit, it's a more or less effective safety mechanism against radical change. It's like Tinker Bell, it dies, if people stop believing in it (or the people in charge think they can get away with a "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich"-trick, to get even more in charge). But since it's a compromise and about as specific as a corporate responsibility document, there needs to be a Surpreme Court, and thus it lives or dies, whether people trust in the SC. Which might be a problem already, since one half of political America doesn't believe in the fiction much anymore, because the other half has wrapped itself in it, as if it were a very comfortable and exceedingly stylish bathing robe (which it is, if you want it to be).

The current state, where the constitution acts as a Rohrschach test (is it a butterfly? the right to abortion? to own an M4? eminent domain for private development?) is a good enough equilibrium. Long may it last.
As weak as this constitution of yours is, it's better than total lawlessness.

I'm pretty sure the opposite of "Originalism" is "If it feels good, do it."

Northwestern Law School employs urban terrorists.

Haha exactly. That was my immediate thought.

The author is a law prof who obviously subscribes to both legal realism and living Constitutionalism. He's just mad anyone is allowed to disagree with him and his expert conclusions (particularly, other experts who are in the minority within the Ivory Tower).

How do you reconcile this part of the Constitution?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The laws passed by Congress are not made by the living?
The treaties made by the president and ratified by the Senate are done by the dead?

Given there was never a requiirement tonbe a citizen to live and work in the US and no authority granted to Congress to build a wall, even if paid for by Mexico, much less any enumerated power to do what the British Crown was indicted for, among other "crimes":

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

The Originals never imagined restricting immigration, nor building walls, so they never gave Congress the authority to do either.

Either Trump and the GOP are violating the Original Intent of the Constitution, or its a living document.

It's clear that the intent was a large population, but for many Originals, a small number of citizens, elites, to govern them.

I saw the Lakers vs Warriors game for five minutes at the airport. Ridiculous. The lack of hand checking and the fact that any layup must be unopposed or a foul is called. A defender had a foul called for not even touching the opponent, who charged into the defender after completing the layup and had a foul called, making it a three point play. Why do people even bother with the NBA? Watching chess live, online, is more exciting.

From the article: "That Mitchell layup embodies a key weakness in Anthony's portfolio. When he entered the league, hand-checking and physicality could've kept players like Mitchell at bay. But those days are gone, and now bigs are not only forbidden from camping out under the basket, they are also expected to keep up stride for stride with guards."

I second this criticism. Unless there is a rout, most NBA games are decided by free throws.

I mean, just look at the resemblance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven_Frieze#/media/File:Gustav_Klimt_014.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliya#/media/File:Indischer_Maler_um_1640_001.jpg

2. Money money money. The federalist society is nothing more than the legal arm of the right wing influence machine. Funding the FS is the same bucket as funding a lobbyist, PR firm, or ALEC.

It’s not about ideas or values, unless the idea is capturing governance. And as Bush v Gore showed, the ROI is stunning.

The reason there’s no equivalent on the left is that theres no comparable financial constituency on the left. The financial incentive for the Kochs or insurers or wall street to buy judgeships is clear. There’s no comprable $26 million kitty for passing universal health care or reducing the power of goldman sachs

What if Mueller doesn't give you what you want?

So. What if Mueller doesn't give you what you want?

What's Mueller got to do with it?
Nothing.

Correct.

Let's bury the hatchet and treat each other nicely. We are all going to be dead in 12 years.

Goldman Sachs are a bunch of right-wing neocon creeps!

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/04/nh-democratic-town-hall-hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-15.cnn/video/playlists/iowa-democratic-town-hall/

Your premise the Clintons are liberal is deeply flawed

Fair point.

Wake up! The Democrats are the party with the money now.

The real issue is that the Left's conception of the role of the Judiciary is intellectually bankrupt. Discoveries of "penumbras of rights" have zero resonance with the process of adjudication, while arguments of the meaning of phrases in statues and historical interpretations of the law are exactly what the perople and process is about. As best as I can make out, the idea is that the courts are something like a beggar's appeal directly to a figure-head sovereign.

Bankrupt? Bush v Gore was bankrupt.

Care to recite the facts of the case? I think most people, when confronted with the actual facts of the case, would agree that the Supreme Court's decision was bankrupt -- the Supreme Court of Florida that is.

The SCOTUS opinion basically said that in the recount you can't have one standard of recounting in Democrat heavy precincts and a different standard in other precincts. Now, there are some practical concerns with operationalizing that rule but in the case of a recount that was really close having that rule makes perfect sense.

Uh-huh.
what happened to states rights?
judicial restraint?
equal freaking protection, no less

oh yeah
that's really fitting in a thread about the federalist society

I dunno. The ABA seems to have plenty of money and seemingly isn't afraid to weigh in with left-of-center political views.

You are comparing a trade group that weighs in on issues with a program explicitly designed to recruit, train, and embed jurists with a specific ideological agenda.

“My side has principles, but your side has an agenda.”

I wish polarization would lessen, even slightly.

I don't. Its fun to call the right 'Nazis' and the left 'Marxists'. Its my right to fucking say whatever I want. I can swing my fists wherever I like just short of people's noses. Snowflakes offended by that can crawl back to their safe space!

From Wikipedia Federalist Society "The organization plays a central role in networking and mentoring young conservative lawyers"

That is what one calls an agenda.

George Soros and friends should spend money and set up left-wing clones of the Federalist Society, Mercatus Center, and Marginal Revolution.

They already have Cato. Globalists masquerading a Libertarians.

Trial lawyers, race hucksters, environmentalists and other shakedown artists on the left have every incentive and do invest in legal advocacy on large scale (in addition to forcing taxpayers to fund their causes).

It's just that they're so many of them and they have not figured out how to get all parties on board to create the Grand Intersectional Legal Society.

If corrupt businessmen, pedophilic churches, freedom-hating pro-lifers, and other frauds on the right can find their intersectionality, so can the motley crew on the left.

Maybe the big political money In this country isn’t avowedly socialist or far left, however, it is 100 percent on the side of the Democrats and a very Keynesian, pro regulation, pro federal government type of world view.

On the right I think it is really important to understand that the intellectual diversity is actually very stunning. I’m pretty damn sure that the John Birch society isn’t going to be huge fans of the mercatus center in a lot of ways...

Long story short, the right has such a smaller
Donor class than the left. And the left doesn’t really bother with think tanks or societies or intellectual movements because it owns academia.

The big advantage that the right has over the left in terms of legal advocacy is that the right is simply channeling all of its resources in to one channel(the federalist society) while the left is diffuse. It has control over all of the major law schools and therefore doesn’t feel the need to create a federalist analogue.

It’s like why is Fox News so powerful? Because the left has every other part of the media.

#3 - hedgehogs, which are eaten in Greece (but you cannot take communion the same week in church, folklore says, or you'll go to hell), are now pets in Fairfax, VA. But what about chickens? For a while many years ago we had rooster for pets (and food) and it drove our Fairfax neighbors crazy. Koo-ka-roo-koo! Lots of foul in PH too, and we breed them for sport.

Bonus trivia: hedgehog meat tastes sweet, like venison.

Hey Ray!

A neighbor (RIP) used to keep two bantam chicken roosters she picked up from people that gifted them to children for Easter and then realized they couldn't keep them. We live next to Belmont Racetrack on the NYC/Nassau County line. I can see the training track from the front room. TB horses are fun to watch. Yesterday, we had some tree removal and Track security came to the fence because the buzz saws were scaring the horses, and a horse might get hurt.

In March, we will be in Louisiana babysitting our one-+ year old granddaughter; a rooster; a dozen laying chickens; and four turkeys while our son and his wife go on a cruise. Wet hens are fun to watch.

Closest thing to hedgehog I ever ate was rabbit. We get plenty venison from sons hunting.

Thanks D the B, that's nice. Seabiscuit: An American Legend by Laura Hillenbrand is on my gym read book list (while I work out at the treadmill). Enjoy Louisiana, I had a relative that lived there for a while, the weather is somewhat like in the Philippines.

...& the food & music are MUCH better!

Moose is sweet. Sweet-ish. Venison isn’t really. In my many years of experience. YMMV

My brother hit the New Hampshire moose lottery three or four years ago. He hired a guide (necessary, if only to get the animal out of the woods) in his zone and shot one. Yielded 400 or 500 lbs. of meat. I ate some chopped and sausage. It was OK. Freshly killed deer back strap is the best.

Your moose meat haul would conceivably last you several years! Moose burgers are the greatest, by the way. Just mix with 50 non lean beef. I can only get moose from friends, but I can shoot deer from Sept to Xmas. Elk is also sweet-ish, and one can buy it here ( unlike moose). Yep venison blackstrap, delicious.

In 1981 Welsh pub-owner Philip Lewis began the manufacture of "hedgehog-flavoured" crisps. Lewis's marketing had to change, however from hedgehog 'flavoured' to hedgehog 'flavour', due to advertising standards, as the crisps did not actually contain any hedgehog.

It isn't as if the left wing legal people have been sitting on their tushes. They seem to be running a good number of law schools and graduating lawyers. During Obama's 8 years he managed to get on Supreme court a judge as well as a good number of lower court appointments.

A few years ago Althouse, who was a professor at a University teaching law (retired now), she wrote up a blog post describing a Federalist Society meet she attended. She was viscerally shocked by some of the ideas presented, having risen in the field during the civil rights era. The ideas were so contrary to the commonly accepted dogmas in the field. State rights was one of them. Now some of the most vocal State Rights advocates are on the left.

What platform would a left leaning Federalist society build a following? Much of it would be reactionary, holding firm on the civil rights jurisprudence. Or extending it further to even more obscure groups that are oppressed. The Intersectionality Legal Society. Use that for free.

I think there are going to be many of the progressive successes under legal challenge over the next few years. Pensions is one massive fight as the liabilities start driving economic decisions away from the cost sinkholes. Free speech as well as the far left antipathy towards it is turned against them. Lots of New Deal jurisprudence is due for reexamination as well.

2. - It's way too easy to be a progressive. All they need to do is teach (they own education) everyone to shriek: Christianist!; Cracker!; Homophobe!; Islamophobe! Misogynist!; Nazi!; Pro-Life! Racist; Sexist!; etc. at anybody that they don't like.

They don't need a leftish federalist society. They own public education; most colleges and universities; the professional liar class: ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PMSBNC; Twitter, Fakebook, etc.

And all credible literature and sources.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"
- a man with a well known liberal bias

Dick, the only thing you "butcher" is the English language. What is with the exclamation points? You're not a teenage girl. Then you follow them with semi-colons. An pure abomination of punctuation. Had you a university education, which you despise, you would have made a point or two rather than the deeply ungrammatical abortion you pass as a comment on this fine blog.

scold speaks.

"Pensions is one massive fight as the liabilities start driving economic decisions away from the cost sinkholes."

Is that really a Left / Right Constitutional issue? Pensions are becoming a conflict between funding for current governmental employees versus retired ones. That's Blue on Blue fire.

Sure there will be a push for Federal money to come in and magically bail out all the bankrupt pension funds, but that would be a legislative issue.

Blue on blue. I disagree.

Much of it is management v labor. Just like the corporate sector.

And the reason theres no money often has a lot to do with corporate subsidies and sweetheart hedge fund deals

"Much of it is management v labor. "

No, it's a funding issue. If I have limited funds and the courts say I have to fund the pensions, then I'm going to cut costs. The biggest marginal cost is labor.

Well, insofar as the governments succeeded in spending their money on corporate subsidies and sweetheart giveaways to hedge funds. So now they're really really broke, and they all sit around a table and ask how are we going to fulfill our contractual obligations to retirees, and then the current labor at the table is all like "why is everyone staring at me?"

So your retarded thesis is this:

Vallejo California declared bankruptcy due to “backroom corporate deals” and “hedge fund giveaways.”

Dude lmao you’re not even malinformed. You’re absurd.

You must be a parody account. The municipalities declaring bankruptcy have nothing to do with hedge funds....obviously.

The whole idea is that there’s money to steal until there isn’t. Jesus Christ, blaming KKR for local liberal government failures is akin to Venezuela blaming the US.

Grow up.

I suspect you have received your entire education on public pensions from Rush Limbaugh

Try wiping all the foam coming out of your mouth before you write something on the internet. It will help your point and hopefully your mental state be a little more coherent.

Presumably management in the private sector is operating on behalf of stockholders, which naturally produces agency issues, but private sector governance is at least minimally functional, so stockholders don't get ripped off much.

In the public sector, "management" is supposedly looking out for taxpayers, but labor gives management lots of political support, so they end up on the same side of the table, with the taxpayers cut out of the process.

Go to any of these massive "Retirement System" websites run by the states. Search for "taxpayers".

Do you actually know any members of school district management? They have their share of rabidly anti-union people in the upper echelons. Whose conversations and goals sound every bit like their private sector brethren.

The retirement fund search thing is a non sequitur.

I know pensions. I consult on private sector pensions for a living.

Last year, I helped out an old childhood friend, who works as a custodian for a local school district. Pensions were a negotiating point. I helped him make arguments for more pensions. Apparently, the local school district has money THIS YEAR and happily accommodated the increase. Total pushover.

The experience was so far from my day-to-day experience with pensions as to reside on a different planet. Governments live in a fantasy land where unfunded liabilities can be chalked up to future taxation authority. In the real world, those promises most be paid for when they are made.

Do government workers still get pensions based on the highest last three years of their GS salary? If so, a policeman or fireman making $200k with overtime, as some do in big cities, is due for a nice pension!

Yes, typically. There are cool tricks like "pension spiking" too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_spiking

Management vs labor....this has to be a parody account. Jesus. Christ.

In reality it’s not management versus labor, it’s public choice economics 101. The incentives are aligned for politicians to promise the world to unions in pension benefits and let the future politicians deal with the consequences.

Los Angeles unified school district will, within 15 years, see 2/3 of their cash flow dedicated to pensions + special ed. Only 1/3 will be for regular student education.

But don’t worry, the teachers union (your valiant labor movement) went on strike and now the city will be bankrupt much much sooner.

No icky republican scapegoat to blame here either. This is 100% Democrat government across the board, from school board to city council to mayor to governor to state assembly to state senate to....

But deep down I’m sure it’s Trump’s fault, or maybe McConnell’s.

I actually believe you have no idea about the relationship between pension funds and hedge funds

Pensions are a red/blue fight because most pensioners are Republican.

I initially read #5 as "Did COLLUSION with another planet seed Earth with life?"

I argue it's still a question worth pursuing.

What if Mueller doesn't give them what they want?

File under "Answering The Questions That Nobody Is Asking."

There's still the Stormy Daniels, Campaign Finance fiasco that Giuliani makes worse and worse with apparent self-awareness. The emoluments court case for all the Saudi/China/Russia money that Trump magically ends up in his bank account. Its like the Founding Fathers knew a guy like Trump would come along when they wrote the Constitution. The tax fraud/cheating case from NY state that could earn some time upstate. Plus new crimes, monthly it seems, that Michael Cohen could surface to the Feds to winnow down his sentence while putting another charge on his old boss. Cohen and Giuliani are both gifts that keeps on giving and Trump's inability to judge character, despite pretending to do so on a few seasons of the Apprentice, makes for a legally volatile mix. Fun times.

#4
Because they know an important thing.

Hot take: The left-wing Federalist Society is the Fabian Society.

>2: Why is there no left-wing Federalist Society?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe the left feels it can get by relying on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, the Associated Press, Reuters, the BBC, and the Guardian to get its talking points out there. Free of charge.

No, it's about ideas vs. feels. The right intellectuals debate ideas, but the left has devolved into producers and consumers of feels, which AOC has shown don't need to be produced by intellectuals.

Likewise journalism once was the cheapest and most efficient way to produce facts for the public debate, but it's an expensive way to produce feels. Now that feels trump all (pun semi intended) journalists are finding themselves out competed by Twitter in the feel production game. Most people have day jobs where they can't watch twitter all day long, but journalists do, and journalists who quit twitter give up their lone advantage when it comes to feel production.

Re: "The right intellectuals debate ideas, but the left has devolved into producers and consumers of feels, which AOC has shown don't need to be produced by intellectuals."

Actually, precisely the opposite, taking the identity politics agitprop out of the picture. Oh, wait, the entire right-wing response to left identity politics is itself, identity politics.

Anyhoo, the right is entirely devoid of ideas and any sense of reality. This is an apodictic fact.

I've been out of law school for a while, so maybe I've missed the left-wing intellectual basis for Constitutional supremacy in a system premised on Democracy if the meaning of the Constitution itself can be reversed from what the plain meaning, or originally understood public meaning, were at the time of the supermajority approval of the particular language?

If you take the psychological projection out of the right's rhetoric, things would be very quiet indeed.

Neither side is even remotely debating ideas in general. It’s post hoc rationalization for “feels.” One side has better rationalizers.

Repeat to yourself ad nausem “politics is a relative status competition between groups” until you unbrainwash yourself.

As to legal jurisprudence, we see a breakdown. As soon as we hit penumbras we were deep in feels territory, as much as I with the outcome at times.

I was tempted to join the federalist society, when I was in law school, but they sort of idolized Scalia.

He was right most of the time, but, like almost everyone in the federal judiciary back in the day, he was at best a second-rate intellect, and I just did not have the heart to tell people that I was convinced of that. No way would I join a club that idolized a second-rater in their own field.

Funny guy, though, I went to a talk he gave once, and I had no problem enjoying his shtick.

Alito, by the way, if you are a connoisseur or a budding connoisseur - Alito is right every time he agrees with a Scalia precedent and is right every time he disagrees with a Scalia precedent. He is wrong like less than once every 200 cases. So maybe if I were in law school now I would join the
"Federalist Society". If it were free.

2. The article does a good job of describing the practical reasons why there is no Federalist Society of the left, but it's the Constitution itself that gives the right the advantage. How so? While the Declaration of Independence may have been a radical document of the left ("all men are created equal"), the Constitution was designed to protect property rights and preserve the status quo. And why not: the delegates to the convention in Philadelphia were not radicals but the elites (and creditors) of the era, motivated in large part by the internal threats they felt from the anarchists (libertarians!) who threatened the status quo, including the adoption of debtor protection (and forgiveness) laws by the states. So while the nation may have had its beginning in a radical document of the left, the framers of the Constitution had something very different in mind. And when courts decode what the law is, they look to the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence.

Re #2: One thing the article doesn't mention is that FedSoc starts recruiting folks in law school, where it's basically the only game in town. If you're a right-leaning law student FedSoc's the only organization on campus where you're likely to find like-minded folks.

That's not true for left-of-center students who divide themselves among dozens of organizations and activities. You can edit the environmental law journal, put your credit hours toward the immigration clinic, join the composting club, the human rights project, or the gender violence organization. Whether any or all of those groups *ought* to be left-leaning is an interesting question, but the fact is: they are.

Altogether, this means conservative students come out of law school as a more or less united bloc, while their liberals peers have already been split across groups where they may never have met one another and that may have had competing aims. It therefore doesn't surprise me in the least that FedSoc continues to enjoy unified support while left-leaning legal orgs struggle to speak with one voice. That starts on the first day of law school. (Query, then, whether you could reduce FedSoc's influence by cultivating another right-leaning legal society for law students.)

The nifty trick is to get all those federalists young attorneys to turn into corporate whores after a couple years on the bench.

Its tuesday, so we must be for states rights again

2. Why is there a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, but no Children's Day?

Pretty funny.

Isn't Children's Day otherwise known as Christmas?

There's a "Boy's Day" in Japan.

#3 What confuses me the most is why people would have been fooled in the first place.

Just look at the body language.

The old guy was getting right in the kid's face, leaning forward to invade his personal space.

The kid was standing still to show that he's not intimidated and smirking to show that he's very confident, but he's leaning back to show he's not interested in escalating the conflict.

&1
looked like he was banging the drum and swinging a drumstick about a foot from the kids face

The kid had punchable douchebag written all over him.

A little bit, but he can't help that.
It is quite the savage smile. The kind of smile, that you show, when you want to signal, that you're not going to escalate the conflict, but that if it should escalate, you're quite enthusiastic about the prospect.
Half of it is bravado, the other half of it is real enough. Good social skills. Adequately showed, that this douchebag was very much prepared to punch you right back. His adrenaline was probably skyhigh, heart pounding, probably couldn't think straight for a good hour or so after. Don't envy him at all, having to deal with all that Media spin after such an adventure.
Though, the whole exercise probably built character.
The little kid with the white hat is more insecure and anxious, I'd say.

I'm from the part of town but did not go to Covington. Their reputation as spoiled, entitled kids is how many around here view them. They are sheltered and the adults in charge really could teach them how to behave as more humble human beings. But with a public relations firm on speed dial, I'm afraid we out here aren't as optimistic.

You seem stupid and nasty and jealous, Mr from the part of town but did not go to Covington.

You have no idea of what humility means, do you?

I am optimistic for you only because you apparently are human. Not, by the evidence, a decent human, but human nevertheless.

Funny. Its almost like the breitbart inspired gotcha videos - with their obvious hamhanded borat-level entrapment, and the too good to be true money quotes - never happened.

As if careers and organizations and lives werent ruined as a result of the media swallowing them whole.

#2. Because there isn't a need for one. They have all of academia.

#2...When John Randolph of Roanoke said that the Constitution was a dead letter, he meant that Originalism, of which he was competent to speak, had been rendered null and void by decisions already rendered by the Supreme Court. He was right. I don't know what people mean nowadays by originalism, but it sure as hell doesn't mean being able to reverse conditions that became constitutive of the Constitution, and, if it could, it wouldn't be a constitution, it would just be politics. Either way, John Randolph was right, as he was in many things.

John Randolph quotes:

" "The question of slavery, as it is called, is to us a question of life and death ... You will find no instance in history where two distinct races have occupied the soil except in the relation of master and slave.""

"The surest way to prevent war is not to fear it."

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality."

Good work picking quotes out of context...
"In the following year, Randolph broke with the Jefferson administration over its role in the notorious Yazoo land deal and its secret efforts to purchase Florida. As a political purist, Randolph condemned the former as rewarding fraud and the latter for what amounted to a bribe.
As war clouds gathered in Madison’s first term, Randolph warned of impending disaster and opposed an offensive conflict with Britain. Always looking past the surface into the deeper motives of policy, he attributed the push for war to the “agrarian cupidity” of the West and a desire to conquer Canada in the North. When war was declared, Randolph’s barbed opposition was unpopular and he lost is seat in Congress. He regained it two years later and held it continuously – with the exception of a short stint in the senate – until 1829.
Although he supported the Louisiana Purchase, he later came to regret it and opposed westward expansion for diluting the power and coarsening the manners of “the good old thirteen United States.”

Like Jefferson and Madison, Randolph was opposed to slavery in principle, hoped to keep it out of the territories, and called for the abolition of the slave trade, but vehemently denied the federal government could interfere with slavery where it existed...Consistent to the end, he provided for the emancipation and resettlement of his slaves in his will.

His political creed was that of a latter-day Antifederalist. “Love of peace, hatred of offensive war, jealously of the state governments toward the general government; a dread of standing armies; a loathing of public debt, taxes, and excises; tenderness for the liberty of the citizen; jealously, Argus-eyed jealously, of the patronage of the President.”

5: Okay fine, the original Earth didn't have much carbon, sulfur, or nitrogen but Theia did and collided with Earth endowing it with C, S, and N.

So where did Theia get its CSN from?

If it was an early part of the solar system as Earth was, why did it have CSN and the Earth didn't?

If it came from outside the solar system, what are the odds that a random extra-solar planet would wander in and hit the Earth? (Admittedly, maybe objects such as Oumuamua are common, we simply haven't been able to detect them until now, like that meteor that just hit the moon or that comet that hit Jupiter some years ago.)

"If it was an early part of the solar system as Earth was, why did it have CSN and the Earth didn't?"

Same thing happens with Rare Earth Elements. The issue isn't whether they were rare or not, but with fractional distillation. As the Earth cooled, different elements and/or compounds filtered into different parts of the Earth--iron and nickle to the center, silica and uranium oxide to the top.

Earth is big. It takes a long time to cool. So there's plenty of time for this to take place. Smaller bodies, however, aren't as big--and therefore cool faster, undergoing less fractional distillation. Therefore elements/minerals that are rare on Earth's surface (but common in the bottom) are more common on the surface of other bodies.

You also have to factor in where the planets were when they formed. This matters, because distribution of elements isn't uniform within the nebula that form planets, for various reasons. So if the thing that hit Earth was from a different starting position, it will have a different composition.

I don't think there's any reason to think that whatever hit Earth came from outside the solar system. The Heavy Bombardment was a chaotic time (hence the name).

Makes sense, thanks!

This is pretty much geological orthodoxy

1: I'm with Popovich, I've never liked the 3-pointer. But like Popovich, I realize that given the current rules, teams should be shooting even more of them. But that has turned NBA games into 3-point shooting contests.

That doesn't mean that the old-style NBA that was dominated by the Wilts and Kareems and Moses's was ideal to watch. If it were possible to make long shots worth 2.5 points instead of 3, that might be the best balance.

A somewhat more practical proposal would be to make long shots still worth 3 points, but move the 3-point line farther out. But then NBA courts would have to be widened (there's barely enough room for corner 3s as it is). That means fewer seats and potentially less revenue. But wider courts also means more courtside seats, so it might be a revenue-neutral move.

An idea that's floating around out there is get rid of corner 3s entirely. They are too close to the basket anyway. Just make the 3 point line an arc that starts around 6-7 feet from the baseline, curves out to the present distance at the 'top', then arcs back to the other sideline.

That's an excellent idea, achieving much the same goal with minimal interference with the court's dimensions and lines; just a little repainting would be needed.

way back when they first introduced the 3 pt shot into college basketball, then Georgetown coach John Thompson quipped "I'd rather see them award 3 points for a layup. It's the more difficult shot."

Bobby Knight was an outspoken opponent of the three point shot in college ball. The first year the Big ten implemented the shot, Knight rode Steve Alford's three's to the national championship. I loved that.

3. "Is Twitter ruining journalism"?
I don't think so. I'd say it potentially ruins biased and unethical journalist's and newspaper's reputation (or rather, it traps them to do it themselves). Since this would only concern journalists and newspapers who get caught up in some kind of frenzy without using their brain(s), doing research or doing other traditionally journalist things. Major newspapers apparently have been coasting on old prestige, without actually posessing the qualities, that justified that prestige to begin with. Thus the credibility damage to those institutions is a sign of an obviously broken system reforming itself.
Sounds more like Twitter is saving journalism!

#2) It continues to amaze me that sentiments such as, "The law should be neutral. It is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be," and "fidelity to the Constitution" are viewed as biased in favor of conservatives, *even by liberals*!

"The problem, of course, is also endemic to liberal politics, which tends to traffic in the rhetoric of identity and outcomes, while conservatives prefer the language of first principles." Again, it's amazing that even liberals view reasoning from "first principles" as inherently biased to favor conservatives.

3. I regret having complained about journoList. Twitter would be better for everyone as a coordination mechanism and workshopping seminar for left-leaning journalists if it happened in private and with Ezra Klein’s gatekeeping, perspective, and management skills.

1.
If many people are dissatisfied and bored with watching basketball, because there's an obvious meta, that's just boring to look at, then that's an existenstial risk for the NBA. More and more people start watching ESports, where in some games the ruleset changes every few months in minor and not so minor ways. Often because the games are dazzingly complex and the creators can't foresee how savvy players can and will exploit the crap out of it. Buffs and Nerfs aren't as easy to do in a traditional sport, because players have staked their career on a specific playstyle. But Basketball isn't feeling the pain yet, anyway. Case in point, the underhanded free throw is considered the more effective technique, but players are still considering themselves 'too cool for that' (quoting Shaquille O'Neal). I wonder, if the same people who watch E-Sports now, would have watched traditional Sports in an alternate universe without them.
I think so and if I'm right, those things stand in direct competition for viewership. So I think that if traditional sports are being munchkined to death and become boring, then they must also adapt their rules regularly to appeal to younger and older viewers, alike.
Or you know.... accept, that theirs is a shrinking market and will eventually turn into a niche interest.

Why is there no left-wing Federalist Society?

Because the left expects to win at the ballot box of course, and has no need for such anti-democratic hijinx.

So 'the Left' would not like to have a fallback, because they are confident, they will win every election?
I can't tell whom you're mocking.

Actually I was joking around, somewhat.

But to be serious for a moment I think there is a possibility that we are at a watershed moment. Remember when communism fell, and how that changed the shape of Western politics for 20 years? Things that had been long accepted, like a public post office, suddenly became fair game because "didn't you know Communism had failed?"

I think there is a very real possibility where as the populism fails, it will take great swathes of conservatism with it. Because somewhat rightly, the public sees Trumpism has the culmination of late-stage conservatism. A billionaire president with a billionaire cabinet royally screwing things up.

That's why you're seeing things like wealth taxes passed around right now. They start to get a hearing because people start to wonder if conservatism is busted, an open failure, in plain sight.

(Too bad the bulk of American conservatives did not keep a firewall between themselves and Trumpism. They left it to too few Never Trumpers who they constantly declared outside their right-wing mainstream.)

quite a Monsieur Blanchard moment, I'd say.

Just wait until the collusion becomes clear, and therefore the (self) discovery that pretty much everyone right of center was part of the (attempted) cover-up.

Corrupt, compromised, and incompetent.

Not a great three legged stool to stand on .. below your hand-tied loop.

"The Covington saga illustrates how every day the media’s favorite social network tugs journalists deeper into the rip currents of tribal melodrama, short-circuiting our better instincts in favor of mob- and bot-driven groupthink. In the process, it helps bolster the most damaging stereotypes of our profession. Instead of curious, intellectually honest chroniclers of human affairs, Twitter regularly turns many in the news — myself included — into knee-jerk outrage-bots reflexively set off by this or that hash-tagged cause, misspelled presidential missive or targeted-influence campaign."

Judging from this journalist's own description: "every day...regularly turns many in the news--myself included--...", I am left to wonder at what point a stereotype become a non-stereotype.

The thing I find amusing is how we are always told that Originalism is just a fig leaf to allow for political decisions to be made regardless ... and then every single time I read about how people are shocked when an originalist justice stays true and endorses cases that violate the right/left dichotomy.

After all, Antonin Scalia held that the courts did not have the authority to determine if Congressional legislation was accomplishing its goals in the manner least impinging upon religious praxis. Somehow a staunch Catholic came down that the courts were not able to able to force religious accommodation for generally applicable laws. Yet once the RFRA was passed he then followed that law according its meaning and often allowed religious convictions to exempt individuals from generally applicable laws.

Or take New Prime vs Oliveira. In the originalist majority opinion they looked back at what "contracts of employment" meant in 1920. "Shockingly" the originalist writing the opinion followed originalist principals and the outcome was the one that major corporations most disliked.

And this is not unusual. Of all the liberal justices in the most recent court, any two liberal justices have at least an 87% chance of voting the same. Excluding Kagan, all the liberal justice pairs agree on over 90% of cases. For the conservatives, the bottom end is 80% and excluding Roberts the bottom rises all the way to ... 83%.

Lest we think these numbers are not all that different, remember than the most different justices (Alito and Sotomayor) diverge only 49% of the time. Somehow the conservatives dissent from each other at over twice the rate of the liberals. That is an awfully hard circle to square with them just being corporate stooges.

Which ultimately brings it back to why no liberal legal society is ever to rise to the prominence of the Federalist Society. The revolution eats its own and I cannot think of legal principles which the left has consistently espoused, even as fig leaves. Privacy? They feel quite comfortable infringing upon my relationship with patients to dictate what care I can offer how and when. Non-discrimination? Not if you are Asian. Tolerance? Not if your beliefs are fundamentalist or might require you to do anything contrary to liberal goals. Feminism? Not if it gets in the way metoo.

Pretty much every liberal value, paradigm, or system must prostrate itself before the winds of change and be gutted if needed. The positions of the NAACP, the ACLU, and so many other organizations would no longer be recognizable to their founders. Without a consistent message it is very hard to build coherent groups, almost invariably they will be splintered down, like Women's March whenever a new heterodoxy becomes triumphant.

The Federalist Society has a clear, understandable idea to which they mostly hew. The meaning of originalism does not change when a new generation takes over. I just don't see anything that liberals will be able to unite around for literally generations and expect to play such a long game.

This is not to say that liberals lack legal power after all they control the law schools, the media, the elite undergraduate campuses, one political party, the vast bulk of the major non-profits, and the majority of religious denominations. It is just that we should expect these institutions to have no fixed beliefs and for them to radically change and be periodically purged from the left. Places which were once commanding liberal heights (e.g. The National Council of Churches, The Democratic Leadership Council, the AFL-CIO) are ever less important.

To be blunt liberal organizations must either change their fundamental positions or die. That makes it extraordinarily hard to maintain a consistent philosophical focus and also achieve power.

Carmelo Anthony is one of the top public intellectuals of the 20th century.

Using the present tense, only time travelers can say such a thing.

The 20th century, God bless its inhuman heart, is gone with the wind, gone with the proud Romans of old, gone with the great lonely forests of Atlantis, where so many lovers and poets were wont to meet, with joy in their hearts ..... but gone in a different way .... so much suffering cannot but make any visage less easy to look at ....

By the way, Carmelo is one of the best possible names one can give a male child, if one wants to honestly give an honorable name to one's child: Mount Carmel is THE mystical mountain in this fallen world:

Nade te turbe

5. I don't know about life but it is one of the theories of how the moon was made...

3. Twitter also points out the inaccuracies in the NYT.

the left wing version of federalist society is called: Thinking.
The collision of the enlightenment and America is what produced this phenomenon.
Although much derided, Thinking still holds sway in certain quarters. Like the Democratic Party.

Yeah, well, they're doing it wrong.

2. I'm beginning to think academe has decayed to such an extent that liberals within it cannot produce a commentary on public affairs which isn't derived from their vanity or their sense of grievance. And do they ever stop projecting?

2. Lessee. The John Jay College hired to teach 'criminal justice' someone who

a. Has no research degree

b. Had a rather inconclusive eight year tour in law practice in which he was never granted a partnership and appears to have had no criminal practice.

They then granted him tenure on the basis of a clutch of law review articles, which are, of course, edited by law students. In 18 years in academe, he's been the lead author on precisely one study that might be called 'social-scientific' and a participant in 3 others.

John Jay College seems to work just like PBS and NPR: a patronage mill for lefty twits (with public money, natch).

5. Yes. But conservatives were already evolved. Liberals are the alien contamination.

What's interesting about this article is that it argues for a Legal philosophy that does not derive from first principles. Personally, I'd rather understand the law when I'm fined, refused a permit, or thrown in jail, and I'd rather not rely on inscrutable wise masters to rule over me. But it is an interesting philosophical take:

'The problem, of course, is also endemic to liberal politics, which tends to traffic in the rhetoric of identity and outcomes, while conservatives prefer the language of first principles (which, conveniently, lead directly to their preferred outcomes). That difference is hardly superficial. Even if there were “ACS judges,” what would be the principle to unite them? '

The principle which unites them is that any public policy known and disliked by people in their social and professional circles is 'unconstitutional'.

#2. Because they control the law school faculty.

#2. Because they're too busy chasing ambulances.

Comments for this post are closed